With the 9th Anniversary of the 911 attacks next weekend I believe this needs to be revisited. There is a portion of our population that thinks this kind of behavior is what's going to win elections for them...

A Florida pastor had taken it upon himself to propagate the 9th Anniversary of the attacks of 9-11...

A so-called Man of the Cloth by the name of Terry Jones of Gainesville, FL feels it's necessary to inflame a already 'touchy subject' by calling on his 'so-called' congregation of 'supposed' Christians to BURN Qurans on a day that is already so poignant for ALL of America!

General Petreuas has weighed in and called for an END to the madness!

I have referred to these 'congregations' in the past of as the 'plastic Jesus crowd' and there attempt at intimidation only reinforces my previous observations...

Let me ask the Independent VOTERS again WHY they want to associate with the racist - hate-mongering - clueless party of Republicans?

Because at this point.. I'm at a loss for words...

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/gen-petraeus-florida-quran-burning-will-endanger-us-troops/19622613?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/24/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html

GET OUT AND VOTE! YOU have a voice and YOU can make the difference!!!

PS: Spot on Gingerbread Mamma - super post out of the 'gate'!

Well said, Gingerbread Mamma. It is time to get "fired up and ready to go" forward in "D" with democrats, not backward in "R" with republicans.

Feisty R, also well said.

GBM;

Great post for the first of the week. I agree with you and could not have written it better.

With 5 people competing for 1 job that means 80% of the unemployed will remain unemployed in the near future.

We have seen over the Labor Day weekend that president Obama is putting forth a new jobs program. With almost Three Trillion Dollars of infrastructure improvements needed this should have been addressed much earlier.

150,000 miles of road improvements

4,000 miles of Rail Ways

Allowing business to write off capital expenditures for machinery and plane equipment

Cut business taxes by 200 Billion

Permanent extension of the tax credit for R&D

Closing Tax Holes for Big-Business and Big-Oil

Transportation expert’s claim that for every one billion dollars invested that 35,000 jobs will be created.

These are all good goals and I hope that the Democrats will find their spine and push these forward. It is time for them to come to the plate and take their swings. They need to get the bat off their shoulders and force the Republicans to vote yes or no on jobs.

It is now or never.

The Democrats must get their act together and everybody on the same page just like the Republicans did to trash virtually every Bill that had anything to do with moveing this country forward. And then, they claim that President Obama is a failure, when in fact it is the Obstructionist that caused the problems and are holding this country hostage.

Well said Fiesty,

Now we will wait and see which, if any, of these fine patriotic Americans who want their country back, have to say about this. So far the silence is deafening.

Fascinating that Republicans are excited about having destroyed the respectability of government in general and Congress in particular, yet remain eager to run the show. They insist that government should do NOTHING, so exactly what do they intende to do with it? In some cases very wealthy individuals are spending tens of millions of their own funds, many times what the job pays, to join this exclusive club. My guess is that, having destroyed the ability of government to provide services for the rest of it Republicans intend to resume looting the future of the American people. If Republicans don't want small businesses to have tax breaks, who will get them? If Republicans don't want infrastructure rebuilt, how will the economy of the future function? Perhaps that's why in spite of a lead in the generic ballot the Republican Party is just about the least trusted entity in the public domain.

Thank you all for the kind words, and yes , I am fired up and ready to go. I dont for one second see it is a done deal for republicans for November. Have a wonderful day.

YES WE CAN

Me either Gingerbread Mamma...

I'm listening to Chuck Todd & his sidekick who sound positively 'giddy' with glee that 61% of Americans 'feel the country is on the wrong track' according to the NBC/WSJ poll...

What they FAIL to mention is what proportion of them feel the country is on the wrong track thanks to the obstructionism by the GNOPEE?

H E L L O Chuck... the phrase 'wrong track' has MANY connotations...

Great analogy, Gingerbread Mamma. I think you are right--the car is out of the ditch. I wish it were running better but I just don't think now is the time to give the keys back to the folks who got us into the ditch in the first place.

GBM;

Agree. They only way to chnage the course of this country is to vote come November. If we let the republicans get away with an agenda that supports Wall Street over Main Street, Big Business over Small Busines and the Richest 2% over the 98% of Americans then we deserve what ever we get.

I still have not seen any fixed Agenda from the Republicans other than to go backwards to the Agenda of the previuous administration that caused this mess to begin with. The rebulicans are not answering questions, taking a page from the Rove playbook, that if you have no new ideas, cannot defend the ones you have then say NOTHING.

How can America even remotley tolerate that type of behavior from the people they are going to vote for?

I want to know what the Rebulbicans are going to do:

1) How are you (republicans) going to creat Jobs?

2) How are you going to reduce the deficit?

3) What are you going to do for the Middle Class?

4) What is your Mission (Vision) for this country for the future

5) What are you going to do for Education?

And the list goes on. Just tell me what you (republicans) are going to do just on the five above.

Well, let's see, G/M.:

We were told that the stimulous bill, (that's the English spelling, I know-someone commented on it last week. It is something peculiar to econs-kind of like Doctors and nurses saying 'sonometer' instead of 'centimeter'), consisted of nothing but shovel ready, infrastructure jobs. Turned out not to be true; most of the money went to state governments so that they did not cull their ranks of file clerks. Lots of money went to puppet theaters-real job creators, those! Then we had the millions that went to fictitious congressional districts for which there was never an accounting.

It was also wildly unpopular, and only become more unpopular as people realize that they were correct in their assessment that this pork laden monstrosity could stimulate nothing but the federal debt. Obama's asking for more public funds for another bill, ($50billion is my understanding), is like handing an anchor to a drowning man. He only serves to remind people that he is a one trick pony whose trick does not impress.

HCR costs more, cuts benefits, and was not supported by the majority. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is an active campaign by Democrats to pretend it does not exist.

Yesterday afternoon, Obama was in Wisconsin at a "Labor" picnic Russ Feingold attended in the morning. Good ol'Russ beat feet to get clear of the area before Obama touched down. One wag commented that he was just the latest Democrat to treat Obama as if he had some dread, communicable disease. So, sure, obama can try to campaign for them-but they sure don't want him to do so.

As for the Bush card-it won't work. He isn't on the ballot, and, besides, in Ohio, more voters want Bush back than want Obama, according to PPP Polling-which is, by the way, a Democratic polling organization. No, neither man gets anything like a majority-but, if you are the president, and the most unpopular president in the last 30 years is getting better numbers than you are, your party is in deep, deep trouble.

So, yes, we can-show Democrats the door. That is a change the majority of voters in this cycle believe in.

Did you ever think that we if we did nothing things might be better....

Feisty,

excellent point. And the obvious follow up, why is this church 'politicizing'? Isn't that in 'violation' of the non profit - nature. Seems a little partisan to me. But, hey, I've always thought churches should be taxed and synagogues and mosques. If you are going to pound the pulpit and print up pamphlets, there should be a 'cost' for doing so. Just my two cents.

Thanks Clara!

Couldn't agree more with your points... talk about having their 'cake' and 'eating' it too... lol

Well by reading these post I think there are what 7 or 8 Liberal votes in this lovefest but I am not sure if the fabulous First Read posse is going to make much of a difference are they!!

What a difference in the tones of your post from 7 or 8 months ago huh when you were high on the hog and everything was all hunkydory and the sky parted and the angels were singing!!

Your last ditch efforts are Pathetic so get out there and knock on them doors and donate that $5 or $10 dollars for your candidates and learn first hand what cititzens think of your democrats and get back to me K!!

Things aren't turning out quiet like Nancy said are they? Why are they not running on all these accomplishments the american people wanted Fiesty?

SCOLE-529355
Well by reading these post I think there are what 7 or 8 Liberal votes in this lovefest but I am not sure if the fabulous First Read posse is going to make much of a difference are they!!

Well isn't this brilliant? Can't attack the message - so ATTACK the messengers...

Something must be working or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to point it out... lmao!

Oh and... trust me there's MORE than 7 or 8 of us... ;0)

Just remember that 162 Republicans, you know, the guys always ranting about supporting small businesses and lower taxes, voted against the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act. WTF?

It's a load of fertilizer, is what it is.

Talk about drinking the kool-aid- LOOK AT YOU NUTS! You going back to the good ol bush days? ARE YOU FREEKING CRAZY?

Obama's done a great job and you whiners have done NOTHING for this country. Now, you're all patting yourself on the back... but you're going to lose AGAIN

And you deserve to lose

I blame you commentators for all of this, too. You people suck

Fiesty, it sounds to me like Gen. Pavid Petreous cares more about Muslim's, than he does American's!

Aint that right, Teapartiers!

Thats what you say when President Obama makes a general statement, concerning anything Muslim!

Dang, did'nt realize i could speak, TeaParty.

GBM:

Excellent post!

I find myself perplexed by all the media types who spend endless hours pontificating about how the Republicans will win the House and possibly Senate because of anti-incumbent “fever”. Well excuse me, but aren’t there incumbent Republicans ?

There are. And they along with their leader for 8 years screwed up the country/economy. So why is the electorate sooo angry at President Obama that he alone did not fix everything in 18 months?

Why is the media so gleeful that the Republicans are leading in the polls?

Example. This morning on Morning Joe there was a poll that found 33 % of the respondents found the President’s policies made the economy worst; 36% had no effect and 31% made it better. By my calculation that would mean 67% of the responses were NOT negative. The Headline was “President’s policies made the economy worst!”

Are you kidding me?

When is some responsible journalist going to ask Boehner and company over the next 60 days what their PLAN is for creating jobs. And if they had such a great plan 18 months ago why did they let the country suffer for political reasons??? Huh?

Feisty,

You still haven't answered my questions. Bush is gone for good so there isn't any policies to go back too and if there are what are those policies that supposedly drove us in the ditch? Have you people read the CBO report about the deficits? The deficit was 160 billion in 2007! I would not mind raising taxes on the top 2% as long as every single dime goes to pay off the national debt!! Will the democrats make a contract that says they will do just that? Americans can live with that but Democrats are hell bent with bankrupting the country to install their Liberation Theology that has never worked in history!! Hell I wouldn't mind paying a little more as long as that is where it went!! All of the social entitlement elite programs can not be sustained period! I am a republican and just want states and local government and the fed to spend every dime wisely!! So please enlighten me on these specific policies of GWB that got us into the mess we are in because America isn't buying it? I was alot better under GWB than I am now thats for sure..Liberals I am waiting.

"Well isn't this brilliant? Can't attack the message - so ATTACK the messengers... "

Got that right Feisty. It's a Conservative stock in trade. It isn't enough to disagree, you have to destroy the reputation of the messenger and the credibility of the message. There's only one way to beat facts with lies. You need bigger, louder lies!

John B,

That doesn't make any sense because the credibilty of the message is what the American people have and are rejecting!! When the democrats move away from the far-left loony progressives than they will be relevent again... Hence the reason Obamas popularity hasn't tanked as much YET its just the majority don't want what he is selling!! And for that he will be a one term president and nothing will change that!!! Health care reform and Union minority pandering will be his coffin-nail period NUFF said! Run on the issues and successes Democrats because you worked hard bribeing and cramming them down our throats but Hey what do I know I am just the uneducated masses RIGHT!!

John B., look who is attacking the messenger for attacking your messenger. Do you realize how silly this particular post of yourreally is? Now attack me for attacking the messenger while you attack the messenger. WoW!

What ever happened to eric in salinas? I miss his ranting about the party of no and our Bushwacked economy NOT lol! I will give it to you Fiesty at least you switch up your talking points from time to time!! Oh and I am still waiting for an answer to my questions about the CBO report and the GWB policies and why democrats aren't running on their accomplishments or hell even mentioning their party in commercials for that matter..Sigh Sigh

Obama is a joke and anybody that believes he is a successful president is a fool. We will vote dems out of office in November and liberals will be left curled up in a fetal position never again to govern this country.

Marjorie: Just remember that 162 Republicans, you know, the guys always ranting about supporting small businesses and lower taxes, voted against the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act. WTF?

The 162 Republicans, as did 55 Democrats, also voted against the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, you know, the $780 billion stimulus that stimulated nothing. Coincidentally, that's the same bill no Democrats want to talk about as they are running for re-election. Hmmm.

Seldom, have I heard so many libs doing so much whning.

What did you twits, think was going to happen. the democratic party has pushed 4 major programs in the face of the opposition of the majority of the electorate and you twits don't understand, why you are headed down the tube?

November of this year, we remove a lot of theaccomplices of the inept liar in the white house.

At the moment we are concentrating on remo

ving the RINOS, dem lites and the SNows Collins and Browns, that have been playing footies with the parasite enablers.

Sure we will lose some seats because of th tea partiers, that's okay, BY 2012 we will have removed all of the twits that played footsies with libs.

@012 we remove oBama, feb 2013 we repeal the insurance farce, then we start on the parasite prrograms, the libs have been buying votes with for 50 years.

Get ready girls, the leeches living off of the taxpayers are going to have a tough life.

Yes, lets go back to the good old days of 2003, when gas was over 3 bucks, health care went up again, the dollar first became worthless, we were in a full scale war, stop-light terror alerts held our breath everyday, and the percentages of millionares boomed, thanks to the Republican base and their trickle down perspective. Cant wait

And unemployment was under six percent. Damn, those were bad ole days. Gas is 25-30 cents lower in those bad old days also. As to wars, have you read a paper or turned on the news in the last four years of dem congressional control?

Who was in charge of Congress when the car went into the ditch? Maybe it's time the change the Congressional leadership, who were the back seat drivers when the car went into the ditch, and the ones helping the new driver to drive it over the cliff! Most of the Obama policies, especially health care reform and cap and trade, were proposed before the economic meltdown, but our tone-deaf president failed to adjust his agenda to the new economic conditions, and the Congress that caused the problems is the same congress that helped him make things worse.

Fellow travelers:

The very first, and very excellent, post of the day - from Gingerbread Mamma - is very important....BUT!!!! Please think about this and be prepared to slap your forehead and recoil in horror, when you realize what you are reading is true.

The liberal mind is characterized by curiosity and a continuing quest for knowledge. The conservative mind is resistant to change, but also has an ongoing quest for knowledge. True conservatives and true liberals remain, but to their left and right are two vastly larger groups that DO NOT, WILL NOT, AND/OR CANNOT LEARN.

Since we have learned of the "wave" and now the "tidal wave", how many times have we asked ourselves how can anyone want a return to the policies of the very recent past: Tax cuts for the wealthiest, two unpaid-for wars, a half-trillion dollar unfunded prescription sop to Big Pharma, the Paulson world-is-ending-in-three-days panic? How can you forget this insanity, this fiscal disaster, this car in the ditch? Well, here's the answer.

They didn't forget. They NEVER knew. You cannot forget what you never knew. It is no secret the ignorant right, the pseudo-religio-nuts, the anti-abortion and anti-personal rights crowd can be mobilized on a single issue. They are motivated by hatred and fear and WILL go to the polls.

On the left, you have a group that for some reason simply cannot be motivated. They share the same fundamental ignorance as the right-wingers, to be sure. They do not understand that Roe vs. Wade is in jeopardy? They do not know and consequently do not care that burgeoning deficits financed by foreigners so the wealthy can further loot America are on the horizon? And Republicans aren't even bothering to pretend otherwise.

Here's an example - the 99'ers. These people have been out of work, some for more than two years. They simply do not know what to do. They are waiting for someone to tell them what to do. They are not leaders and no one has the courage to tell them, the world has changed; that it will never again be like it was. And so they bend with any promise. The Dems didn't deliver in two years. Surely, the Republicans will, even though their actions show they are willing to let them starve.

Remember, you cannot forget what you did not know. It may not be the most politically correct of observations, but it is certainly apt to speak of people who are fat, dumb, and happy. Right now, they aren't happy, and solutions are not within their intellectual grasp.

So my friends, I tell you, another round of Republican rule means stamping out any vestige of a middle class. It means a country where goodwill is sublimated to pure greed. Please, never miss an opportunity to motivate people to hit the voting booths this November. It's on us. I hate the fear card, but it is not an overstatement to speak of a tsunami of ignorance that will drown reason.

I HATE it, Dave Walker, but what you say is true.

We need to get every Democrat and Independant out of their hidey-hole to vote every Republican and teabagger out. For good.

Wonder why they are in that "hidey hole"?

GBM, so how do we pay for all of that?

because they don't like the right to bother them with their antics

they like thinking about other things... intelligent things

Scole, Johnny Alford, et al:

I'll answer some of your questions. None of us knew exactly what would happen when the four programs, none of which you name, were pushed through. I'm going to guess.......but first, let's address a point you gloss over.

It does not matter what the polls say. They represent a snapshot of the particular moment and many are determined based on how the polls and inclusive questions are framed. Folks who are familiar with statistics know how these things can be skewed. However, there was a rather decisive poll conducted in November of 2008. That is the only poll that counts. Period.

Now, let's get to a couple of those programs to which I think you may be referring. TARP. TARP was a creation of the Bush Administration, a purely reactionary program designed to bail out criminals. Some call these criminals, bankers. Regardless, the world - thanks to derivatives and the like - was literally poised at the brink of destruction. TARP probably bought us some time on that, however, the banks still must be reined in, something Republicans oppose.

The Stimulus. For all the blather, the stimulus program is widely recognized as a success. No, unemployment did not hold at eight per-cent and it was foolish of the Obama Administration to throw out that number. However, it did keep many people in their jobs. That, in and of itself, was an enormous help to the economy.

For those who complain that this is a sop for the unions, for those who hate unions unconditionally, this might be a good time to examine your definition of success. It is the unions who have been successful. They have represented their members very well. One salient fact that union haters seem unable to grasp is that unions do not negotiate in a vacuum. There are actually brilliant negotiators representing the other side, corporate executives and the like. (Excuse me a moment while I consult my dictionary.) Oops. It looks like those executive types weren't "brilliant" at all. As a matter of fact, the term "miserable failures" seems far more accurate. Gosh, maybe we really don't want those "brilliant" executives in charge.

Perhaps you also include on your list of unwanted programs, the misnamed Health Care Reform. First, it is not about health care. Who needs insurance when you're healthy? You need it when you are ill, no? Now, kids up to 26 can tag along on their parent's policies. Ill people cannot be booted out of insurance programs because they dared to get sick. There's more good stuff coming.

This might be a good time to check out a fact or two. NO ONE in this country including illegals, can be denied health care. Someone is paying for that right this moment. HCR codifies that to some extent and now provides the means - albeit limited - for dealing with this terribly expensive tax burden.

I'm tired of guessing, so I'll just leave you with this final point. Fewer illegals have immigrated to the U.S. on the Obama watch, more have been prosecuted, and more have been deported than on the Bush watch. Critics - Brewer comes to mind - have been exposed as outright liars.

The adjusted deficit for the 2007 FY is 163-billion-dollars. Apparently you also feel comfortable with the costs of two off-budget wars. I guess they don't count in Republo-world.

Now, there's some facts. Refute 'em.

Let's address the needs of our nation. Let's digress from geriatric patients masquerading as exalted leaders of a fallen tribe of Confederates. Unless there is a substantial reason to preserve a legacy of loss, subjugation, bigotry and self-important aristocratic tap dancing let it fall to it's appointed disillusionment in American history. The highest producing States of the Union should be considered for their contributions with consideration for the trials they now face.

Absolutely, LouisJ! The MSM does nothing but promote negativity for the Democratic Agenda, and promote the party of NO with constant positivity. On all fronts the MSM gives the Democrats nothing. Kinda reminds me of the non-coverage of the Bush Agenda. Nothing negative was ever reported. No transparency......Bush was allowed to drive the country into the ditch. The MSM did nothing to inform the American people.

It is tiresome to listen to the constant polling everyday that the MSM feels is necessary.

MSM, show the Party of NO for what they are! Country First is not on their agenda!

Good Morning.

It isn't just NBC/WSJ...

Poll: Revolt Against Status Quo Gives Republicans Record Lead in 2010 Midterms

ABC News-Washington Post Poll: Dissatisfaction with Federal Government at Highest Level in 18 Years

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/abc-news-poll-2010-midterms-revolt-status-quo/story?id=11570169

Nate Silver at 538, Real Clear Politics, where they compile and average the most recent polls, Charlie Cook and the Cook Report, pretty much anywhere you look the news is the same. Could it be time to stop shooting the messenger, blaming the media, the previous administration, etc. and begin to figure out why things went south so quickly politically and what can be done to stem and reverse the tide?

This is an anti-election, and the sentiment, is much like November 2006, but it took the electorate over 5 years, despite a cornucopia of bad governance and malfeasance from the previous administration, to muster up the anger that crested in voting the republicans out of the majority in the house. That this administration, which began with such promise and fanfare, and huge majorities in both houses, has fallen so far so fast, is both sad and amazing.

With all due respect to those who blame the cable networks, the MSM, the republican obstruction, the previous administration, seemingly everyone and every thing EXCEPT the policies, management and performance of the current administration, it may be time, before all of the inevitable postmortems in November, to begin to look at where things went wrong.

Louis, there's no question the MSM does a fantastic job of repeating the Conservative talking points. They phrase most subjects in just the way the Conservatives do, even use the same language. It's how the lie of "Death Panels" became the short hand by which HCR was debated. The Left needs to stand up and make our points in OUR OWN terms. By what logic do "good roads" become "giveaways to unions"? What craziness is it that "safe food" is a "drain on the economy"?

Simple, it's a world in which Republicans apologize to international corporations for holding them responsible for environmental catastrophes because those corporations are MORE IMPORTANT than people. Remember, thanks to the Republican Party money is speech, and Koch Industries has WAY more speech than you do. Don't be suprised who gets his way with your local Republican lawmaker.

Yes, the evil media is hiding the good news from the stupid low information voter...lol

If the economic news was good, if people were going back to work, if the unemployment rate wasn't almost 10% and the underemployed/unemployed didn't total over 24 million, the evil media wouldn't have to report it.

It is silly to blame the media as the media is reporting what is happening. If you really believe that there is lots of positive economic news and it is being SUPPRESSED by the WSJ, NYT etc. it would be interesting to hear what it is. It is sad that someone could buy into this flimsy excuse, sadder that once you find a scapegoat, you stop looking for the real reasons, and only the real reasons form a basis for positive change.

LouisJ

I agree with you, there sure has been a lot of negativity from the media about Obama and the Democrats. This probably plays no small part in trying to get ratings from the 'disenfranchised' angry GOP viewers.

I will throw out my opinion about the coverage, yes the economic news is bad, but could the MSM be making up for their perceived lack of "hard coverage" against candidate Obama? Could they be proving that they would not fawn at a supposed 'post partisan president'? Would it help their ratings to show that Obama was merely a politician?

I'll agree that during the Bush years when civil rights were being violated, torture of enemy combatants was allowed, and hundreds of soldiers were dying every month in Iraq I remember few hard hitting reports. Why is this? Unfortunately the MSM knew that to the majority of Americans those issues don't matter as much as .....

wait for it...

The almighty dollar.

When people are losing money, when they can't find a job, it trumps everything! I'll be the first to say that the stimulus plan was too tax laden, it didn't have enough money toward job creation. Where was the CWA type job programs? If Obama wanted to earn a socialist moniker, he is not one in my book, at least use the government to create jobs. He shouldn't have trusted the private sector to help. They took the money and ran.

That was his first mistake. His second was to let Congress take a year to write a bloated HCR bill, without a public option or other meaninful cost controls. His third mistake was to not have moved on energy reform sooner. Even after the gulf spill, only democratic politicians could use the public outcry and concern to ensure that energy reform died.

I agree that the GOP has no answers, they have not helped and I know that their ascendance will set the country back. Yes we can blame the MSM for not pointing this out with the GOP.

However, ultimately the democrats are at fault for not controllling their message. They are at fault for wilting everytime they had the chance to force the GOP to filibuster a bill in the Senate. They are at fault for trying to act like Republicans instead of Democrats to try to garner some Tea Party votes. During this campaign season they are at fault for running from Obama and the so called "Washington policies."

Louis,

You say the Republicans live in a bubble of hate and ignorance, their message of hate and anti-culture, book burning, hate mongering, anti-social views. Compared them to Hitler and ignorant redneck racist.

I don't know about their "bubble of hate and ignorance", but I doubt there is anything that can pop your bubble of hypocrisy.

BTW- It is not anti-social views, its anti-socialist views.

Gee bob, you just got to the party and already you've Godwin-ed the argument.

I prefer to think of it as "enlightened self interest". The "enlightened self interest" of those who fund the Republican Party and most of the Conservative Movement http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1 is to consolidate power and wealth for themselves and rule as an elite class.

My own enlightened self interest is to use the tools of democracy to stop them and preserve true democracy for myself and future generations of Americans. That's why I'm a Liberal.

I agree Mark. The Democrats have indeed dropped the ball on providing a message to either defend policy or strike a tone of moving forward... they have been too busy playing defense against an empty offense from the Right.

No doubt about the Republican stance on standing behind those that would suppress the middle class John. The TEA party apparently do not know they are being hoodwinked by Palin and the cronies of millionaire row. Ignorance is bliss.

Wow, now the Left is blaming the MSM for their woes??? Hilarious! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

NEWSFLASH: the MSM are the only reason your people are at the wheel right now (and driving us off a cliff). The last major election cycle had the most biased MSM reporting I have ever seen. Pure pro-dem propaganda every hour every day.

I miss the days when the car was merely in the ditch and not plunging off a thousand-foot precipice. The Dems put the car in D all right and mashed the gas pedal. Too bad they didn't take a look at which way the car was pointing first. (R)everse gear would have been a good idea.

When the Left turns on the MSM, you know things are bad for them (and only going to get worse).

I'll agree on that last part Silver, things could be worse, the Republicans taking over and driving the car into HELL.

Well "Gee" John, apparently your "enlightened self interest" is limited to insipid non seqitur and nebulous links. Thanks for trying though.

Loius,

Damn straight. Instead of being objective, these so-called journalists, like to go with the sensational so they can sound like they know of what they speak. In reality, all they are doing is promoting the negativity and thereby adding to people's sense of frustration. How about really explaining what the president and the Dems have done. Considering the Republicans obstruction, the fact that major bills have passed at all is something to tell. Journalists are not what they used to be - there is no straight reporting of the facts - it is all speculation and conventional wisdom (whatever the hell that is). Remember health care - it was great TV to show all the hollering and screaming and folks have no idea what is in it, how it will be phased in, how it will help those in need, but they sure hear what the Republicans are saying, you know, businesses are not hiring because of the uncertainty of the what the costs are. Since when has there ever been certainty in what health costs are. It is a red herring which the media promotes. Damnit, I have to do my job - they should do theirs.

Thanks for putting a smile on my face bob. I realize that the interconnectedness of facts challenges your Conservative narrative, but not everyone is so limited.

No one, and I do mean no one, is talking about the chief causes of our economic woes. The first and foremost is jobs, yes. But why? Easy. It's the evaporation of our manufacturing base of the last 30 years. Example, in 1979, the UAW's membership numbered about 1.5 million. Today, it's less than 1/3 of that. We must focus our trade and fiscal policies on revitalizing and rebuilding our manufacturing base. Countries prosper when they build and sell things to themselves and to the rest of the world. It's really just that simple.

Second, how about the fact we have 11 million illegal aliens in this country sucking up resources and jobs from Americans? We need to deport these illegals, anchor babies or not. That would free up jobs for Americans. Coinciding with that, we mus impose massive cuts in entitlement programs across the board. Stop talking about slowing the growth of entitlements. Change the conversation to cutting entitlements from their current absurd and unsustainable levels to levels that are affordable and to levels that do not encourage people to not seek work.

Third, the federal budget deficit. Tax cuts are fine, SO LONG AS YOU CUT SPENDING TO PAY FOR THEM.

Fourth, overhaul the federal tax code. Stop taxing production and investment. Instead, tax consumption.

Fifth, get deadly serious about weaning ourselves from imported oil. It's a huge drain on our wealth to buy petroleum from those who support our enemies. Truth is, we have 3x the amount of oil trapped in oil shale (that can now be easily extracted) than lies under Saudi Arabia.

The hard truth is that between our trade, immigration, fiscal, and energy policies (or the lack thereof) we are transferring our wealth, prosperity, power, and middle class to China and others. Continued support of those policies is nothing short of treasonous.

Another inappropriately collapsed comment by Louis, #2.5. This entire "collapse" idea is ridiculous.

It is the democrats' job mainly ( they are responsible to do it) to continue talking about GOP obstruction until the people get the message and it sinks in.

The democrats should not expect anyone to this work for them, just do it.

Scott Adkins
No one, and I do mean no one, is talking about the chief causes of our economic woes. The first and foremost is jobs, yes. But why? Easy. It's the evaporation of our manufacturing base of the last 30 years. Example, in 1979, the UAW's membership numbered about 1.5 million. Today, it's less than 1/3 of that. We must focus our trade and fiscal policies on revitalizing and rebuilding our manufacturing base. Countries prosper when they build and sell things to themselves and to the rest of the world. It's really just that simple.

There is no economic law that says that a country cannot prosper by selling services.

Beautifully stated Beverly, I love your posts, such passion it is a treat to read them. Keep at it.

Why was Beverly's post collapsed? She stated facts of what took place in Afghanistan. There is nothing wrong with her post.

Fascinating Bev, it's very interesting that the MSM is fully on board with the message "this is Obama's economy now" even though the American people disagree.

I don't understand why Beverly's post would be collapsed?

Jody, Iowa

Why was Beverly's post collapsed? She stated facts of what took place in Afghanistan. There is nothing wrong with her post.

Because, the right wingers are so afraid of the truth. They say some of the most vitoilic things about the President and the direction America yet, really have no creative ways to express their opposing opinions other than trying to silence me. Hopefuly, some one at First Read will restore it. I see their vitrol each and every day; but I would never recommend their views be collaspsed. I think thier views add geniune reasons to discuus why they may or may not be correct.
I still maintain John Boehner, if he thinks that all people are behind, him should not encourage fanciful rhetoric on the economy "A New 'Contract With America" (a revision of the old defauled one), and the Afghanistan war .John Boehne rshould speak out against an attempt on the President's life by Afghanistans,

I will continue to say Glenn Beck's message as Historian, Professor, Maharishi, Financial Advisor for America , Mystic, Prophet, Savior, Astronomer, Space Shuttle, the Sun, the Center of the Universe, Liberator, is Xenophobic Glenn Beck is an accomplished con-artist, contortionist; as I see it. And Glenn Beck's message is pushing a GOP Tidal wave that is wrong for Americans.

I don't know how the community does a collaspe. I'm not sure but I think this is the revenge of Kirby.

News flash: What happened to the freedom of speech the rightie so tout the President is taking away from them? It's strange that they would be doing it to me; I think.

Tyler;

This is getting out of hand again. What rule did Bev violate? Are you tracking who is doing the collapsing on this board??

Just asking what she did to draw this action so the rest of us do not do the same thing????

So sad this comment got collasped. So sad

Keep saying it Beverly. For the Conservative deception to work they depend on bullying you into silence.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Keep saying it Beverly. For the Conservative deception to work they depend on bullying you into silence

Thank you John and all others who saw this as a deliberate attempt to silence my voice.

As I have said before, I would never advocate collasping or censoring anyone's post. I think it is essential everyones post remains; no matter how incongruet they appear and do not advocate violence. In addition to that some posts uncollasped display just how stupid some thoughts are.This is what provides a healthly debate. If it is offensive, I'm sorry I can not appese everyone. As long as my comments do not whip up insurrection which is against the First Amendent, you can not yell fire in a croweded theather, and it's treasonous I will continue to voice my point of view. I welcome their debates too.

Thank you tyler that's about all any of us could reasonably ask for

THANK YOU Tyler!

Now if you can please restore Comment #1 by Gingerbread Mamma and suspend those malicious flaggers for a week as well it would be greatly appreciated!

Ps: Thanks for working on the font - the new FR format is hard on the eyes - that's why we tend to post things in bold type... it's easier to read!

Tyler,

Thank you for restoring #5. If you could do something with the font that would be great. I bold because I have trouble seeing the lighter unbolded type. I do not do it to draw additional attention, just trying to be a little easier on these old tired eyes. Again thanks, you did everything we could have asked for.

Tyler. Outstanding job!!!

Really FArley, explain then a poll done over the weekend by USA Today that 71% polled believe the republicans are to blame.

Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you think O'Reilly and Hannity speak in a common sense way.

"THE AMERICAN PEOPLE know that Bush hasn't been in office for 2 years now"

Cause if Bush were still in office, we would still be in Iraq, the world would hate us, BP would have been "forgiven" for creating a huge oil mess, Wall Street would not have been held accountable for the economic crisis they created, you could still lose your health insurance if you got sick, or be denied for having a pre-existing condition, and education would still be over regulated and under funded. And I would be in Canada!

And what? You are gonna ignore the polls that show the Dems losing big in November? Whatever. As I recall, last week I mentioned that the left-wing radical enviro-mental-wacko that took hostages at the Discovery Channel was no more inspired to do that by Al Gore than the shooter of an abortion doctor is by Bill O'Reilly. Another person then claimed I was using O'Reilly's talking points etc... So you disagree with me, O'Reilly and Hannity? You belive that Agore's movie inspires lefties to acts of violence?

Well CU, you have the MSM fooled but the public by an OVERWHELMING majority have long enough memories to realize the Republicans put us in this mess. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/09/poll-george-w-bush-obama-economy/1

This site is a part of the MSM...So the republican minority and the media who couldn't decide if the president was FDR, JFK, or Lincoln a little over a year ago, are the reason for the coming electoral drubbing?

That's not very believable, and it really diminishes the president and the administration. Somehow most people, even the low-information voter, believe that those who are actually governing now bear the primary responsibility for the trajectory of the nation.

Fox News is also part of the MSM, as is Drudge since he "rules our world" http://newsbusters.org/node/7906 . By extension that would also extend to his protege Andrew Breitbart.

Funny, that doesn't seem to fit the Right-wing narrative of the "Liberal media."

AND tell the story of how far we've come--frame it in terms that will grab folks by the heart.

That's all Obama has got, all he has ever had - ability to tell stories to grab folks by the heart. Ability to tell stories, making emotional appeals is great for getting elected, but it doesn't create jobs, or substitute for sound economic policy. Independents understand this.

Story telling is not a substitute for results....... unless you are a liberal.

well, one of the problems Obama has is that many of his stories were just that-fairy tales that he passed off as truth.

Remember pediatricians removing healthy tonsils because it paid more than allergy treatments?

Or doctors who amputated healthy limbs because it paid more than diabetes counseling?

The man who supposedly got his health insurance cancelled and died as a result?

All fictional. All ridiculous.

While many of the liberals on this site would believe Obama if he said the sky was plaid, the majority beg to differ. If he said the sky was blue, most of us would go out to check-and take an umbrella.

"Story telling is not a substitute for results......."

That's where ending the worst recession in 75 years, caused by Conservative trickle down economics comes in. http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf?L=HPADV2&C=ZANDIBLINDER&P=LEARNMORE

"The man who supposedly got his health insurance cancelled and died as a result?" Oh NJ, unlike Reagan's Welfare Queen driving a new Cadillac this one's true. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html Of course it was a twelve year old boy not a man, but that's OK there are plenty of adults who die every year because they have no health care. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

It's OK, as long as we feed enough power and wealth to the top of society they'll share enough back to us to take care of ourselves...we hope.

JVP2-one of the best posts I have ever read. I hope your are a contributor to one the the campaigns out there-they can certainly use your voice!

JVP, you can tell the "anyone who opposes Obama is a racist" talking point all you want but it's no more true now than when that lie was first created. Good luck with that, and it doesn't negate the FACT that those who oppose the President CONSTANTLY use racist attacks. http://www.google.com/images?expIds=17259,22713,24540,25900&sugexp=ldymls&pq=obama+is+a+racist+lie&q=obama%20monkey&cp=10&hl=en&wrapid=tljp1283868847852166&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

Conservatives had no trouble calling the opposition traitors when the President was a Republican http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/030711 but keep trying to project your own actions onto Liberals. It's a time-tested Conservative deception.

Keep telling us that people should CHOOSE to not exercise their CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right to religion. Keep telling us that the majority being able to dictate that to the minority isn't oppressive. Keep telling us it's about social decorum and not outright bigotry. The behavior of Conservatives proves otherwise. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-29/us/florida.burn.quran.day_1_american-muslims-religion-cair-spokesman-ibrahim-hooper?_s=PM:US

Continue to misinform us and spread untruths while it's Conservatives spinning the big ones. It's essential if you're to get us to surrender our democracy to our wealthy betters.

Please, tell us again how almost HALF the nation pays NO taxes when it's yet another lie. It distracts from the massive upward wealth redistribution that's occurred over the last 30 years.

The Conservative agenda will make inroads now, but in the end will fail. Truth always prevails in the end.

Excellent post JVP, you should contribute more often. The leftists around here can't stand it when folks speak the truth.

Excellent Post JVP and keep it coming because that is some Kool-aid I want a big glass of LOL!!!

Come on Liberals what have you got to say about about it? Fiesty I am still waiting for your answers to my questions all day!! Are you chicken or just dont have any answers!! Still wanting an answer about the CBO budget deficit report including the wars and medicare advantage drug plan, the GWB policies that ran us in a ditch and so on and so on? Please be specific which is hard for you Liberals but I have faith in you!

I already said my peace on that subject Scole. Apparently none of the Conservatives want to play. Enjoy you Kool-aid, hopefully the Koch brothers are buying today, unless it's Sun Myung Moon's turn.

JVP

That traitor Reagan blamed Carter for everything under sun even during his relection. So your saying is ok for Repubs and CONServatives to do it but no Dems & Libs. The hyprocisy is pretty thick these days. Have any of the Repubs in Congress now taken responsibility for the damage they did from 01-06? Not one one, not a single one, but their more than willing to blame the dems for a Tax Hike of their own creation. When the Lil Shrub enacted his Tax Cuts, he didn't have the votes, so the Repubs pushed it through Reconciliation, meaning a 10 year life expectancy. Now its time for them to expire, and what do your people say, its a Dem Tax Hike. Lies and Hyprocisy only get you so far before the public becomes aware of the lies and takes action. Their is plenty of time for someone on your side of the aisle to make a major bone-head mistake and trust me, w/ people like John Boehner and Michael Steele, it really is just a matter of time.

Philip -

You kind of made JVP's point. Democrats didn't want the tax cuts in the first place. But the Republicans push through the cuts. When they expire, on the Dem watch if they don't extend it, it will basically be a tax hike.

John, Tucson, AZ

But is not hyprocisy to blame someone else for your wrong doing?

Well said Philip. The Right has worked really hard to poison the well in that regard, to define hypocrisy as business as usual, lies as spin. It's all part of breaking down the reason that's required to recognize that you're giving away your democracy to those at the very top of society while thinking that doing so expands your freedom.

How is cutting taxes wrong? Letting them expire in a recession is absolutely the wrong track to take. Letting them expire in, say, four years to reduce the deficit would be fine by many.

John, Tucson

But Obama has cut taxes, we're now paying less than at anytime in recent history. The Repubs, want to save the tax rate for the upper 2%. They could care less about the middle class, even John of Orange has said that "Its time we had a serious talk w/ the American People" meaning raise your taxes, make you work til your 70 or older to pay for the upper 2% tax cut. Remember, they want to do way w/ Medi-Care, privatize Social Security and continue to allow companies to ship jobs overseas. There's nothing wrong w/ cutting taxes, but Bush cut taxes and we see where that got us. As stated, the Repubs still have yet to make amends for the damage done through 01-06. No apologies, just shifting of blame to the Dems. They never expected to be out of power in 2010. This tax hike is all their fault because they refused to pay for them in the first place.

The can't talk about being fiscally conservative when its their own fault the country's in this mess. They need to accept their responsibility and they won't or are unable to accept their own malfeasance.

dbo, you find it unbelievable because it IS unbelievable. In the real world the vast majority realize Republicans drove this car into the ditch. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/09/poll-george-w-bush-obama-economy/1

Yes, Conservatives will take advantage of the voters anger this year, but to what extent we don't know...and that sword cuts both ways.

"I find it incredible and unbelievable that the people of this country would have such a short memeory of how we got to where we are."

It's not that we don't remember where we were its that we don't like where we're going.

Alan -- spot on. The left just can't contemplate the notion that their remedy for what ails us is just making mattres worse.

Drive by, John B., I totally agree how can people's memory be that short?

Repubs have a standard fix for all ailments, TAX CUTS, well after 10 years lets look how great this working.

We've gone from surplus to deficit, (we know how they hate deficits).

Allen Greenspan likes tax cuts but says NOT with borrowed money!

The economy should be roaring after 10 years of tax cuts, but the economy was tanking after only 8 years, and Bush can back with a 3 page NO STRINGS ATTACHED, 700B$ solution that we must act on in the most immediate way or all hell will break loose, the likes of which you've never seen!

After encouraging corporations to send jobs overseas with tax breaks to keep profits up we find ourselves jobless wondering what happened, talk about clueless!! Where are all the jobs this 10 year tax cut produced?????

I can understand why people are frustrated, but what I can't understand is going back to a proven loser, and the Repubs obvious ploy to take the President down while the country suffers to get itself righted, remember some progress is better than none!

Alan - you are entitled not to like where the car is going - but please explain to me what route you would prefer to take? All I've heard so far is slam on the brakes and put it in reverse......

You don't understand the point, Bev. It is not about assigning blame, it is about knowing the difference between the two parties. Over a month ago, Obama's pollsters got the same findings-the vast majority of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE that the Republicans running in this election subscribe to Bush's economic plans.

It comes down to the fact that people are not as dumb as Democrats believe them to be. Sure, they voted for Obama when he presented himself as a pragmatic centrist. When they got the far left liberal whose idea of bipartisianship is to remind the opposition 'I won", they rued their decision.

They will be fixing that in less than two months, by punishing his party for being complicit in the destruction of this nation's health care system, and for tripling the debts owed by them and their children. The social security scare card, the race card, and the Bush card, have been played. Right now, republicans have the trump card: they said no to Obama. That gives them the winning hand.

Beverly--I sure hope the Democrats push that statistic--jobs created during Obama administration v. jobs created during Bush administration.

Have people forgotten how terrible & frightening the economic news was during 2008? We just can't go back to Republican policies because the recovery has not been as fast as we would hope for.

NJ, would you like to explain to us how the Republicans current plan differs from that of the Bush Administration?

One word: cuts.

As in spending cuts. REal, measurable spending cuts.

Go read Paul Ryan's blueprint. You don't have to agree with all of it, or even most of it.

What you fail to acknowledge, because it does not fit your talking points, is that Bush's popularity was negative in his own party-mostly because of the spending.

The Paul Ryan budget proposal will balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes

Republicans will not talk about the details of that proposal, such as privatizing social security and turning Medicare into a voucher program with vouchers that will increasingly not meet the costs of medical care for the elderly. They also won’t tell you that the CBO has scored the plan and says it will add $7 trillion to the debt over 10 years and that does not include the $3 trillion to extend the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/08/pdf/republican_jobs_plan.pdf

Well, Paul Ryan's plan does a great job of improving the deficit on the backs of the middle class while funnelling ever more wealth to the already wealthy http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=4&src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman , but what should the government stop doing in order to balance the budget in the face of massive declines in revenue?

Yo Dennis -- the link you cite isn't addressing the Ryan plan, it's about HR 5209 introduced by congressmen Jordan and Chaffetz which is something completely different. And CBO didn't "score" the plan and determine it would add $7 trillion to the debt. See page 2 of your link where it states "we calculate" in other words, the Center for American Progress Fund calculated the $7 trillion number, not CBO. And the Center for American Progress Fund can hardly be characterized as an objective source. In fact if you check out the footnotes on the tables in the Appendix to this "analysis", you will see that the Center drew upon a variety of sources to perform its calculation, my personal favorites being the "ITEP Tax Model" and "CTJ Calculation" whatever the hell they are

Bottom line: this work is heavily biased junk and not the product of an impartial, transparent analysis. Next time you might actually want to read this crap before posting it.

While the right complains that President Obama is 'spending like a drunked sailor', consider this:

- at least 1/3rd of the stimulus was for AMERICAN infrastructure projects.

- a majority of the spending we are making now is an INVESTMENT in America and America's Future.

- as with any investment, we have to nurture it and make it GROW.

So, if we are spending money on America's infrastructure, and we are INVESTING in America's future, why on EARTH would you want to stop funding your investment?

Hi Bill,

Yes I used an incorrect link – sorry - but my first sentence, in my opinion, stands and you made your opinion known – we differ greatly as we always have. Also I thought that the Republican Jobs Plan was implied to be part of the Ryan budget plan – if I am wrong then I apologize.

Now here is a question – why has the Republicans not released a plan for taking us forward? They say they have a plan but don’t want to release it just yet. Are they afraid of too many questions?

Republicans are not for spending cuts, and they will not cut spending if they do win. They didn't cut spending when Reagan was elected, they increased it; they didn't make government smaller with Reagan, they increased its size. In fact, GOPers have clearly stated in interviews challenged by hosts that tax cuts do NOT require spending cuts. What exactly do they plan to cut if it is not spending? That's right, the Dept of Education, EPA, financial regulations.

Same song, second verse. The question is when will people stop listening and turn the station permanently until they come up with something new.

Good point Jody. Maybe that's why NJ has no opinion of what she things the government should stop doing, only that it should do less. It makes a great talking point because everyone thinks they pay too much in taxes and everyone has been torqued off by something the government has done at some point. Unfortunately it only works for the Conservatives if they can avoid saying WHAT the government should stop doing. It also avoids the sticky subject of how much "nonessential" stuff they can stop doing and the effect that would have on the budget. You just get to pretend that there's enough "waste" in the government to balance the budget which isn't so. Another poster said something somewhere (sorry, can't remember nic or post) about the government not providing ANYTHING except Defense. Not only will that not sell to the electorate but anything short of that won't make the budget balance on the Republican program.

One more way in which Conservatives are selling a message and a mirage instead of solutions.

Rasmussen, is another arm of the right wing agenda, is it owned by Rupert Murdoch?

ScottNatl

You are so right. Foxmussen and that long headed Frank Luntz uses push polls which shapes the opinion of its Republican Party Headquraters aka Fox Noise. Frank Luntz, the so called Word Doctor gives these focus groups on FOX TV and throws out words like "government take over" for Rasmussen to push. The problem is these people suck it up. But when it's time for thr government to take over as in BP, Mining disasters, and FDA RECALLS they get confused.

In his most recent ratings (6-6-2010) of every major polling organization in the nation, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com rated Rasmussen Reports 15th out of more than 60 pollsters.

Nate rates Rasmussen ahead of, among others:

CNN/Opinion Research, CBS/New York Times, Quinnipiac, Marist, Franklin & Marshall, and Newsweek.

Mixed Bag-it is very simple: if you don't like the numbers, blame the pollster. Notice that neither of these two complain that one of the Boston newspapers had a poll that showed Scott Brown losing the Massachusetts senate race by 15 points just two days before the election.

They seem to think that the polls are good if they reflect their beliefs, but somehow skewed if they show something contrary to those beliefs.

That's what happens when people who don't know higher mathmatics try to evaluate polling data.

So true ScottNatl. If you go here http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/10-us-house-genballot.php and use the "filter" tool to remove Rassmussen the gap narrows by an amazing 24%!!! That's a pattern that holds true consistently on Rassmussen's polling. No other pollster is such a wide and consistent outlier in either direction, and they ALWAYS trend Republican. They also run more polls than anyone else, an obvious attempt to create a Conservative narrative.

Rasmussen is not a polling firm, but a propagandist who tries to dictate the message, yet they are still respected by the polling community (with the exception of 538 who is well onto their antics)

It's just another poll and Nate, who was better at "Baseball Prospectus" lists them as one of the top twenty polling firms. They are just another snapshot to be factored in with the others when looking at an issue or election.

ex

DioGuardi vs. Gillibrand: Ras, Gil +20, Quinn +15

Buck V Bennett ras: Buck + 4 Reuters +9

I look forward to you presenting your research on polling modalities and methodology that will prove your contentions ...

Pollster .com Ras shows a 6 point difference whereas GALLUP shows a 10 point difference, Tims a 7 point spread, and that's from the site you linked...what am I missing?

Usually pollsters only call about 1000 people for these polls. I don't think a 1000 people really represent how all Americans feel.

If the Republicans take over the House - means we will have gridlock for the next two years and President Obama does have a veto pen. So bottomline - nothing will get done.

You haven't disputed that Rasmussen leans consistently Right, only that at this moment Gallup and Times show a stronger lead at this moment. Plenty of smoke here http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/06/will-rasmussens-right-wing-bias-hurt-republicans-this-year.html to demonstrate the pattern. They're far http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/04/rasmussens-polling-stirs-bias-debate/ from the only ones http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2010/01/rasmussen-bias.html talking http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=45&num=29770 about it. http://www.nolanchart.com/article6539.html In fact even some on the right end of the political spectrum agree. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/07/florida-libertarian-accuses-scott-rasmussen-of-gop-bias-electioneering/

"You haven't disputed that Rasmussen leans consistently Right..."

have you? and what would it mean if they were right leaning as opposed to left leaning? What research have you done into their and the other polling firms methodology? they all have that kind of stuff, you know the HOW of their numbers; who they poll and how they weigh the numbers right on the site for all to see. You really don't need national ledger COMMENTING on an opinion piece in Politico. And "Florida Libertarian (you know that RAND PAUL is a LIBERTARIAN, right?) moans about being left out of poll in his self-published press release, seems to do little to buttress your contention.

....and you think that the links you provided are "research"? Proof?

Trying to prove bias by linking to sites that have their own biases is not the most effective way to prove your point. Nate Silver doesn't list them as republican pollsters and there are many polling firms listed below them in the rankings on his site.

What is your point? Based simply on the posts here, polls are meaningless unless they support your position. Rasmussen doesn't influence voters with their polls any more than pew or gallup etc.

When you have something exposing the bias in their methods that is based on the mathematical models universally utilized and accepted by everyone from msnbc to fox and elsewhere I will be the first to applaud.

Mark Twain;

"Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure..."

Twain (or Disraeli)

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

about rasmussen;

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us

that is where a person who wanted to make or dispute your contention would start...

Ah, Rasumussen is nonpartisan because he SAYS he's nonpartisan! He's a lot like dangerfield that way.

And Glenn Beck.

John B, Des Moines, IA: Ah, Rasumussen is nonpartisan because he SAYS he's nonpartisan! He's a lot like dangerfield that way

You can choose to listen to the polls, or you can choose to not listen to the polls. Polls like Rasmussen have been around a long time and have built up a reasonably accurate and unbiased track record. Ignore them at your own peril.

JoAnnaSmith1

Unbiased? Are you kidding me?

Perhaps Lindsay Graham was using the teleprompter!

Republicans are in this for the long haul. Don't forget that Fred Koch was one of the founders of the crackpot Conservative organization the John Birch Society. Now his sons are major funders of the entire Conservative Movement. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1 Government of the people, by the rich, for the rich is the goal of Conservatives. Liberals need to be in it for the long haul as well.

The exact same voters who gave us Bush in '00 and Bush in '04 are poised to give the Republicans a majority in the House. It's so sad. Republicans. Don't. Go. Away. It's a never ending battle. All we can do is get out the Democratic vote. Every last Democrat has got to vote.

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

The same exact voters who elected the president in 2008 are about to give the republicans a majority in the house. It is the independent voter who has been lost and getting out EVERY democrat will not be enough to overcome that change in the electorate...So blame the republicans, blame the MSM, now blame the voters....???

Isn't the administration responsible for anything?

"It is the independent voter who has been lost"

No, it's the ginned up Republican base who are going to flock to the polls to get their "revenge" on America. Independents typically don't vote in mid terms, if they did, the margins would be closer: the poll says 43% of Americans support Republicans vs 43% who support the Democrats.

Right Amy, all the talk is of the "enthusiasm gap." The assumption is that Republicans are going to get their voters to the polls in significantly better numbers than will Democrats.

There aren't enough democrats or republicans to constitute a majority. Almost 40 percent of registered voters now call themselves "independent"

Independent voters ELECTED the president. This little bit of revisionist history cum wishful thinking flies in the face of the statistical electoral reality that currently exists in this country. Democrats far outnumber republicans in voter registration.

wiki

The party contains the most registered voters of any political organization in the world as of 2004, with 72 million voters.^[4][5] Polls taken over the last decade indicate that roughly 35% of American voters self identify as Democrats.^[6]

The Republican Party has the second most registered voters as of 2004 with 55 million, encompassing roughly one-third of the electorate.^[1]

Read

The independent voter and realigning elections

For more than half a century, the concept of a realigning election—a dramatic shift in the electoral coalition supporting the existing political system—has been an important one in political theory. First enunciated by V. O. Key, Jr. in 1955,^[55] the theory of realigning elections suggested that certain "critical elections" created sudden, massive shifts in the electorate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28voter%29

It IS the independent voter, combined with that enthusiasm gap that is at the heart of the coming electoral realignment.

FYI: The voters did not elect bush in 2000. SCOTUS appointed bush in 2000.

An odd parallel between the Roosevelt era and today is that Frances Perkins, the Labor Secretary under FDR had to present her birth certificate to the press to counter rightwing claims she was a Jewish immigrant, (she was raised in the United Church of Christ and came from an old New England family.) She astonished her critics by stating "If I were Jewish I would be proud to state it."

I guess Republicans like to re-use their smear campaigns! It's astonishing, though, isn't it?

How about starting with lowering taxes, cutting spending and secureing our borders?

ah, the new campaign tactic-if Republicans get control, they will start a lot of investigations.

Tell you what I want investigated-all that money sent to ficititious congressional districts. Who got it, and what did they do with it? Who approved it? Why?

"all that money sent to ficititious congressional districts."

That particular non-controversy turned out to be a clerical error. Money did not go to phoney districts. Why do Republicans always resort to smear jobs?

Whatsamatter NJ, afraid the truth will get out? We're saying that Republicans will start an endless cycle of politically-motivated hearings and prosecutions because they've PROMISED to do so. http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/gop-will-investigate-obama-crimes-after-midterms/

Conservatives like to pretend they aren't pursuing an agenda that's independent of the American interest, but history says it's so.

John B

They have promised to do just that. That bat sh** lady from Minnesota Bachmann promised to do just that. The real reason they want control, redistricting just like Tom Delay did. They will try and eliminate som Dem disctrict and create new Repubs one. Luckily Delay was indicted and on his merry way to prison where he belongs.

Philip: Luckily Delay was indicted and on his merry way to prison where he belongs

Gee, I hate to be the one to break the news to you Philip, I mean, you seem so excited by it, but all charges against DeLay were dropped last month. I know you're disappointed, but as our President says, "It's time to turn the page."

Very true, Philip. The 2000 election was HUGE for the political scene because Republicans did well nationwide and in many states acted like kids with a new toy, they gerrymandered the districts so badly. They're only as strong as they are noew due to that, and unfortunately it looks like they're going to get a new lease on life this year in the same way. It's why many districts are SO reactionary...IA-5 being a prime example with Rep. Steve King. He's bat-crazy and I don't know that he'd have been so firmly ensconced in the previous IA-5 district. Iowa actually has a very sound, nonpartisan redistricting process, but the legislature rejected the first plan because it split some districts with powerful incumbents. Plan 2 ended up with the most Conservative part of the state entirely emcompassed by IA-5. Other states with partisan redistricting ended up horribly disfigured.

Taylor, Please put Beverly's post back up. Just because she is stating something that the right does not want to hear is no reason for it to be collapsed. The game players here need to be reprimanded somehow for their collapsing posts which do NOT break the ToS!

I too was wondering what was wrong with her post? What gives with the arbitrary collapse of Beverly Chicago?

I asked the same question about Beverly's post only it apparently went down with the rest.

Agreed GBM unfortunately this seems to be the way that a segment of our community has decide to roll. They fail to realize that while they can collapse it they cannot hide the inherent truth that is contained in it. Their actions here speaks volumes about their character and willingness to at least consider a different point of view.

Bev... GF... the right wingers are playing their censorship games again...

E-mail Tyler @ Newvine and demand your post be reinstated!

What ever you do... DON'T let the trolls silence you! It's the oldest trick in their dirty 'trick' playbook!

Not this time... ;0)-

Maybe it's impermissible to call Glenn Beck a "con artist" (which he is), although it's still OK on First Read to call President Obama any vile name the rightwingers can think up.

I certainly don't agree with everything that the conservative posters say but as long as they follow the Newsvine rules, I would never try to silence them. Maybe it is because I believe that the truth will always shine through.

I agree with all of the above. I 'uncollapsed' Bev's post, and certainly did not see anything worth collapsing.

I add my voice to those who decry hitting collapse just because you disagree with the poster. It's unAmerican.

I sent an email to Tyler Bev, I hope it helps and he reverses it soon. Have a great day!

Wow! That was like a roll-call! And so many of the most mild mannered and consistently courteous members of the "community" too...:)

strong>chilledand Jody, Iowa, Gingerbread Mamma, Houston friends, and every lover of free speech!

Moderators: Why was Beverly Chicago's post #5 collapsed? There is nothing over the line in this. This is not right.

I asked the same question about Beverly's post only it apparently went down with the rest.

Jody, Iowa, Gingerbread Mamma, Houston friends, and every lover of free speech!
I replied but I don't know if it's the software or what. Anyhow, trying it again, I think the reason my post was collapsed because the right has no creative way to refute my comment other having it collapsed.

I still maintain that John Boehner, "the man who thinks he will be speaker of the house come January 2011, should refute Gingrich, McCain And Graham's Call For "A New 'Contract With America" since it is a vision of the old defaulted contract. John Boehner should speak out against the Afghanistans who want the head of Our President of American.

I strongly oppose genuflecting to Glenn Beck's Divide Providence epiphany. Glenn Beck is not a Historian, Professor, Maharishi, Financial Advisor for America, Mystic, Prophet, Savior, Astronomer, Space Shuttle, the Sun, the Center of the Universe, or Liberator.

Orange Alert: Glenn Beck is a water carrier for the GOP in addition to being an accomplished con-artist, contortionist; as I see it.

I would never have an opposing view collapsed. First of all, I don't know how. Secondly, I respect the 1st amendment the righties so feverishly claim the President is taking from them. I may disagree but I think those comments should stay so as to deliberate more answers and opinions in this democracy.

. ROTFWL, Censorship happens in the communist countries you righties claim the President is doing to you.
Isn't ironic that this is what you righties are doing to silence me? We should be able to let comments stand for deliberation no matter how much the comment does not appease anyone.
I 'm not sure; but. I think this has a lot to do with the revenge of Kirby.

Beverly - is it pretty obvious to me that your posts cannot be refuted, so it seems that SOMEONE on here that disagrees with you is collapsing your posts.

I too find it very interesting that we all have the right to free speech (1st Amendment), but SOMEONE on here has decided that THEIR free speech is more important than yours.

I find it ironic that these same SOMEBODIES are quick to call the President Marxist or Communist, and yet these same SOMEBODIES are using the very tactics of a Communist to squelch free speech.

Fascinating.

Interesting how the Conservatives have to take away your freedom to speak your mind in order to sufficiently destroy reason to let their arguments win the day. Facts do tend to get in the way of the narrative, don't they?

Jeannie - I have read your post and you don't like President Obama. That's OK - we get that. But answer this:

If the Republicans do get to control one or both chambers of Congress, are you going to be content with GRIDLOCK in Congress? That will literally mean that NOTHING will get done legislatively. There will be no relief for those who may need unemployment. The current Job/stimulus projects will continue, but there will be no NEW job contracts.

In effect, we will have 2 years of the Congress doing NOTHING except bickering amongst themselves - while YOU and I pay their salaries for doing NOTHING AT ALL.

As an American citizen, is this what you REALLY want for this country?

If it is, then why would you want it that way?

These are fair questions asked of those who want gridlock. I just want to see what the motivation is behind the thinking.

I'm all for gridlock, as long as it stops Obama's spending spree. I'll be much happier if the congress cuts his budget, and overrides his veto. I'll be even happier if they go back and undo most of what he has done, and overrides his veto.

I've got the majority with me-you've got the minority who like spending other people's money. Looks like your side is out of luck for a while-until the electorate forgets what a disaster Obama and a democratic super majority were for this country.

I'm all for gridlock, as long as it stops Obama's spending spree. I'll be much happier if the congress cuts his budget, and overrides his veto. I'll be even happier if they go back and undo most of what he has done, and overrides his veto.

No Joe - Really?

Can you explain WHY this will be a good thing for America? Could you 'sell' me on why I should give the keys back to the Republicans if we are going to have GRIDLOCK? How will we be able to accomplish ANYTHING legislatively? Can you explain how we are going to INVEST in OUR infrastructure if the Congress is gridlocked?

Yes Pietro thats exactly what I want. I didn't like GWB's policies and I don't like BO's policies. So until something else comes along that is based on fiscal sanity, instead of out of control spending - both administrations, I will accept gridlock.

Alan, NJ: Yes Pietro thats exactly what I want. I didn't like GWB's policies and I don't like BO's policies. So until something else comes along that is based on fiscal sanity, instead of out of control spending - both administrations, I will accept gridlock.

It just boogles the liberal mind that some people, many people, most people, are tired of the spending that is going on in Washington. And when the deficit spending seems at it's darkest, just when you don't think it can get any worse, Obama pops up in some town with a half baked plan asking for yet another $50 billion. Why not make it $75 billion, or $100 billion? What does it matter any more? And it's the same story for Obama as it was last year. "Got to have it now!" "It will create millions of jobs!" "It's paid for (no it's not)!" "Infrastructure!" "High speed rail!!" Yeah, sure, whatever Obama. America fell for this line of bs once, they won't again.

Pietro:

No Joe - Really?

Can you explain WHY this [gridlock] will be a good thing for America?

After November, Obama and the Democrats will be made to make a choice. The Democrats can either filibuster everything in the Senate (gridlock), or Obama can veto everything (gridlock) or Obama can chose to work with the Republicans in crafting reasonable legislation (a few things will get done). There are many Americans that are very unhappy and disappointed in Obama. Novembers elections will be Obama's wakeup call to shape up. If he doesn't, if he chooses remain a left wing ideologue that blames everyone but himself, then Obama too will be gone in 2012.

Alan, NJ - OK, fair enough. You would like gridlock.

I submit to you this thought - America, like any country, takes MONEY to operate. You would like Gridlock, and that is your opinion. If we have gridlock, and we still need money to OPERATE as a country, how are we going to OPERATE? If you completely stop spending now, we will tear the social fabric of this country and this country will rip itself apart.

Is this what you REALLY want?

Are we prepared for the breakdown of American society?

I submit that this is what you are advocating.

- Is is bad enough that the Banks are sitting upon an obscene amount of money and will not lend?

- Is is bad enough that foreclosures of real property are up and the lenders are sitting on the properties waiting for when they can unload them for a profit (by foreclosing on the properties, they can book the loan value and NOT the REAL value of the properties)?

- Is it bad enough that our infrasctructure is crumbling and there is no new investment in making sure our roads and bridges are safe for us to use?

Let's face it - our discretionary dollars are gone and have been for a while. We still have to spend money so that we have a society!! Gridlock in Congress will put a stop to ALL of that, as there will be no new legislation.

Alan, we disagree on this point. If you want to see a real life example that we can understand, all we have to do is look at Iraq. After we destroyed its government, we spend BILLIONS to 'rebuild' the country. If we can spend BILLIONS to REBUILD Iraq, why is it OK for us to have Gridlock here where the money is needed?

Why is it NOT OK to spend the BILLIONS we need here in this country?

Ah yes the Republican definition of "moderate." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025065.php Do exactly what Republicans want or nothing gets done. That part never change. The elite leaders of the Conservative Movement want it all, and they want it now.

Too bad no one else gets a voice in their version of "moderation."

Can you explain WHY this will be a good thing for America? Could you 'sell' me on why I should give the keys back to the Republicans if we are going to have GRIDLOCK? How will we be able to accomplish ANYTHING legislatively? Can you explain how we are going to INVEST in OUR infrastructure if the Congress is gridlocked?

The repubs do not have to sell you anything. They are winning. They do not have to do anything at all. They are winning.

Another nugget of Conservative truth. Winning is everything. Doing the business of the American people is secondary.

Alex, CA - how do you figure that the Republicans are 'winning'?

Just because the Republicans are making the most noise right now does NOT mean they are winning. It just means they are noisy.

My question still stands for anyone that wants to answer it.

How does stopping spending now HELP America when we need money to keep America going?

Pietro, you need a refresher course in civics. Holding the Presidency, House and Senate by one party is a rare event in US history and often lasts less than 4 years. In this case it will likely be two as the House will more than likely change back to GOP. The Senate is likely to remain for the Dem's with a much narrower majority. This is typical in mid-term elections and more so during tough economic times.

With regards to government spending consider this and I quote your post.

My question still stands for anyone that wants to answer it.

How does stopping spending now HELP America when we need money to keep America going?

It sends a clear signal to the investors and businesses that actually create jobs that tax policy and fiscal discipline are reaching a level of stability. To be simple it changes the psycology of these uncertain times and sends a signal that investment in capital purchases, workers and equipment is safe and not at risk for unexpected losses due to new taxation or entitlement programs.

The spending needs to come from the private sector not the government. Every dollar expended by the government is a dollar removed from economic re-investment.

Government spending is a net drain where private sector spending is a net gain. Every public sector job reduces economic prosperity where very private sector job increases the tax rolls. Every government agency at every level is far less productive than their private sector counterparts due to a lack of direct competition in government.

The Independent posted:

Pietro, you need a refresher course in civics. Holding the Presidency, House and Senate by one party is a rare event in US history and often lasts less than 4 years. In this case it will likely be two as the House will more than likely change back to GOP. The Senate is likely to remain for the Dem's with a much narrower majority. This is typical in mid-term elections and more so during tough economic times.

I am not sure I need a refresher course, but I will stipulate that one party holding the majority in Congress and the Presidency is not as rare as you would like us all to believe. With that being said, we have not seen that phenomenon last longer than 4 years in a long time.

Now, onto my challenge, which is this: How does stopping spending now HELP America when we need money to keep America going?

You posted:

It sends a clear signal to the investors and businesses that actually create jobs that tax policy and fiscal discipline are reaching a level of stability. To be simple it changes the psycology of these uncertain times and sends a signal that investment in capital purchases, workers and equipment is safe and not at risk for unexpected losses due to new taxation or entitlement programs.

The fact of the matter is that private enterprise has NOT changed its psycology and is still in 'conservative' mode because they are concerned about making a profit. There is less demand for goods and services, and any CEO worth his salt will be concerned about their budgets and what they would have to do to make that budget.

I think that the taxation argument you make is a canard. Right now, I think that is the LAST thing on a CEO's mind. a CEO is making the decision to shore up its cash flow so they can weather the ecomonic storm we are experiencing.

The spending needs to come from the private sector not the government. Every dollar expended by the government is a dollar removed from economic re-investment.

Here is where we disagree. We have not seen much spending from the private sector because there is LESS MONEY - read demand - out there for goods and services. The economy is NOT at equilibrium right now, so government spending is ESSENTIAL for the good of the country.

If you want an example of this, let's look at the great depression. Where was the private sector spending then? What got America out of the Depression was GOVERNMENT SPENDING. If you think I am wrong, then WWII was a BIG Government spending program that proved to be successful. Now, private enterprise was USED by Government - on both sides - to provide goods that was used in that war.

When FDR stopped listening to the 'conventional wisdom' of the day - which sounds eerily SIMILAR to the naysayers of today, by the way - we were able to get out of the Great Depression. The bottom line is this - Private enterprise CANNOT always drive an economy. There has to be a BALANCE between private enterprise and Government, and right now, we are not in balance.

Government spending is a net drain where private sector spending is a net gain. Every public sector job reduces economic prosperity where very private sector job increases the tax rolls. Every government agency at every level is far less productive than their private sector counterparts due to a lack of direct competition in government.

We are talking apples and oranges here. Although you can make the argument you have above, you are discounting that the Government sector is as important as the Private sector. To say that 'Every government agency at every level is far less productive than their private sector counterparts due to a lack of direct competition in government' is a stretch.

Look, we are not going to agree that private enterprise is the end-all/be-all for our economy. What I am saying is that there needs to be a BALANCE between the two because oned cannot survive without the other.

When I hear the 'free enterprise will save all' argument - like yours above - I chuckle. Free enterprise and Government enterprise work hand-in-hand to make our economy work. Right now, with the huge deficits that have been generated by the 'hands-off' policies of the last administration, we are are struggling as a country. This country is more efficient when there is a balance between government and private industry.

One final point - when the banks were failing, and Henry Paulson was looking for some entity to save our economy, did he turn to private enterprise to save us?

No.

Henry Paulson turned to the Federal Government for $700 BILLION dollars. Why didn't he go to an investment bank? I mean, they DID have the money, correct? Henry Paulson went to the GUBMINT - against every fibre of his being, by the way - because the Government was the ONLY entity that had the money to save our economy.

There is something to think about, Independent.

Houston-

Thanks for the links. It would appear that the only thing I got wrong was that this poor man was a census worker...not a rural letter carrier. For that I apologize.

I don't suppose it occurred to you that, by providing about 78 seconds of Maddow grudgingly, even skeptically, acknowledging that she had this story wrong all along...you've actually made my original argument for me.

Maddow devoted considerable time and effort on her show to pushing the notion that this individual was murdered by violent, right-wing, anti-government extremists.

She devoted about 78 seconds of airtime to the truth.

Thanks again, Houston.

I expected that Mixed Bag would start spinning faster than a top to avoid admitting that he made a false accusation. Maddow never had the story "wrong". She reported it responsibly as the facts came in.

So now Mixed Bag says she didn't spend ENOUGH time on the story. Mixed Bag has delusions that he is the final arbiter of how much time should be alloted to a story. Maddow and Dean gave the story enough time to report the details that laid to rest the suspicion that census worker's death was murder. Devoting enough time to get the story straight is what I consider enough time. Mixed Bag doesn't care about facts, so his standards are slightly different than mine.

It was responsible to imply that a tragic suicide was actually a murder by violent, anti-government extremists?

Kinda stretching the definition of "responsible" there, Houston...

Houston!

Always replies to his "peeps", and not the person he's addressing...why?

It was responsible to imply that a tragic suicide was actually a murder by violent, anti-government extremists?

Now Mixed Bag is just making stuff up. (What else is new?) Maddow never claimed it was a murder; she reported the possibility that the census worker was the victim of a murder by anti-government types. That was totally reasonable suspicion since the census worker deliberately made it appear that his death was murder, most likely so that his family would collect on the life insurance he took out, which doesn't cover suicide. So, should Maddow have pretended that there was no reason to suspect a murder even though there was when the story first broke? Of course not; Bag just hates Maddow and wants to "get" her by making false accusations that, when debunked, get replaced with new false accusations.

Dangerfield:

Always replies to his "peeps", and not the person he's addressing...why?

Dangerfield always whines about "ad hominems" and then makes them ... why?

Sorry, Houston-

Maddow created a narrative about this tragic death.

She spent a lot of air-time, on multiple TRMS's carefully reinforcing that false narrative.

She spent about 78 seconds grudgingly admitting her narrative was a fantasy.

That's what really happened, Houston...

Like you...she simply got it all wrong.

Sorry, Bag

You falsely accused Rachel Maddow of dropping the story without comment after the police concluded it was a suicide. I proved that she didn't just drop it, but instead of admitting you were wrong, you just try to change the subject to how much time she should have spent on it. Some people don't have enough integrity to admit when they are wrong.

She spent a lot of air-time, on multiple TRMS's carefully reinforcing that false narrative.

What, exactly is a "lot" of air time? Whatever Bag says it is, I suppose, even if he fails to provide even an estimate of the amount of air time.

Houston-

"What, exactly is a 'lot' of air time?"

On 9-23-2009, Maddow devoted the opening segment of her show, complete with an interview with an Associated Press reporter, on the subject of the hanging death of census worker Bill Sparkman in Kentucky.

On 9-24-2009, Maddow devoted a segment of her show to Mr. Sparkman's death, including an interview with a Sparkman friend who reported telling Sparkman he could be in danger working door-to-door for the Census Department.

On 9-25-2009, Maddow again devoted the opening segment of her show to Bill Sparkman's death, complete with an interview with yet another Associated Press reporter covering the story.

And that's just the first three days of Maddow's coverage of the death of Bill Sparkman, with the common thread being the suggestion that Sparkman was murdered by unspecified anti-government extremists.

What's a "lot" of air time? Well, Rachel Maddow herself refers to the tragic suicide death of Sparkman "...whose apparent murder we covered extensively..." in one of the links you so generously provided, Houston.

I'll tell you what ISN'T a "lot" of air time, Houston...

78 seconds isn't a "lot" of air time.

Bag:

I'll tell you what ISN'T a "lot" of air time, Houston... 78 seconds isn't a "lot" of air time.

It's more than no coverage at all, which is what you claimed Maddow devoted to the story. And then Howard Dean gave more details on Maddow's show after the police made them available. I already said that my view of what is sufficient coverage is whatever amount of time is necessary to inform the viewers of the important details of the story, which Maddow and Dean did. But by discussing what amount of time is sufficent coverage at all, I'm letting Bag change the subject away from the original subject of this thread: proof that Bag made a false accusation. People who change the subject rather than admit they were wrong aren't showing anything but their own lack of character and integrity.

Houston-

Your use of the words "no coverage at all" is a misrepresentation.

What I actually said was this:

"Of course, when the death was ruled by authorities to be the suicide of a deeply troubled individual...Ms Maddow really didn't have any further use for the story."

It took Maddow all of 78 seconds to say just that.

Again...thanks for the link, Houston.

Bag

Your use of the words "no coverage at all" is a misrepresentation. What I actually said was this:

"Of course, when the death was ruled by authorities to be the suicide of a deeply troubled individual...Ms Maddow really didn't have any further use for the story."

That means the same thing as claiming she stopped covering the story. Especially when you followed your false claim with the word "despicable." So now you're saying that 78 seconds of coverage is "despicable?" I think 78 seconds of accurate reporting of salient facts on Maddow's show is worth a lot more than hours of lies and dishonestly edited video clips on Fox News. Apparently, you disagree with me on that.

And you're also not telling the truth about the amount of coverage on Maddow's show. Howard Dean reported the final conclusion of the police because he was the guest host at the time the police announced it.

Houston-

Maybe you should listen to Rachel Maddow when SHE says that she served up extensive coverage of the "apparent murder" of Bill Sparkman...since you won't listen to me.

Too bad there was no comparable extensive coverage of the truth, eh Houston?

I'm guessing that Howard Dean's two paragraphs (thanks for the link to the transcript, Houston) about Sparkman took even LESS than 78 seconds...and yes, I would still argue that Maddow's misleading coverage of the Sparkman suicide was indeed despicable.

Like I said...both of you got the story wrong.

I suspect Maddow knows that...I doubt that you, however, ever will.

Terrific post, Clara.

Never have I seen such lack of respect by too many in the media but especially on cable TV. There is no constructive discussion--it is destructive. They slice and dice, criticize everything he says or does. If he says up, they say down. Disgusting. I admit that I rarely watch Morning Joe any more--listening to his incessant whining so early in the morning is no way to start a day.

Good post Clara, so when their next nutjobs are in charge I guess we get free reign to slam them on a regular basis too, right? I would think so since I've never seen one repugnant in my whole life who has actually done anything good for those of us who work for a living. I'm pretty tired of corporate welfare - what I call those big boys at the top getting all the money for no work and no productivity.

I saw a re-run of the Presiden't appearance on The View at a friend's house yesterday, and after watching for a few minutes, we both looked at each other and said "man, that guy's gifted!" If a pollster asked me for one word to describe President Obama I would say "intelligent." If you asked me for one word to describe the Republican Party I would say "liars." I hope that doesn't get this comment collapsed, but that's how I see it. They lie.

I used to watch Morning Joe, Clara, but just can't take it--thanks for monitoring what goes on there.

I think the President has spent more time working hard and less time blowing his own horn. I think he rolls up his sleeves every day and devotes his time and considerable intellect to solving the many problems our nation faces. Some problems--like global economic meltdown and two major wars--just can't be resolved quickly. Especially when the Republicans offer no support for any of the solutions but also offer no other solutions.

gee, Amy, I felt the same way about Davey Jones when I was nine! I swooned every time he was on screen! I had all his records! He was my favorite Monkee! All my girlfriends agreed with me! Except for one who liked Peter Tork! We thought she was crazy!

Then, I grew up, and left hero worship behind. Try it. It doesn't hurt.

I, too, watched for the same reasons Clara, and it is hard to listen to the claptrap that goes on. It was especially sickening listening to ol' Joe defend Haley Barbour with his amnesiac recollection of how desegration was in place when he went to school in the late 60's and how it was the democrats who were the segregationists, but he didn't mention that those segregationists all became Republicans and still are to this day.

I'm sure the Conservatives will be along momentarily to dispute it, but I don't remember a President EVER getting more sniping and just plain disprespect than Barack Obama. Most of what the Right defines as picking on GW was actually disagreement with his policies. Bill Clinton came close at the height of the Ken Starr disgrace but I don't even think that tops it. The smearing of Jimmy Carter didn't even come close and the criminal Richard Nixon was treated with more respect than he deserved as a man because Americans respected the office.

This is what happens with Conservative dominance. Their quest to bring power to the top leads to a cheapening of our entire society.

"I sometimes tune in to watch Morning Joe, just to find out what the Republican Talking Points, and today was no exception."

"I, too, watched for the same reasons Clara, and it is hard to listen to the claptrap that goes on."

Why does this remind me of the old SNL skit with Billy Crystal as the security guard who would say,

"You know what I hate?" and then describe some form of disgustingly humorous self-mutilation in excruciating detail?

Bad Dog Bo, Bad dog!

Houston...I'm not sure what sort of math they teach in Texas, but the last I checked, you democrats had control over BOTH houses of congress as well as the presidency. How the hell does a party without any control in either house or the executive branch of the government obstruct anything? Your king, Obama, has gotten EVERYTHING he has wanted. The result? FAILURE. Everything from socialized healthcare, bailouts and government takeover of private companies, HUGE "stimulus" spending that stimulated nothing, suing a sovereign state to keep that state from protecting itself against an illegal alien invasion, raising taxes, etc. What sort of obstruction can a party do when it has no way of blocking anything the other party wants? Dream on. You'll be whining even more come November.

Jeannie

There is this thing in the Senate called the FILIBUSTER. It has been modified to allow the MINORITY to "control" the Senate. Therefore, the RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans can stop, not just delay, but actually stop, hundreds of bills which have passed through the House of Representatives from ever coming up for a vote in the Senate. This is OBSTRUCTION of the democratic process and is likely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Rule 22 modification which allows the "proceedural filibuster" to be employed by the minority in perpetutity is how the MINORITY "controls" the Senate. So your contention is essentially a LIE. But that makes sense 'cause you're a RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-an.

Jeannie. Minority rule in the Senate is how--it is called the filibuster. The GOP has obstructed nearly every single piece of legislation, they have put holds on every nominee and blocked judicial appointments. There are around 300 pieces of democratic House legislation that was passed currently sitting in the Senate--the minority is blocking every one. Think about it. Our democracy of majority rule has been dismantled by the minority.

It's a good thing Senate Democrats are lining up to change the current cloture rules.

I'm sure they'll be even more energized when the new Congress is sworn in in January.

Stick to your 9/11 truther fantasies, Paul.

They're vastly more entertaining.

Paul:

Touche'. Mixed Bag just got bagged.

yeah, those Republicans and their filibustering-that's why the stimulous bill, HCR, and the non-reforming Wall Street reform bill got stalled!

I guess that it was all a bad dream-none of that stuff got passed, it was all stopped by the republicans' filibusters!

happy days!

Jeannie and MB have just demonstrated why the climate won't improve if Republicans manage the long ball and take one or both houses of Congress. Contrary to conventional wisdom their goal isn't to balance the process or take their turn in the swing of the pendulum. It's total dominance and permanent power transfer to those at the top of society. It's the whole purpose of Conservatism and always has been.

That's actually funny...maybe they won't be obstructionist when they are the majority..

Obstructionist;

One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.

The minority attempts to OBSTRUCT the agenda of the majority. If the republicans ARE the majority THEY will be setting the agenda and the democrats, who would then be the MINORITY, will be accused of OBSTRUCTING if they oppose that agenda.

I know how you like your little word games dangerfield, but they can still be accused of obstructing the President's agenda. As for example when Republicans shut down the entire Federal government under Newt Gingrich.

OK, so let's say that the Republicans take over one or both chanmbers of Congress. What are we to expect? Will the Republicans start to think of AMERICA first or wil it be more of the same like it was during the Bush years?

- What will the Republicans do when they have to actually GOVERN?

- What will the Republicans do when they will have to actually be RESPONSIBLE for SOMETHING?

- Whatwill the Republicans do when they are held ACCOUNTABLE?

The track record does not bode well for Republicans. The American people took the keys of the country AWAY from the Republicans in 2008. Now they are poised to give the keys BACK to the Republicans in 2010...

Or NOT.

I for one do not believe that people are this short-sighted. Americans are starting to see some changes - for the better - in this country for once.

We are starting to see money spent HERE on OUR infrastructure - for once.

The Roads are DEFINITELY a lot better in many places in the America because of the Stimulus package. It has made a HUGE difference in Ohio (for those ofyou that drive I-270, you know what I am talking about. 270 was TERRIBLE 2 months ago).

So this is quite a quandry we find ourselves in. We can give the keys BACK to the Republicans - and HOPE that they have learned their lesson from before and do the right thing...

Or -

We can continue on the path we are going, slowly but surely rebuilding AMERICA from the inside out.

Before those of you that want to see our debt serviced FIRST, consider this - that debt is the result of the LACK of investment in AMERICA; that money was WASTED in Iraq and Afghanistan. We STILL have to rebuild our infrastructure and yes, we are putting that INVESTMENT on the Nation's credit card. Like any investment, we have to MAINTAIN it, and it may mean that we ADD money to that investment so that we can reap the reward(s) of that investment in the future.

SO, are we going to throw away our investment in AMERICA?

I guess we will see in November...

Two comments collapsed in this thread, alone. One from the left, one from the right and neither deserved collapsing. Please stop acting like children by playing these silly little games.

Good point Pietro. Past history being a predictor of future performance it isn't a bit hard to see that Republicans would explode the budget deficit with tax cuts designed to funnel ever more wealth to the elite while cutting the programs that ordinary Americans use and depend on. They'll undertake to smear a sitting President in the hopes of taking him out and installing one of their own in 2012. They'll have very little regard for how this affects the nation, because in the end their agenda is all about the wealthy few.

The point of my initial comment on this thread was the hypocrisy of the Senate Democrats who, on the one hand, bitterly voice their resentment of the current Senate cloture rules, while having no (serious) intention of changing them.

If you haven't seen a serious move from Senate Democrats yet, who seriously believes they'll do so now that it seems likely they're going to lose 8-9 seats in November?

It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

When you have 58 Senate seats, plus two Independents caucusing with Democrats, PLUS blue-state Maine Republicans Snowe and Collins (both of whom have proven more than capable of ignoring Mitch McConnell's wishes)...you can get past the cloture rules. If you can't, a little self-examination is in order.

What you cannot expect is that the "opposition" party won't oppose you...that's just silly.

In any event, you can hold your breath until you're blue...but most Senate Democrats (and Republicans as well for reasons that SHOULD be obvious) will NEVER vote to change the cloture rules.

Why would they?

dangerfield-

Let me see if I understand you...

Are you suggesting that if Democrats lose their majority in the House, and Senate Democrats go on to oppose, and successfully block, legislation passed by the new House Republican majority...

DEMOCRATS could be considered to be "obstructing" legislation, and could therefore be termed "obstructionists"?

Wow...

Who knew...?

Mixed Bag posted:

When you have 58 Senate seats, plus two Independents caucusing with Democrats, PLUS blue-state Maine Republicans Snowe and Collins (both of whom have proven more than capable of ignoring Mitch McConnell's wishes)...you can get past the cloture rules. If you can't, a little self-examination is in order.

Hypocracy is thy middle name, Mixed Bag. by the way, it's good to see you again. it's better to debate you too, especiall when you are wrong - again. For the record, you have been pretty middle-of-the-road lately, and I think that IS a good luck for you.

But I digress. As usual.

I highlighted the above snippet. Don't you think that this is a bit SIMPLISTIC, Mixed bag? You and I BOTH know that it is not as simple as you post. We also both know that the Moderate republicans have had their arms twisted by the Senate Minority Leader. We also know that Joe Lieberman is a wild card.

Your whole argument is based on the 'perception' that there is a filibuster-proof majority. As usual, you are wrong. You even post that there are two independents that caucus with the Democrats.

That does NOT mean that they VOTE with the Democrats all the time. Neither will the 'moderate' Republicans. Neither will the 'Blue Dogs' that are Republican 'Lite'.

So, with all of those 'independent' factors, the Democrats basically have a simple majority, and not enough to quash a filibuster.

But of course you knew that, Mixed Bag. Way to go 'spinning' your perception of the truth.

I am, and always have been, FOR the filibuster. It was put into place to prevent the majority party from ramming through legislation that was not wanted by the populace. Democrats should have kept this in mind for the last two years.

What is happening in this election cycle is exactly what our founders envisioned. They set up our system of government so that those elected would be mindful that they needed the consent of the governed to govern.

Having rammed through legislation without the consent of the governed, they will now be relinquishing their seats in congress. If they liked those jobs, they should have killed the legislation that was so wildly unpopular, and not relied on Obama's questionable charisma to carry the day.

This filibuster/rule 22 discussion is such a laugh.

Dems capitulate their minorities and are rewarded for their behavior while Repubs Obstruct their minorities and with the microphone they are given claim victory.

It is safe to say that whomever is being 'bullied' is against the bullying. What is 'laughable' is that the American public VOTED for the representation, so for Repubs to actually believe they are doing the work of the majority; well I'm sorry, but their math teachers should all be fired. Majorities rule. Works that way in Kindergarten, should work that way in Washington. The 2/3 majority to override a veto is the ONLY thing that makes sense. Everything else is just a bunch of wailing by the minority party. Get over yourself. The media should REQUIRE Jan Brewer answer questions, John Boehner have a point, Mitch McConnell to write a platform with actual DATA,...you get my point. Anything less is just a bunch of phony "Take My Country Back" - "Us versus Them" school yard antics. Why do Americans continue to reward the whiny bullies? THAT IS THE STORY HERE. Why any poll would say that the drum beat of fear can sway the mindless sheeple into comatose submission?

But that's just my opinion.

Pietro-

The fact that I disagree with your interpretation of the cloture and filibuster situation in the Senate seems to irritate you. Sorry about that.

By the way, Pietro...

Since I began posting here months ago, I've been completely consistent in my views about the likely outcome of November's midterms. You have a habit of calling me "wrong" in situations where, objectively, there is no right or wrong...simply a matter of opinion. If I disagree with your opinion...you declare me wrong. Sorry again, but I believe that's an inappropriate use of the word, Pietro. A minor thing perhaps, but still...

Anyway, the outcome of the midterms is another matter, Pietro.

I have long believed that Republicans will regain the majority in the House, control a majority of U.S. statehouses, and that the Senate will be pretty much split down the middle, with a small majority for one or the other of the two Parties.

Am I wrong about this as well, or would this example constitute a notable exception?

I am, and always have been, FOR the filibuster. It was put into place to prevent the majority party from ramming through legislation that was not wanted by the populace. Democrats should have kept this in mind for the last two years.

No Joe - the filibuster was NOT designed - or intended - to be used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon people over the head with and used for EVERYTHING. Those rules were designed for civility - or else there would have been duels where people would have gotten hurt. It is pretty obvious that this Senate is dysfunctional and there is not a civil bone there. Now, because of that incivility, we have 300+ bills being held up by the Senate.

What? You got nothing to say about THAT, No Joe?

Having rammed through legislation without the consent of the governed, they will now be relinquishing their seats in congress. If they liked those jobs, they should have killed the legislation that was so wildly unpopular, and not relied on Obama's questionable charisma to carry the day.

It seems your word for the day is 'hyperbole'. Rammed through legislation? C'mon, give that a rest. The problem is that the GOP - your heroes - were too inept to do anything about that legislation. It was the GOP that failed YOU and all of their other constituents. The Democrats didn't 'ram' anything through. Have we forgotten about the YEAR-LONG debate on HCR? So that is 'ramming' through legislation?

That's a stretch even for you, No Joe.

The bottom line is that you don't like President Obama; that's fine. What I find most offensive about your post(s) is that you continually rub our faces into that disdain you have for President Obama. That's NOT cool. If we can try and stick to the facts, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Mixed Bag Posted:

The fact that I disagree with your interpretation of the cloture and filibuster situation in the Senate seems to irritate you. Sorry about that.

Mixed Bag, no need to be sorry - I just disagree with you. I am not irritated. We go back a ways, and I hoped that you know me better than that. I just think you are wrong, that's all. We are two gentlemen disagreeing on a post.

By the way, Pietro...

Since I began posting here months ago, I've been completely consistent in my views about the likely outcome of November's midterms.

Mixed Bag, actually, you are correct here. you HAVE been consistent in your feeling that the Republicans will take over one or both chambers of Congress. I am not convinced that there is enough impetus for that to happen, but it is still early.

You have a habit of calling me "wrong" in situations where, objectively, there is no right or wrong...simply a matter of opinion. If I disagree with your opinion...you declare me wrong. Sorry again, but I believe that's an inappropriate use of the word, Pietro. A minor thing perhaps, but still...

Mixed bag, I think you are reading more into my use of the word 'wrong' than you should. There is no malice behind me calling you out when I think you are wrong. You are pretty good at nuanced posts, and how you are able to split hairs like you do is a REAL talent.

Now, if I an wrong in my assessment, and you are correct , then I have no problem getting back on here stating that fact publicly. I am sure you would enjoy that immensely.

Besides - you should know by now that I LIKE stating that you are wrong, and thatis hard to do most of the time with your posts. There is no NEGATIVE connotation there and I am sure that if you think you are right, you will argue your point valiantly.

Of course, you could say I was wrong...

Nice collection of Conservative narratives and talking points Jim, including;

The strategy of calling the media Liberal when even Conservative leaders don't believe it. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

The narrative that Liberals are the elitists, rather than the Conservative machine that works to divert as much money and power to the top as possible. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1

The message, missed by the larger society but not at all subtle to Evangelical Christians that our President is an unholy, false Messiah. http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/obama-false-prophet-or-anti-christ-liberal-hordes-herald-him-as-messiah/

The Big Lie that Barack Obama is a Socialist though there's no truth to the claim. http://sethkahn.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/why-obama-isnt-a-socialist/

And finally the drum beat of "redistribution of wealth", ignoring that the powerful benefactors of the Conservative Movement have been moving wealth UPWARD for over a generation. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Jim, you have been served! Nice job, John.

John B.

Nice post.

Income Gains at Top Have Outpaced All Other Groups Since 1979

The gap in income between the wealthiest Americans and all others has grown strikingly in recent decades, the CBO data show. In 1979, when the data begin, the average after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent of households were 7.9 times higher than those of the middle fifth of households. By 2007, top incomes were 23.9 times higher than those of the middle fifth — a more than tripling of the income gap.

The gap between the top 1 percent and the poorest fifth of Americans widened even more sharply. In 1979, the incomes of the top 1 percent were 22.7 times higher than those of the bottom fifth. By 2007, top incomes were 74.6 times higher than those at the bottom — more than tripling the rich-poor gap in 28 years

The CBO data also shows that between 1979 and 2007:

*The average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of the population nearly quadrupled, from $347,000 to over $1.3 million. As noted, this represented an increase of $973,100, or 281 percent, per household.

*By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose from $44,100 in 1979 to $55,300 in 2007 — a relatively modest gain of $11,200 or 25 percent.

*The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose from $15,300 to $17,700, an increase of $2,400 or 16 percent.

*The CBO figures show that the nation’s income has grown substantially since 1979; if this growth had been shared more broadly, most groups would have seen much larger gains. For the nation as a whole, after-tax household income increased 55 percent from 1979 to 2007, adjusted for inflation. If all groups’ incomes had grown by 55 percent, the average income of the bottom fifth of households would have been $23,710 in 2007 (rather than $17,700) and the average income of the middle fifth would have been $68,342 (rather than $55,300).

Instead, the wealthiest households reaped a sharply growing share of the nation’s income, while the share going to middle- and lower-income households shrank.

If you want to attack Jones for what he's doing fine, but don't have the audacity to think only Republicans are Christians or that ALL Christians are as evil as the nut-job Jones down in FL.

True. And are you willing to admit that not all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?

Yes dirt, there are many Democrats among Christian congregations including me. Thanks for doing the right thing and mentioning that as well as declaring Rev. Jones' little Koran burning to be the evil it in fact is.

As a Christian and proud Liberal I resent the Jones of the world who claim the mantle of Christianity for a hateful, self-centered, power-serving agenda. All Christians certainly aren't like him, but those who are present an image of Christianity that's actually destructive to the faith.

Don't have to "admit" anything, Houston, because i do NOT "believe" all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. And, I don't think you can point to anything I've ever written that would give that impression. I guess if you had the impression of me, though, I should thank you for your challenge so I could make it perfectly clear where I stand on Muslims.

Personally, I think there is the possibility for evil in all races and religions, but that doesn't mean you denigrate ALL of the race or all of the religion because of the deeds of a few. Doing that is a very bothersome tactic at this site, from many sides and is more of a problem from some posters than others. Stereotyping a whole set of people by saying ALL isn't right or fair.

I was going to throw down the gauntlet, Houston, and challenge you to "admit" but then that would be me making an assumption about you, as you did about me. I have no right to assume anything about you or to denigrate what you believe as long as you don't throw hate at those who disagree with you. The right to civilly disagree is what makes this country great!

Dirt

Your a coward. You spew and spew but when the topic is turned around you run and hide. You must be spoon fed hyprocisy like all of the other Repubs and CONServatives.

Thank you for your comments, John, I totally agree. I find nothing Christian about the planned Koran burning by Jones and his group. "Love one another" is a good rule to live by.

Nicely put, Dirt. We rarely agree on anything but we DEFINITELY agree here.

That Quran burning is just plain WRONG. Can you imagine the outrage if some group of Muslims wanted to burn Bibles? These same people would want to invade those lands because of that.

It's all good, dirt. We may go at it hammer and tongs on politics but that's just the world. The particular denomination to which I belong phrases it thusly:

"In essentials Unity. In nonessentials Liberty. In all things Love."

Pietro, I cannot imagine what the response to a Bible burning might be. What Jones (I won't call him Reverend !) and his group are doing is horrific. It does show that when one group thinks they know better than everybody else, that their beliefs are more important than others there will be trouble! Religious intolerance makes me so sad. Some of my European ancestors were on those little tiny boats, that left their world in part for the right to worship.

John, what a lovely phrase. Wow, what a world we'd be if everybody could live those principles!

You're both correct we don't always agree though sometimes we're closer in thought than you might think. It's that diversity of thought, though, I believe, that makes us a richer society. I do think we all agree, however, in the basic rights given to us.

Have a great day!

UnionBaby, TN;

It is that mentality that allowed the big shots at Wall Street to get tens of Millions of dollars in salary and bonuses to put this country in the dumpster. You have CEO from HP that farms jobs out to overseas, get fired for mismanagement and now runs for office. You have a business man who financially ruined virtually every company that he had and he became president. Health care CEO that gets record fines and is running for ploitical office.

Do we see a pattern here????

Like I said before and I'll say it again, November is coming!!!!!

Yes, it almost always comes right after October.

Yes and it looks like you poor folks in Az are gonna be stuck with that old man again, so sorry for you, so glad he is nothing to me.

But I won't be vacationing in Arizona after November unless you get rid of that awful governor !

PS Just kidding. I don't really believe in boycotts. I did go to Arizona once and it was very nice.

Amy, I was planning a trip there next spring, however, with the climate of hate and ignorance there now I have to put it on the back burner.

I dont like to go to places where I feel uncomfortable, especially when I spend a tidy sum to make it comfortable and worthwhile.

Yes, November is coming, and what does Arizona have to look forward to?

- More deficits

- less tourism dollars

- unbalanced budget

- budget cuts

- legal expenses that need to be paid

- joblessness because of the shrinking dollars being circulated

- economic backlash against SB 1070

Arizona, aren't YOU lucky!!

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

Yes, November is coming, and what does Arizona have to look forward to?

- More deficits

- less tourism dollars

- unbalanced budget

- budget cuts

- legal expenses that need to be paid

- joblessness because of the shrinking dollars being circulated

- economic backlash against SB 1070

Gee, it sounds like Arizona is like every other state in the country.

"Gee, it sounds like Arizona is like every other state in the country"

That WOULD be the logical outcome of the Republican tidal wave everyone's predicting.

But the rich will get richer, so in the eyes of the Conservative Movement it will be a success.

John B, Des Moines,IA: That WOULD be the logical outcome of the Republican tidal wave everyone's predicting.

But yet this all happened with a very leftist Democratic Congress, and a very leftist Democratic president. Funny how that works, isn't it? Spend your time tearing down businesses all day long, and they just don't perform as well as you think they should. Sure makes for some good populist politics though, but now we're seeing the results of that, and things don't look so good.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't John?

You mean the leftist Democrats that DIDN'T bring us a Public Option in HCR? The leftists who brought us a watered-down financial sector reform that doesn't even fully reverse the disastrous deregulation of the last 10 years? The leftists who have willingly put aside any potential investigation of Bush Administration lawbreaking in the interest of national unity? The leftists who arranged a gradual drawdown in Iraq and additional time to see what develops in Afghanistan? The leftists who are trying to pass small business tax breaks that are being blocked by Conservatives? The leftists who tabled climate change legislation? The leftists who gave 95% of Americans a tax break?

Of course the Conservative picture of a "leftist" has no basis in reality. Everything is about fabricating a narrative, and image. Everything is subordinate to making sure the elites get their ever increasing share of wealth and power.

John B, Des Moines,IA: You mean the leftist Democrats that DIDN'T bring us a Public Option in HCR? [And on and on]

You and your type really have it in for anyone you're told to hate. The "elites"? Just who are they? Talk about a fabrication. Talk about a strawman argrument. And without getting everything you want with respect to health care, now you pout about it? Obama is no dictator, and in this country Congress gets its say. Try Venezuela if you're looking for something more to your liking of one man rule.

And please, lets all quit with the "investigation of Bush Administration lawbreaking". Here's a clue, if it hasn't happened yet, it's not going to happen. And it's not going happen because there is nothing there to investigate. It's just yet another fabrication of Leftist ideology.

Lets hope you and your type enjoyed the last 20 months, but it appears you have not. That's as far Left of a government you're ever going to see in this country, and still you and your Liberal friends are unhappy. If you weren't happy with what Obama and the Democrats did up until now, then you'll never be happy. Good luck with that.

So is Christmas coming

Umm JS1, did I go on the attack? I said a more leftist administration would have INSISTED on a Public Option. I said a more leftist Congress would have INSISTED on investigations of the Bush Administration, just as the right PLANS TO investigate the Obama Administration. But your argument requires you to brand anyone to the left of Mitch McConnell as a dangerous radical so you insist on applying an imaginary label. Conservatism only works if everything else is deemed dangerous and unrealistic so you branded a perfectly rational and reasonable post as crazy. In the process you went off on a huge tangent that belies the desperate lengths of Conservatism.

I'm actually VERY happy with what the President has done to date. Granted the economy isn't improving fast enough to be much help to the Democrats this cycle, but the Bush Recession was the worst since Great Depression so it's not that big a surprise. On the balance we aren't losing 4 million jobs in 6 months like we did in the Bush Administration. Combat troops are out of Iraq and we know that Afghanistan won't be a multigenerational conflict as the Neocons promised. Financial and health insurance reforms aren't perfect but they're a big step in the right direction. Diplomacy is now the first means of dealing with foreign governments instead of a pretense to war. When Deepwater Horizon went down we had actual adults in government, people who were willing to look after the interests of the American tax payer instead of just writing BP a blank check and making excuses. Those on the left fringe are unhappy but I'd say it's a great start under difficult circumstances.

As for the "elites" that you can't see, I'd say that should be obvious. It's the top 20% that got 52% of the Bush tax cuts. It's the top 2% that Republicans are holding tax cuts for 98% of us hostage for. It's the upper class that amassed virtually all of the new wealth built over the last 30 years while the middle class languishes. It's the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and the other wealthy folks who subsidize the Conservative Movement to the tune of hundreds of MILLIONS of dollers per year, funding everything from the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation to the Tea Party movement. The Republican Party is built ENTIRELY to suit their needs because they are the source of money for the party. Conservatism exists to serve those new aristocrats.

I tend to agree there may need to be another civil war, but I won't be on the same side you are. Most pension funds are under funded, and the reason they are under funded is because the Republicans allowed Corporate America to pocket the money that should have been put into those funds and then to top things off they allowed the unregulated financial institutions to pull about 3 trillion out of everybody's 401k's while simultaneously making the taxpayers give them a trillion. Some people only think the wealthy should be allowed to retire in dignity, some don't, when the wealthy Republicans get up the nerve to take the peoples last safety nets away, Social Security and Medicare there very well could be civil war, because there should be.

w bush: Most pension funds are under funded, and the reason they are under funded is because the Republicans allowed Corporate America to pocket the money.

Your narrative doesn't hold up. The underfunded pensions are for government workers, not corporate workers. For years now the federal and state governments have been giving Cadillac benefits and pensions to their workers at the expense of the taxpayers. Just like with Social Security, the governments have "borrowed" against those pensions to fund more and more boondoggles. Now, just like SS, there is nothing but a set of IOUs in the funds where there should be money to pay for the benefits. The Democrats of course want to put the taxpayers on the hook a second time for something they already paid for.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/117291-businesses-and-unions-to-meet-on-possible-pension-disaster

JoAnnaSmith1, my narrative was quite accurate, a whole lot of "private" entities have vastly underfunded pension funds also, either way I don't see the unions as the "bad guy".

w bush: JoAnnaSmith1, my narrative was quite accurate, a whole lot of "private" entities have vastly underfunded pension funds also, either way I don't see the unions as the "bad guy".

That's because you're attempting to expand your narrative to include private business. That's not what the story is about. The issue biznine is referencing is about the $3 trillion dollar short fall for government pensions and benefits.

If corporations unfund or badly invest their pension/benefits plans, it's too bad for their retirees. For government workers though, it's looking like the taxpayers will have to bail them out.

JoAnnaSmith can always be counted on to prop up the Conservative meme that corporate is good, government is bad. As usual the facts don't back up the story http://www.accountingweb.com/item/100960 but not to worry. If she doesn't tell the same lie someone else will.

Republican electoral hopes depend on it.

JoAnnaSmith, Private pension plans are insured through the Federal Government also which puts the taxpayer at risk for them as well, your argument is invalid and a farce, just like the Republican Party. But hang in there maybe you will convince yourself otherwise directly.

JoAnnaSmith, Private pension plans are insured through the Federal Government

Insured is too strong of a word. Your talking about the Pension Benefit Guaranty Program. The program is not funded by taxpayers w bush. The program is there to have the government take over the pension payments for retirees of companies that go under.

Again, there is no taxpayer money funding the program.

And when the government takes over the underfunded Pension Plan and makes it whole, who pays for that????

US Navy:

And when the government takes over the underfunded Pension Plan and makes it whole, who pays for that????

That's just it, they don't make it whole. PBGC takes over any remaining pension assets from the company in distress/bankruptcyand becomes the manager of that pension fund. Because the fund is in distress, it probably isn't fully funded, so what ever is left over is what the pensioners get, minus the management fee charged by the government. On average, pension recipients get about half what is coming to them when their pensions are taken over by PBGC.

Thanks for walking it through to the end. Management enriches themselves, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/ underfunds the pension plan until it's insolvent, let's the PBGC take over, and walks away from the obligation that they negotiated with the union in what was thought to be good faith.

One more example of how we're just here to make the Captains of Industry more wealthy than they are already.

John B, Des Moines, IA: One more example of how we're just here to make the Captains of Industry more wealthy than they are already.

Which brings us full circle to where the federal and state governments are on the hook for $3 trillion in unfunded pension and benefits obligations for their workers. Because the governments have squandered that money by borrowing it from those funds without repaying them, do you think the taxpayers are obligated to pay into those funds a second time?

You know what my answer is.

Government employees work and pay taxes like everyone else. Stop trying to make it sound like a hand out. People find ways to skate on any job private or federal. If every government worker decided not to go to work for a week it would affect you much more than you believe.

Really JoAnnaSmith, private companies deliberately underfunded their pensions through DECADES of Republican deregulation and you're going to pin that on the government? If I get robbed in front of your house and you give me an old coat or a blanket to stay warm until I get home it isn't your fault I have no money. Private industry is robbing retirees of ordinary means in front of Uncle Sam's house. A more appropriate reaction would be for Sam to chase the robber down the street with a 2x4, but of course then Conservatives would complain that it wouldn't be "business friendly."

Tom you couldn't be more right. Untold thousands of government workers go to the workplace every day to teach our children, inspect our bridges, put out fires, direct our air travel, keep our food safe, and countless other important tasks. It's unconscionable the way Conservatives turn those employees into evil caricatures who only exist to steal the money of honest people. It's a great way to destroy the government, though, which is the real goal.

Biznine

Why not have your Wallstreeters take that a well. They did such a fine job w/ everyone elses 401Ks. Power to rich and let all the others scrape and beg for their scraps. You Repubs and CONServatives are Darwin's evolution on steriods if you believed in evolution that is.

John B, Des Moines,IA: private companies deliberately underfunded their pensions through DECADES of Republican deregulation

Sure. And while they were doing so, the little liberal and naive lambs of the Democratic party stood by bleating into the wind. And besides, at issue is the government underfunding of government workers pensions and benefits to the tune of $3 trillion dollars. You have nothing to say about that John? Nothing at all? That number puts corporations underfunding of pensions and benefits to shame. Government workers paid little to none into those funds John, it all came from taxpayers. Then the governments "borrowed" that money to pay for their little projects, and now it's gone.

Now the government is talking about doing a bailout of those funds, which will be a double-dip burden against the taxpayer. Are you for that John? Do you think the taxpayer should have to pay twice for the pensions and benefits of government workers, workers that have paid zero into their very own pension and benefits plans?

JS1, your argument is nonsensical on its face. How can the government "bail out" a debt it has ALWAYS owed? How many checks has the Federal Government bounced? Koch Industries, on the other hand, has gone hat in hand to the government to bail out their pension fund because the multibillionaire Koch brothers INTEND to bounce their pension checks.

Do you think the tax payers should have to bail out the pension funds of private companies so that the holders of the third largest fortune in the US have more money to spend on lobbying to get still BETTER treatment from the government? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1

Did you get that from Beck U. while you were in Beckistan?

biznine

The next Armageddon that this socialist will try and pass on to American taxpayers - union pensions. They are $3 trillion dollars in the hole. If democrats try that there will be a civil war.

The majority people know Unions mean better wages and benefits; tea baggers and the right apparently don't.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

We need another Ronald Reagan that has the guts to bust up these communist run unions

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: Red Ink Everywhere! Since that time, and every single day since Liberal Democrats have controlled the spending, our debt has INCREASED over four Billion dollars! EACH DAY!

Want more of that? Vote Democrat in November!

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

Or it could be that big corporations feel safe robbing the pension plans http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-corporate-pension-deficits-widen-june even though there's plenty of money in the till http://www.economist.com/node/16744122 because they have no consideration for anyone but themselves. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/

The elites of society know that Republicans have their backs, after all.

biznine

We need another Ronald Reagan that has the guts to bust up these communist run unions

• 1

• !

#25.3- Tue Sep 7, 2010 10:47 AM CDT
========================================================================

Great idea biznine, and while we are at it maybe we can bring back the "company store", I mean really it is a societal tragedy when people make enough money to pay their bills and eat especialy when that money could obliviously be better used to get a new set of wire spoked hub caps for the CEO's Beamer, the commoner has no business contemplating a dignified retirement when we all know they should work until they are no longer productive then just wander off into the woods and die, think of the bugs, bacteria and critters that could benefit from their worthless corpse, and no costly burial either, that should be reserved for the more affluent, we all know where you are coming from biznine but some of us would rather not go there.

John B., Des Moines, IA: The elites of society know that Republicans have their backs, after all.

You mean, like Obama and his administration have the unions backs? Is there any question remaining that the Obama administration has chosen sides when Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is shouting how much she loves the unions like she did at Obama's campaign rally in Milwaukee yesterday?

And how many jobs have unions created again? Zippo.

So keep it up Liberals, keep your foot on the necks of corporations telling them everyday how greedy, awful, and incompetent they are. Lets see where that gets you.

Obama has earned his anti-business label honestly.

Yes, unions ARE one of the favorite bogeymen in the Conservative fairy tale, aren't they? Even in this regard the Obama Administration isn't the raging Liberal machine the Republicans claim. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-diary/2009/02/union_unhappy_with_obamas_labo.html

But let's say they were. Since the rich have a political party that they bought and paid for, willing to bring them anything they want, isn't it a good thing if the other political party is willing to look out for the interests of the rest of us? Since Conservatives are willing to kill tax breaks for 98% of us because the other 2% are more important, isn't it a good thing that Liberals stand up for the working person? Since Republican support groups get the support of hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars per year from their elite benefactors, isn't there a need for SOMEONE to kick a little an an effort to hold back the tide of PR?

John B, Des Moines, IA: But let's say they were. Since the rich have a political party that they bought and paid for, willing to bring them anything they want, isn't it a good thing if the other political party is willing to look out for the interests of the rest of us.

Who do you mean "us"?

Obama is President of the United States. He is not the President of the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, and the American Federation of Teachers. Maybe in time he'll realize that, but I have my doubts.

Since I was speaking of the rich "the rest of us" would be those who aren't already wealthy and powerful. Keep trying to sell that story that Democrats only work for the unions when 95% of Americans got a tax break. It wasn't a tax break where 20% get over half the money like a Conservative plan, either.