US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Great post have you ever known the Republicans to keep any promise? They even broke their promise to the Tea Baggers. Yes, this unemployment rate refutes the right's claim....

Unemployment Rate drops to 9.0%

Navy:

Excellent way to end the week. A post full of accurate facts. Unemployment is slowly drecreasing and as you stated, the GOP has broken another promise to the people.

BTW, our President is doing an excellent job working to resolve the crisis in Egypt.

Great job USN, you covered a lot of ground there. Job creation is a little weak in January, but for 2011 is still expected to be double the pace of 2010. That despite action by the GOP on everything EXCEPT jobs so far in the new Congress. Imagine what how it could be if Conservatives cared about more than just satisfying the narrow ideological interests that they've assembled into a coalition.

Well, the latest jobs report for January is like one of those “good news/bad news” jokes. Yeah the jobless rate fell to 9%, and that’s the good news. The bad news punchline is that it didn’t fall because of a big wave of new jobs being created by the economy with pathetic 36,000 jobs created in January.

Yeah, yeah, the FR lefty liberals are going to tout the good news and try to ignore the bad news. The reality is that if the economy isn’t creating an average of 125,000 jobs a month, it isn’t even keeping up with the increase in population entering the workforce. And the economy isn’t anywhere near that minimum 125,000 new jobs per month. And according to Bernanke yesterday, it won’t be there anytime soon:

From MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON — The United States can't fully recover from the worst recession in decades until hiring improves, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday.

The economy is strengthening, and will likely grow at a faster pace this year as more confident consumers and companies spend more, Bernanke said in prepared remarks to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. But he warned that the growth won't be strong enough to quickly drive down high unemployment, and it could take several years before it returns to more normal levels.

“Until we see a sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the recovery to be truly established,” he said.

Departure

The Egyptian government has suggested that foreigners are to blame for the unrest, and some foreign journalists have come under attack by angry mobs. One Asian TV reporter described the attacks as a “campaign of intimidation".

Republican Sen. John McCain agrees. Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld was right about McCain being in front of cameras for attention since McCain is now a firewall for the democracy virus he claims is spreading the the world , the Muslim Brotherhood. Don’t you just love it when the right accuses the President of being in cohorts with the MB?

Would somebody please hypnotize Glenn beck & Swan Hannity so they can stop fear mongering about the Caliphate world domination. They even have poor old Mc Cain believing them.

Historians in a 2010 Siena College poll ranked the greatest and worst presidents. Reagan came in 18th, three behind Barack Obama and five behind Mr. Clinton. He scored high marks on leadership, communication ability and “luck,” but was rated near the bottom on “intelligence. Ditto intelligence for DodoTea baggers Sarah Palin or Mihelle Bachmann should either of them by some corrupt voter fraud funded by the Koch should become President. BTW: The 2008 Rubber Dodo Award winner Sarah Palin will speak where conservatives and neo conservative pay homage to the “Great Commentor, Ronald Reagan at a banquet on Friday night in Reagan's honor in Santa Barbara, near his beloved ranch.

I’m sure the Rubber Dodo winner’s address won’t have the effect as a Warhol silkscreen hanging on a wall.

Mind you Reagan is thePresident who gave us massive income inequality plus, Ronald Reagan tripled the deficit. As former Vice President Cheney said Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Huh? Tell that to the GOP/Tea Baggers that. Paul Ryan wamts to cut basic domestic spending by at least $43 billion this year through reductions domestic government agencies to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels; but allow defense spending to increase? Republicans Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich argued a bankruptcy option might prevent states from ever having to go bankrupt because it would be such a powerful weapon against unions. The first cut is the deepest and hurts the most. But, that’s crazy republican thought for you. Never mind that their plan that will cost jobs with cuts in education funding that will make America less competitive, medical research to cure diseases , highway and bridge repairs who cares if you those potholes or a bridge should crumble? Not the republicans; especially the Young Gun Paul Ryan’s spending spree on the military. No wonder folks think he looks like Eddie Munster. Paul Ryan is a scary dude.

Good news on the job report Support democracy not Ruperch Murdoch’s Daily.

I wanna give a shoot out to Anderson Cooper for kicking Greta Van Sustern’s butt in ratings the other night. And of course, all the journalists and camera crews how risk their lives to bring us the news; that includes foreign journalist too. Stay safe you are in our hearts, thoughts, and prayers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Right in the first post, exactly as I predicted:

Just saw on MSNBC a few minutes ago the unemployment rate has dropped from 9.4% to 9.0% today. The jobs creation was a little lackluster in that only 50,000 new private sector jobs were created failing short of expectations and the hourly pay rate has increased by 0.40%. So, the unemployment rate continues down, 13 consecutive months we have added private sector jobs and manufacturing has increased production for 18 consecutive months. This kinda makes the argument from the right on this board that President Obama's agenda has been a total 100% failure BS.

Lets see, 36,000 jobs created last month, doesn't even come anywhere close to the 200,000 needed per month to just stay even with population growth. Unemployment drops, but that's only because people have quit looking. Obama is busy throwing one of the Wests key allies to peace in the Middle-east (Mubarak) under the bus, others friends of the West are certainly soon to follow. And Obama's ObamaCare plan has now been deemed unconstitutional by a Federal judge in 26 states.

It all adds up to just another week of failure for the Obama administration. Same old, same old.

Hope and Change, Yes We Can, and all that . . . .

You knocked that one out of the park Navy!

Looks like the 'tea baggers' got 'swindled' again!

Boehner & Co. has kicked the hornets nest! And the little drones will not be too happy! lmao

*stands & applauds*

@ Bev! How that coffee GF? ;o)

I'm going to get into some budget weeds because there's so much misinformation out there (including the FR blurb yesterday and your cut and paste post today) regarding how much the Republicans are actually proposing to cut the federal budget. The budget that is currently on the table for consideration by Congress is the president's FY11 request. The FY10 budget is a done deal, appropriations for that were passed over a year ago.

Currently we're in FY11, but no FY11 budget has been approved by Congress as yet. So FY11 activities are being funded under a Continuing Resolution Authority (CRA), which is a short term funding device Congress often uses until they pass a permanent budget measure. CRAs typically constrain programs to spending at the rate approved in the previous budget year. In the current case, FY11 government activities are being funded at FY10 levels.

When the media tosses out $32 billion as the number for the proposed Republican cut, they are being disingenuous at best and outright misleading at worst. The first thing to understand is that government programs have already taken hit because the FY11 work they had planned is currently only being funded at the FY10 level. The $32 billion dollar number is a cut over and above the cut government programs are already experiencing. So a more meaningful metric is to compare the proposed Republican cut to the levels in the FY11 budget request. And that cut comes to about $74 billion.

There's a little more to this too. Folks may recall the Democrats tried to pass an omnibus FY11 appropriation in the lame duck session that basically wrapped all the individual appropriations bills into one huge package. The Republicans opposed that bill and were able to block it. By taking that action Republicans forced Congress to extend the CRA to fund the government's FY11 activities – i.e., the Republicans forced government programs to continue spending at FY10 funding levels in FY11and thereby take a cut. One of the main reasons Republicans blocked the bill was because they knew they could make even deeper cuts in the next Congress when they took control of the House. And that's exactly what's playing out now.

If I'm watching a talking head on the tube and hear them use the $32 billion number, I can almost (but not quite) give them a pass since they only have 20 or 30 seconds to explain this complicated issue. But the internet media and the print media don't operate under that constraint, so there's no excuse for them to not provide their audience with the fuller story of what's going on. Of course in FR's case with their fuzzy math, it's just another in a continuing series of examples that show their shoddy work for all the world to see.

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=256

Lets see, 36,000 jobs created last month, doesn't even come anywhere close to the 200,000 needed per month to just stay even with population growth.

And yet your celebrating this 'news'...

Guess Rush was right - you all WANT to see this country fail!

*shakes head*

Joe in Albany

Well, the latest jobs report for January is like one of those "good news/bad news" jokes. Yeah the jobless rate fell to 9%, and that's the good news. The bad news punchline is that it didn't fall because of a big wave of new jobs being created by the economy with pathetic 36,000 jobs created in January.

Must you always look on the dark side?

We've yet to see any job created by the Republicans and House Majority Leader John Boehner; unless you consider bedding a lobbyist one.

JoAnna Smith

Where is your condemnation of the Repubs in your statement? They have the House and all they have done so far is try to undo everything Obama has done. If they would stop diddling the Lobbyists and work on getting their friends in the business world to start hiring again, then the rest of us might believe that they are better than we now see them as low life scum sucking, puppets for the special interests.

To all those righteous Republicans bemoaning the low rate of job creation.....just exactly how many jobs did Bush create? and how many jobs did his tax cuts create?? As JSMith1 answered so this question so eloquently a few months ago when I asked "Not Many"

JS1,

Is the number of jobs needed to keep up with population growth the 125,000 Joe says or the 200,000 you report? The largest number I ever heard was 150,000.

If you only use the 125k that would mean that the last administration should have created 12 million jobs not just 1 million – epic fail.

Great post Bill. Excellent facts.

The Left-wing media will attack and discredit all the good things the Republicans are trying to do. They'll play games with the numbers, express dumbfounded pessimism for the goals of reducing the deficit, and try to make this yet another us-against-them conflict for the "poor people that will be experiencing these draconian cuts". The budget though is a process, a means to an end. Someone either gets control on the budget, because if they don't, the budget will soon be controlling us. We just cannot spend at the rate the Democrats want to spend. The Democrats have embedded more and more entitlement spending in the budget, and it's at the point that we as a country just do not have the means of sustaining those levels of spending. What this does, and just like with the states, is it keeps kicking the hard decisions about the budget down the road. We're seeing the results already, public employees are starting to be pink slipped, taxes are increasing, and government sector pensions will soon be defaulted on. All because we cannot cut the budgets of both the federal and state governments.

Feisty;

They are a predictablebunch are they not. They cannot argue the facts so they continue making noise. I was surprised at the 9.0% myself and I watch that cautiously. I want to see a series of low numbers so we can see a pattern before I break out my 12 year old hootch. But, with that being said, many are saying the low job creation numbers are in construction, leisure, vacation spots, typically job markets that are impacted by weather in areas of the country that have had major storm after major storm. Most economists are still saying that the 2011 numbers will be better than the 2010 numbers overall. Time will tell.

A big number that we should not forget as it is real and has nothing to do with weather is that the hourly rate increased 0.40% which is a solid increase. They were expecting about 0.10%. Couple that with lower taxes for the Middle Class they now have a little more pocket money that will find its way back into the economy and the cycle continues.

36,000 jobs created this mob- far below the number needed to keep up with the numbers entering the labor force.

So, how, exactly, does BLS achieve a drop in the unemployment rate?

By re-categorizing another 162,000 as "out of the labor force"- in other words, discouraged workers.

We are hitting new levels of cupidity with this.

Hi Navy,

GREAT.

Thanks

The unemployment numbers are a complete fabrication and mean absolutely nothing. A half-century ago, when our economy had taken war materiel manufacturing facilities and turned them to the production of consumer goods, employment skyrocketed. Returning G.I.'s found work, women had become an important component of the work force and we had money to spend, spend, spend.

Those days are gone AND they will never return. A half century ago a bone of contention among economists was whether a "full-employment" economy was measured at 3% or 4%. Today, we are ready to cheer if it comes down to 8%. Three, four, or eight per cent; those numbers are meaningless AND are in fact, far too low. Productivity - in large part the result of robotics - has rendered vast numbers of jobs obsolete and unnecessary. Cheap labor outside U.S. borders has replace many more. The consumption economy is no longer viable, as markets are saturated.

We have heard that we cannot accept nine or ten per-cent as the new normal in a "full-employment" economy. That is absolutely true. The new "normal" is probably upwards of 25%.

We simply MUST understand that those "full employment" numbers reflect PAID employment. That includes such jobs as day care providers, assisted living employees, school aides, and the like. What so many jobs like that have in common is government subsidies, credits, and so on and that they are service jobs. We had better begin to understand that unless we wish to plummet to third-world status, we are going to have to accept work that rightly should be handled by us - NOT the government.

We used to call day-care providers Mothers. That is not to say, Fathers cannot handle this role. Either parent can handle this work, and they'd damned well better start doing it - right now. There is tremendous value in this work although the pay is awful. Running errands, shopping, cleaning house, helping with homework, growing food in the garden, and as any domestic god or goddess knows, the list goes on and on and on. That work has value and it is reflected in moneys that no longer go out of the house.

People who worked in the assisted living world we once called relatives. Today, they can shirk that responsibility, they can pretend they don't owe their existence to their elders who need care, AND they can expect the government to pick up the tab. "Thanks Mom and Dad. Thanks Gramma and Grampa, and thank you taxpayers for doing MY job."

There is a long and extensive list of work that we can and should be doing ourselves. I can hear it already. "Not me! Not me!" Really? If not you, then who? A government drowning in red ink, that's who.

Reality, anyone?

As per usual, when bad news strikes, the Lefties don't want to talk about Obama, who is now over half way done with only 4 years in office, but they do want to talk about Bush. It used to be the Libs whined "Oh, give Obama a chance, he hasn't implemented all his plans yet, we have to be patient with getting the positive results". Two years of Obama, and nothing but bills to pay for jobs that were never created. Of course, the House has been in GOP hands for what now, 30 days, and the Libs are already stomping their little feet having these hissy fits and shouting to the GOP "Where are the jobs!".

That is just so special.

"The Left-wing media will attack and discredit all the good things the Republicans are trying to do."

The only thing I see Republicans doing is trying to get back into power. Wasilla needs a new sports complex, baby!

It was the tax cuts that has spurred the Economic growth.. NOT

@Amy

"The only thing I see Republicans doing is trying to get back into power."

And Axlerod and Plouffe are in Chicago doing what?

Amy:

Funny how now that the unemployment rate fell, those numbers mean absolutely nothing and are wrong. But when they were around 10% the GOP could not rub our faces in it enough. Just like the CBO, when their numbers supported the Republican agenda they were GOD, when they supported the democrats they became the spawn of the devil. Hypocrites all of them.

JoAnnaSmith1

As per usual, when bad news strikes, the Lefties don't want to talk about Obama, who is now over half way done with only 4 years in office, but they do want to talk about Bush.

It used to be the Libs whined "Oh, give Obama a chance, he hasn't implemented all his plans yet, we have to be patient with getting the positive results". Of course, the House has been in GOP hands for what now, 30 days, and the Libs are already stomping their little feet having these hissy fits and shouting to the GOP "Where are the jobs!".

That is just so special.

I suppose you're right after 30 days is a bit impatient. However, what I find rather unusal is...

a. The President hasn't failed. You really nneed to get with. Read the polls not Fox-mussens

b. I will not hesitate to tell you. After 30 days there is nothing new apart from the same things that got us in this predictament tax cuts for the rich, deruglations for the rich, and the wasting away of tax dollars on lawsuit to undo progress, and spending and wasting time to investigate the President by Darrell Issa.

Those are double standards.

Now Crew is ivestiagatining his corruption. HaHA

http://www.citizensforethics.org/industry-response-to-issa-letter-table

So 32B too small according to the posters here, but

"Reid blasts House GOP proposal as 'draconian' and 'unworkable'

What would he have called 100B in cuts of a 1.5T deficit?

If the Repubs would actually work with the Dems on job creation, then our country would be much better off. But no, the Repubs are still trying to work on the middle class giving up more of their benefits to make up the losses from the greed and mismanagement that the Bush-Chaney years brought in. The Repubs are on the wrong side of what is good for the working class. They might be good for the top 2% but not for the rest of us. I guess it is a myth that the Repubs can create jobs and grow the economy and Dems spend too much. It appears that just the opposite has been what has been happening in recent years.

Navy: that post was so good that all the right wingers want to be the first to come out huffing and puffing about their usual "It's President Obama's fault, because..ummm, because....I HATE him, he is black and a Democrat and he has an unusual sounding name". While it is amusing, it does get old. Boehner et al have shown us that they have no interest in middle American, they just want to further the culture wars, particularly against women. Is that what all of you on the right wanted them to do?

You can not have it both ways either. You can not scream "make government smaller" and expect the jobs number to go up. Private sector jobs increased (not nearly as much as we would like them to) but public sector jobs were eliminated, which cut the overall number.

Repubs need to do a rewind.

Boehner, Cantor and The Turtle constantly cried to 'The American People' and against the Obama Administration.....WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

Yup, you got it.............Repubs, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

NoJoe: "We are hitting new levels of cupidity with this".

Gosh, first I thought you were just rushing things a bit with Valentine's Day, but then I thought hey, maybe it is a real word, so I looked it up:

cupidity:strong desire, esp for possessions or money; greed

[from Latin cupiditās, from cupidus eagerly desiring, from cupere to long for]

I leave it to the rest of you to draw your own conclusions as to where that one came from!

Still laughing JoAnne! Good catch!

Alan NJ: What would he have called 100B in cuts of a 1.5T deficit?

Hardly even an adequate start. That's only 6% of the deficit spending. For overall federal spending, about $4.5 trillion, it's only a 2% reduction.

"Reid blasts House GOP proposal as 'draconian' and 'unworkable'

2% of the budget Harry.

We really need to clean out that city.

Bill and JoAnna, you two do realize the GOP knew the budget had already been extended under the CRA before they promised to cut 100 billion out of it don't you. Or is it better for your argument to just forget that bit of information.

Excellent point dapenate. Conservatives want to dramatically reduce government employment while the economy is still not strong. Somehow pulling all those paying jobs out of the economy is supposed to produce enough additional private sector demand to more than make up for the loss in government jobs.

Hang on, new day, it gets even better - from the freedictionary.com thesaurus:

"cupidity - extreme greed for material wealth

avariciousness, covetousness, avarice

greed - excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves"

Sound like any particular wing of a political party to you?

JoAnne, PA:

Great catch. Touche'

And good Lord, even Canada is out-pacing US job creation, 2x as many jobs created in Canada with 69,000 jobs, and they have 1/10th of our population! Of course unlike the US, Canada's jobless rate increased, that's because more people are getting back in an improving market, while in the US the labor force is leaving the market, just giving up looking for work. Pathetic.

So are any one on the Left ready to admit that the trillion dollars of stimulus money that Barack/Nancy/Harry cooked up didn't stimulate anything?

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/canada-adds-69-200-jobs-in-january-while-jobless-rate-increased-to-7-8-.html

Fits to a "T", especially the poster who used it.

Good grief, there's so much to say. I MUST begin here with JAS1, however:

Lets see, 36,000 jobs created last month, doesn't even come anywhere close to the 200,000 needed per month to just stay even with population growth. Unemployment drops, but that's only because people have quit looking. Obama is busy throwing one of the Wests key allies to peace in the Middle-east (Mubarak) under the bus, others friends of the West are certainly soon to follow. And Obama's ObamaCare plan has now been deemed unconstitutional by a Federal judge in 26 states.

It all adds up to just another week of failure for the Obama administration. Same old, same old.

First of all, January is historically a low point in not only job creation, but job retention. Thousands upon thousands of seasonal workers are let go, while typically manufacturing eases back for about 6-8 weeks (depending on the industry). And in the past month, a great deal of economic activity simply stopped consequent to some of the most devastating weather in history.

Yet despite that, one of the reasons that the jobless rate dropped was because a surprising number of people usually hired only as seasonal workers were offered continued employment - signs of confidence in the economy, as well as a direct response to the small business investment and employment act the President got through Congress just before the elections. Yes, the Bearuau of Labor Statistics does also pare "discouraged workers" from the employment statistics - this is a technique originally introduced by the Reagan Administration to jigger the figures when after one of his recessions, unemployment stayed stubbornly high (nearly 20% in some hard-hit areas).

The crack about a Federal judge is, of course, misleading. At least two other Federal judges have held ACA Constitutional. The judge in Florida also put a complete stay on his finding, recognizing that this matter will be tested in higher courts - to suggest that judges in 26 states did this is, naturally, a piece of propaganda created by not including ALL the facts of the matter, since the case involved numerous states all together in ONE action.

To claim that the President is "throwing one of the West's key allies under the bus" is an utter absurdity. In fact, the Administration's approach - made quite clear today with reports from Egypt - has been to make possible a more peaceful, ordlerly transition of power under the Egyptian Republic's Constitution. (Yes, folk, they have one, complete with a two-house legislature.) It now seems that Vice President Suleiman (who some reports claim began calling the shots days ago, and may have been responsible for the pro-Mubarak attacks on the protest crowds) will step into the president's post, and assemble a caretaker coalition administration that includes opposition parties. Whether that measure would give the Muslim Brotherhood any access to office is unclear, but it appears that the Obama Administration is attempting to limit or entirely bar access to power by the Brotherhood.

This is NOT throwing Egypt under the bus - it's actually a very conservative approach to protecting American interests in that country. I recommend to any of you who actually care about this subject the outstanding work of William ppleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 2009 anniversary edition.

President Obama, consistent with the strategies of American diplomacy and economic self-interest first articluated by Republican President William McKinley in the late 1890's and followed in a relatively unborken manner since, has declared he will respect the right of the people of Egypt to self-determination (one of President Wilson's 14 Points, some of you may recall). He is using strong American ties to the Egyptian military establishment, crucial to a peaceful and orderly resolution of the disorders, as a channel to broker events.

In a sense, by taking those measures, the President, as all of our Presidents of the 20th Century before him, is in fact interfering with popular expression of self-determination - in the cause of American interests in Egypt. And this is not throwing a key ally under the bus, it is protecting a vital alliance.

As for David Walker's post, more than half a century ago, changing social structures, demographics, and population distribution made it clear that child care services, long-term care for the elderly, and other programs were essential. I recall quite well at the time that some right wing commentators claimed the country was following the lead of the USSR by "taking our children away for state indoctrination" in child care programs. That was absurd then and your comments now are euqally absurd. They do not reflect in any sense the reality of our people's lives and needs, nor can you roll back time to a point where they will.

Nor was life in some halcyon time of the past actually much like the image you paint. One of the strongest arguments for Social Security in 1933 was the abject misery and poverty of America's abandoned elderly - who were not in straitened circumstances because of improvidence as self-righteous righties love to claim.

Now, thanks to steadily-declining relative standards of living for the middle and lower economic classes since the era of Ronald Reagan, two-income households are largely essential. Child care help is vital - twenty years ago when I was caring for twins and an infant as a single father, there were no tax breaks or "subsidies" of any kind available - and day care for my kids cost more than a quarter of my monthly net income. One of the tools President Clinton sought to employ in his "welfare to work" program was child care help that certainly mothers on public assistance couldn't afford. It was a wise idea.

Folk, we must remember something: "The good old days" - weren't.

Bill and JoAnna, you two do realize the GOP knew the budget had already been extended under the CRA before they promised to cut 100 billion out of it don't you. Or is it better for your argument to just forget that bit of information.

For once, it would be nice if you got your facts straight Mo. The first CRA was passed on Sep 30, 2010. It's HR 3081, you can look it up. The Republican Pledge to America was released on Sep 23, 2010. You can look that up too.

JoAnnaSmith:

Those are some seriously strong bands you have wrapped around your head to keep it from exploding.

Surely you aren't citing Canada as an example of an economy that is working, are you? Those guys have socialized health care. How can this be?

To answer your question, no objective person, whether from the left or the right is going to admit that the "trillion dollars of stimulus money.....didn't stimulate anything." There are two reasons for this. First, there was no "trillion dollars". It was less than that, and a substantial portion of the stimulus came in the form of tax cuts. Secondly, it is widely accepted as fact that the money dedicated to direct stimulus DID work, DID what was planned, and DID mitigate crashing employment numbers.

Your posts this morning are even more frenzied than usual. Truly, you make a contortionist look like a petrified tree.

JoAnne:

Without a doubt, you have my vote for the best rebuttal post of the day.

JoAnne scores two, NJ remains at zero.

Little over a month ago Conservatives were claiming that extended unemployment benefits were actually increasing the unemployment rate by being a cushy life to lead, so they blocked further extension in the Senate.

Now, as unemployment recipients all over the country are forced off the rolls every day they're dropped from the count of the unemployed. Somehow that's the Democrats fault.

None of which changes the fact that the economy is continuing to improve without the help of Conservative, who took spending money (and therefore support for the economy) out of the hands of those most desperate.

Navy you are right, if we pull out of Afganistan now it will save billions of dollars. So my question is why will President Obama not pull the troops out?

Nice to see that the Obama tax cuts for the wealthy are creating jobs, since those were put in place and the Republicans took over the house 36,000 new jobs have been created. Thats not near enough jobs, but wow, tax cuts do create jobs. Its a good thing that President Obama and the Republican house agreed on them. Things are slowly starting to look up.

Bev:

1.25 - You would think that at least they would have had a plan by November. They campaign on creating jobs in America, problem - no plan or any ideas on how to do it. They campaign on improving the economy, problem - no plan or ideas on how to do it. They want to repeal the HCR Law, but replace it with what? Oh they want to replace it with most of the same provisons that are already Law. If you did that with a term paper in COllge you would have been expelled.

Now the talk about cutting spending, problem - only going to get 30% of what they promised, and that 30% comes on the backs (virtually 100%) of the Middle Class.

Bev: They almost act like winning in November was a big surprise?????

Ronnie in Indy: JoAnne scores two, NJ remains at zero

And you were appointed the scorekeeper by whom?

So, Bill in Fairfax ~ the GOP promised $100-billion in spending cuts. We can find $32-billion but your creative accounting methods reflect some $74-billion. That also translates that instead of being 66% liars, Republicans are only 26% liars. I suppose twisted logic could see that as an improvement.

John A. - Good morning to you too.

I have much work to do, but I fear you miss some very important points in my post. So, I am going to postpone my work, if for no other reason than to get you to reconsider your use of the word "absurd".

As you are well aware, our economic growth has been tied to consumption for quite some time. We are "consumed out". The proliferation of storage units and stuffed-to-the-rafters garages speaks in part to that reality. Consumption of durable goods will continue of course, but not to the extent that they can sustain our economy. Indeed most of those goods come from off-shore companies - flat panel TV's, cell phones, computers, etc. Apparel, tools, even furniture also come from off-shore companies, many of which are funded with American capital. Capital is exiting the U.S. at an alarming rate.

My position on this issue does not recommend a return to the past, so much as it recognizes today's economic realities. This is hardly the forum for a complete exposition, but let me offer a few points.

Energy is the key issue in our world; always was and always will be. With respect to the production of food - which is nothing more than a form of energy - we require vast amounts of oil; for fertilizer, for farming, for transporting, for processing. This also requires vast amounts of water, not only for the production of our foodstuffs, but for the actual production of the energy which powers the farming industry. (I don't have to spell out the complexity of this vast web. I know you know it.)

Our current production of energy is primarily reliant on coal, a filthy feedstock and a major contributor to global warming. (Denialists - butt out, I'm talking to John.) Hydro-power is far more expensive than we imagined. Siltation is a major cost we refuse to address, and if memory serves you were in NorCal when the gate at Folsom failed for want of a lousy bucket of grease. We don't do maintenance. Further, damage to estuaries and fisheries is terrible. While there is a rather noisy lobby extolling the virtues of natural gas, we know that fracking is a horrible method of extraction. We don't begin to understand the damage to aquifers. Nuclear power is beginning to look attractive, but in the hubbub we seem to forget that we still do not an answer to spent fuel. Oil as an energy feedstock is foolish in the extreme, not only because world reserves are continuing to decline, but because they also pollute.

Staying home is such an obvious answer to pressures on energy stocks I can't believe anyone would question this as an alternative. If social structures have changed in the past in response to the needs of the day, I would suggest that they should continue to evolve. This is most assuredly not a return to the past, but a continuing response to our energy needs.

Obviously, there are other changes that must occur. Population growth must not only be slowed, we must reduce the world's population. We must concentrate our populations in areas that can be effectively served with an eye towards efficiency, but also with an eye towards increasing the quality of life. Yes, I believe that less is more.

I hope you can see my point here. As I said at the top, this isn't simply material for an article, or even a book. This requires an understanding of our plight and a recognition that the undertaking of this change is incredibly huge and will be fought at every turn.

Finally, given your experience as the head of a single parent household, you are well-positioned to understand the value of a stay-at-home domestic god. (I knew this was going to get long.) I have to wonder how much of the changing social structures, demographics and the like to which you referred have come about as a result of unwise intervention. Social, political, and tax policy that subsidizes and promotes the production of children seems very unwise to me.

Lest this turn into a book, I will sign off knowing I have barely begun to articulate my thoughts on this subject.

John A., thanks for your rebuttal to JAS1's stream of consciousness. I too though there was so much to take issue with there. You handled it beautifully.

I am constantly amazed at the doubletalk, the obfuscation that comes back from the right. They seem to constantly change the target, the points of discussion, the rules of the game.

So, Bill in Fairfax ~ the GOP promised $100-billion in spending cuts. We can find $32-billion but your creative accounting methods reflect some $74-billion.

The accounting is actually quite straightforward. Check out the spreadsheet referenced in the link, even a simpleton like should be able to follow it. Oh, and you might want to ask the folks who work in the agencies affected by the proposed Repuiblican cuts exactly how "creative" they think the accounting is.

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=256

//

@USNDV

"The middle class uses the money to pay bills, buy food, clothes, books for school, etc. The 2% save the money and only Wall Street benefits."

Now I am not saying I agree with tax cuts (for anybody right now with the deficit being so high) but I do disagree with your statement. Yes, the middle class contribute to the economy through consumption but savings contribute to the economy through investment. That is the definition of capitalism. You think the top 2% have their money in a saving account getting a return of 1%? It is being used to create new companies and products - the IPO market is doing very well. It is disingenuous to claim that savings do not benefit the economy. In fact these investment are our future, not government picked winners.

PS I am also for getting out of Afghanistan now.

Janet,

Good to see someone from the other side optimistic about the job creation and hopeful for things improving. However, I would beg to differ a bit from your post. The republicans taking over the house has not played one iota of a role in job creation. Since the GOP has taken over they have not worked on legislation to create jobs. They have worked on abortion controls, HCR repeal and other fruitless endeavors.

Believe me I am happy that jobs were created and the unemployment numbers have dropped. However the extension of the tax cuts which you attribute for the newly created 36,000 jobs is relatively low. During the summer and earlier months Obama's policies sans tax cuts were creating more jobs. The 36,000 jobs is the least created in several months. I will not stop beating a dead horse that tax cuts don't work. The only way I will be convinced that the tax cuts worked is when I see 7% or less unemployment. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

I tend to agree with a portion of David Walker's post above, some jobs will not come back. The reasons have been enumerated by others before, outsourcing of jobs, loss of manufacturing and a lack of desire by our companies to see past the next quarter's profit margin and the country as a whole to see past the next election cycle. Whether you talk about the looming environmental and energy crisis or the rising deficit levels. People would rather ignore the first and exacerbate the latter by giving out more tax cuts.

Well it looks like we figured out who is the decider of who "won" and who "lost" - it's Ron.

Ron my man that is fantastic. You really are dazzling all us with your huge manly balls. You know the ones that allow you to post "the score" here in lefty libbie MSNBC-land. I have to wonder: do you ever take your bad ass over to a center, or heaven forbid, right leaning site and spout off? I know - it sure is warm and saf here in the house that GE built with all your libbie friends.

It's kind of like NewDay's amusing rants against Rush, et al. You know where she implores everyone here to boycott Rush. Really? While it certainly is daring to call for a boycott of a right winger here on a left wing website I'm thinking it's effectiveniess might be somewhat low.

And Ron, when you assign your score do you consider that you MAY be biased? Or how about the fact that the real fun around here is that it's what, like 20 to 1 left v. right in terms of sheer numbers. So maybe NOJO is the brave one and you are the punk? Just a thought. I wonder what Fiesty would say. Wait, we don't have to wonder, do we. We already know and she will certainly tell us. Again.

Now I know you are infatuated with NoJo, but dude. But hey you got Fiesty and Bev on your team, so you do got that. :)

And I know, I know - it's Ron 100, Spanky -1, right? No really, keep it up, the entertainment value is fantastic, particularly on a Friday.

I really do like this blog; it does make one laugh.

First we have a post of the day, initiated from talking point site. Perhaps either Louis J. or Navy is a paid employee of one of the lower-rated media outlets. Then we have the minions: Bev, Feisty Ron Indiana and Jon B. supporting anything the originator posts.

Ah, but the "cut&paste" twins, those "Libbienuts-for-Barry" are so funny with their comments.....from where do these morning talking points come from? Cut & Paste Bev, please list the sites you receive your info from. Are their racist sites you also visit?

So your saying Bill that on sept. 23 7 days before the CRA passed the GOP wasn't smart enough to realize what it meant? And they made their 100 billion promise anyway. Looks like the GOP doesn't have a clue whats going on in congress, kinda like you Bill.

USNAVY - I gotta hand it to you - that was an AWESOME post.

AWESOME.

The nay-sayers can natter on about nothing, as they seem to do hourly, but your post is right on the money.

Your post was exceptional.

Safecracker, I happen to know those folk you just trashed. NONE are "paid" for anything they do here. They are political junkies like nearly everyone else who frequents the FR blogs (of any persuasion). They also differ with each other, time to time, as do I.

But there do appear to be trolls who like to do a "swoop-and-poop" seagull act here. We suspect that some indeed are paid - and it's usually the ones that just write a few nasty lines, sprinkle disinformation from the ultra-right perspective, call a few names, and then slide off until another day. Your post has some of those qualities ....

The discouraging, and disheartening part of the broken promises made by the GOP, is that most of the republican voters I know, including the posters here on FR don't know they've been duped!

Dennis of ohio - regardless of whether 125k or 200k is the correct number. 36000 won't cut it.

Seeing that there is such a disparity in the totals + the fact that the numbers come from two different surveys, something obviously doesn't jive. Looks like we will have to wait for february and march numbers to make any sence out of january's numbers.

What I'm saying Mo is you don't have your facts straight, you rarely do.

Spanky: Well it looks like we figured out who is the decider of who "won" and who "lost" - it's Ron.

I find it amazing he, Ron, can be both the scorekeeper, and the Leading Lefty Cheerleader.

Quite the multi-tasker.

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio: USNAVY - I gotta hand it to you - that was an AWESOME post. AWESOME

Ooops. Might have spoke too soon on the Lead Cheerleader thing.

Retired says the GOP broke their promise of reducing the budget by 100 billion within the first year. And he indicates it will ONLY be 32 billion. The house GOP has been in office less than a month. We know that a liberal says he can heal the planet and make the oceans recede. Now we have Retired saying that 1 year is now less than one month. Simply amazing what the liberals can do. I guess that means I start getting my medicare and SS and can join Retired in just 12 months instead of 12 years!!. Thanks Navy for moving up my retirement date by 12 years. Where do I file?

Yellow-Mark Dog

The fact that the Obama tax cuts were signed into law provided a little stability for the job creaters to begin hiring just a little bit more people. You are absolutely correct we need many more jobs, and as we learned today people are beginning to feel a little bit more optimistic about consuming. Hopefully we will become more optimistic and continue our climb out of this mess. I myself plan to do some serious shopping this weekend. Hopefully that spur the economy just a little more.

fielden: I am constantly amazed at the doubletalk, the obfuscation that comes back from the right. They seem to constantly change the target, the points of discussion, the rules of the game

So, do tell, who exactly promised that unemployment would not go above 8%? Who exactly promised that millions of jobs would be created by the American Recovery and Reinventment Act of 2009? Who exactly promised that 400,000 jobs would be created a month? Who exactly talked of "shovel ready" jobs at every townhall meeting he held in 2009? Who exactly termed the summer of 2010 "Recovery Summer"?

And who now is changing the target, the points of discussion, and the rules of the game?

Hint: His first name is Barack.

Het Mo,

I just wanted to make sure you were aware, but on Sept. 30, 2010 the house and senate were still under a democrat majority. Now I realize that probably doesn't mean anything to you, but you should consider that those same democrats had the power to do anything to cut the deficit and chose not to. But that doesn't bother you. What bothers you is that Republicans promised to cut spending with, I'll admit it, an overly ambitious $100b, of which they were able to intially cut $32b (conservative estimate mind you)

How is that everyone agrees that we need to cut the deficit, but when the Republicans try to do something, they are torn down as not doing enough and breaking promises, but the democrats do absolutely nothing and you don't say a word... WTF? (and thats not winning the future mind you)

Why can't any of you support the attempt to cut spending as a place to start and go from there. Why can't you look at this as "Well, at least something is being done, now we have to keep going from here and find where else we can cut." The truth is it has to be your way or no way. There really is no ability from the left posters here to say that it is a good effort and that the people they support need to step up to the plate and do their part to control spending.

I say again, WTF??????

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/24/us-usa-economy-stimulus-idUSTRE6AH6CV20101124

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act put between 1.4 million and 3.6 million to work in the third quarter of this year, a time when more than 15 million Americans were unemployed, CBO said.

It also boosted national output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent during that time, the CBO said.

JoAnnaSmith:

No one - I repeat NO ONE - promised that unemployment would not exceed 8%. It was Christina Roemer who suggested that government intervention might keep the rate at 8%. How someone could mistake Christina Roemer for Barack Obama has to be a mystery on a par with quantum physics.

Find the promise of millions of jobs that would be created via ARRA. Find the promise of 400,000 jobs per month. (Get ready to learn that you cannot prove something that didn't happen.)

The "shovel ready" nonsense has been beaten to death. For someone who takes things as literally as you do, it is clear you have no understanding of the world - not only of government, but private enterprise as well. "Shovel-ready" is nothing more than a term for a project that's about ready to go. Let's see here, wasn't it you right-wing sorts who kept harping on the fact that Big Bidness wanted to do so very much, but just couldn't because they were just being crushed by the weight of uncertainty? How about those "shovel-ready" projects JoAnna?

As far as "Recovery Summer", well, the numbers show a steady recovery. You want miracles. That's another funny thing about you dogma food eaters. You are the ones who think the President is a messiah. You are the ones who expect miracles.

Now, I'll admit, there are occasions where I expect miracles myself. For instance, I have been expecting the Republicans to keep their word about creating jobs. Silly me!

John A.-400474

But there do appear to be trolls who like to do a "swoop-and-poop" seagull act here. We suspect that some indeed are paid - and it's usually the ones that just write a few nasty lines, sprinkle disinformation from the ultra-right perspective, call a few names, and then slide off until another day. Your post has some of those qualities ....

Trolls? Swoop-and-poop? Interesting John. so you are saying that anyone with what you classify as ultra-right perspective views are trolls, doing seagull work. Interesting - since I do disagee with your concept of liberties, or lack of them, am I then the troll or the poop?

Now for my previous comment, it was stated as an observation. The morning does start off with an e-post editorial, and supported by the usual posters, several that cut and paste from whatever site provides the daily liberal talking points. Had I wanted to trash someone, my comments would be more specific and direct.

And as the paid commentors on this site, a few may be compensated, but since this is a liberal owned site, promoting the libbie view, I am certain no conservative is paid......and if a conservative was paid by your famous conservative station with the high ratings, the position postings would be more articulated than a line or two of dribble. But, thanks for the comments and the troll statement. Must go off to earn large sums of cash to try and get myself into the top 2% class you libbies hate so much.

Here we go with the revisionist historians again. On February 26, 2009 Christina Roemer, the Chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors made this statement in a briefing announcing the president's FY10 budget:

"Now, even with the comprehensive recovery package, the unemployment rate is forecast to rise in the first half of 2009, just simply because output is continuing to fall. We anticipate that it will average just over 8 percent for 2009 as a whole."

Senior advisors speak for the president, always have always will. And unless the president publicly repudiates their remarks, then the presumption is the president agrees with their remark. I don't recall Obama taking Roemer to the woodshed on this point (you know, like Reagan took Dave Stockman). Thus, Roemer was articulating the president's position.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Briefing-by-OMB-Director-Peter-Orszag-and-CEA-Chair-Christina-Romer/

David Walker: No one - I repeat NO ONE - promised that unemployment would not exceed 8%. . . . How someone could mistake Christina Roemer for Barack Obama has to be a mystery on a par with quantum physics.

So people on Obama's staff, when they speak, they don't speak for Obama? All these things Robert Gibbs blathers everyday, he doesn't speak for the President? For heaven sakes David, this is his team, and if they are making promises they can't be backed up, that is Obama's problem, no? I found this on this right wing source:

Source of Romer quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html

Find the promise of 400,000 jobs per month

You're right. I was wrong. It was actually 500,000. Statement made by VP Joe Biden. I guess Biden doesn't speak for Obama either. I did find this again on an extreme right wing source:

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/biden-predicts-economy-will-cr.html

The "shovel ready" nonsense has been beaten to death.

As far as "Recovery Summer", well, the numbers show a steady recovery.

You are the ones who expect miracles.

David, you need to be admired for your dogma, for strength of convictions, for your loyalty to Obama and his administration. But the truth be told, Obama has not told the truth. He has sold the country down the river on a few slogans, on some very bad legislation, and on faulty and wildly overstated promises.

We're not asking for miracles David. We're asking for an economic plan that makes sense and works. We still haven't seen that from Obama.

You know, JoAnne, one the problems with the iPad is that it substitutes words it recognizes when you make a typo. The word was meant to be STUPIDITY.

Number don't make sense for unemployement to drop by .4% with only creating 50,000 new jobs will imply that we only have 12.5 million people either employed or looking for employement.

Oh, and David, I never looked at Obama and thought him to be any kind of a "messiah". Obama is nothing more than a hack politician and community organizer that gives a good speech and after that he got lucky. I did not expect much of him when he was elected, and I haven't been disappointed by his performance to date. He meets his low expectations quite well.

The score is still JoAnne 2: NJ zero.

Stupid is as stupid does. Right NJ.

Obama is nothing more than a hack politician and community organizer that gives a good speech and after that he got lucky. I did not expect much of him when he was elected, and I haven't been disappointed by his performance to date.

Absolutely spot on. I have never believed a word that man says, and continue to be astonished that anyone does.

JoAnne/NJ: 10, Ron: 0.

Janet,

You are right confidence is building. Partisanship aside, whoever or whatever is perceived as getting the credit doesn't matter much.

Good luck on the shopping. Even here in Dallas, as much as in other parts of the country I'm a bit snow bound. The good thing is that my kid gets to play in the snow and my office has been closed the last 3 of 4 days. :}

No Joe, nobody's buying that lame excuse.

Ron 2 - NJNB 0: JAS1 10 - Ron 0

Hopefully all this 2 to 0 or 10 to 0 scoring isn't an omen for a low scoring boring super bowl. I already can't stand the teams playing.

NoJoe -

I can't afford an iPad, but if that's how it corrects typos, I'm not sure I want one. Hey, it's Friday and I've had a lousy last few months - I needed a little humor for a change, okay? Besides, I just added a new word to my vocabulary - maybe it'll come in handy if I ever go on Jeopardy!

P.S. to Bill - JoAnne and JoAnna are two VERY different people on here - I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate being mistaken for me!

JS1, the unemployment rate was ABOVE 8% when the act passed, and it was a different bill than originally presented by the WH thanks to an insistence by Conservatives that it be tilted more heavily toward tax breaks.

You already know that because those lies get debunked nearly every single day on this board. You just don't care.

JoAnnaSmith:

You are positively amazing. Were one seeking proof that it is possible to read and achieve zero comprehension - you are that proof.

I not only read the link you provided - but comprehended it. In the article, Ms. Romer says she regrets her assumption that unemployment would remain in the 8% range. Please note the article refers to her numbers as a "forecast", not a promise. You must be hell on your weather forecasters.

The second paragraph reads in part, "The forecast was wrong. Many economists agree that Obama's stimulus package probably saved millions of jobs, but the recession was far worse than Romer predicted." I refer you to your OWN post - 1.38 - in which you ask for proof that the stimulus worked. For Pete's sake woman, it's in the link YOU provided. The fact is lost on you - and unfortunately on a large number of citizens - that economies do not turn around overnight. No one yet understands the full ramifications of the last eight years of virtually hands-off government. Indeed, we still have yet to see the full extent of that damage, just as we will not see the full success or failure of Obama's remedies for a number of years.

You must have some boffo arguments with yourself. "I'm right and I have proof. No, I'm right, and I have the proof that you're right. No, you're wrong, and I have the proof that I'm wrong." Wow! A one-woman fight. Do you fight over which one of you won?

If you didn't expect much of the President, when he was elected, I should think you would not be so vocal about the results we see on his watch. Has he underperformed? Overperformed? What's the problem. Sounds like he's doing exactly what you expected.

As far as the number of jobs created under ARRA, John A. was kind enough to provide you with a link. Have someone read it to you, that way you might be able to avoid having an argument with yourself.

As far as my dogma - you are too silly for words. You can go back and dredge up any number of posts I have written and you will find that I am hardly an Obama sycophant. What may be fooling you - I know, I know, that's not a difficult task - is the fact that I have zero tolerance for the far right wing of religious zealots, uninformed knuckle-draggers, and ignorant fearmongers who have turned the G.O.P. into a caricature of a once-great party.

John B., I didn't make the promise of unemployment not going over 8%,Romer did. And not only did it go over 8%, it went over 10% in October/2009. Now you can make promises about 8%, and be a little off, or when it goes over 10%, be way off. It's your choice John.

And the all too common dodge from the Leftists like yourself of (paraphased) "We didn't get 100% of what we wanted, so we can not be held accountable!",is just wearing a little thin, don't you think? No one gets everything they want John, no one. For the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the House (which the Democrats dominated, so they got everything they wanted in it) passed a $820 billion bill. The final bill was $787 billion. So you're telling us an extra $33 billion would have made all the difference in stimulating the economy? Hardly.

John B: You already know that because those lies get debunked nearly every single day on this board. You just don't care

That's hilarious. You should be the one that comments about lies.

I noticed you had nothing to say about Biden's job predictions and all the "Green shoots" and "Shovel ready jobs" Obama kept blabbering about. Too inconvenient for you to talk about?

David Walker: Has he [Obama]underperformed? Overperformed? What's the problem. Sounds like he's doing exactly what you expected.

He is doing as I expected. He's failing miserably.

And David, no need to get all worked up. The quotes by Romer, the promises by Obama, and his administration, are well known. You asked for proof, I gave you proof. You want to dance around and wave your hands to explain it, that's your problem, but you do provide us all a nice cool breeze with your wild gyrations. The stimulus didn't work David. It was supposed to stimulate job growth. 36,000 jobs last month David. I learned economists had been predicting 140,000 jobs, which would have still been not great. That's poor by any measure.

And you, like John B., just skated around Biden's blatherings, and Obama's constant sunny day forecasts for his "stimulus" bill. Why is that? The truth doesn't fit your dogma? Apparently so.

Just pointing out that it's ridiculous for you to claim the Administration believed or claimed that unemployment would never go higher than a point that it had already exceeded when the bill passed.

I can't help that you feel entitled to claim an absurdity, there's no point in continuing to debate once you begin to lie.

John, you have no point. You never have a point. You just have constant adoration of the man Obama. You couldn't hold Obama responsible for any of his statements if you tried. You constantly are making excuses for his failures, and as is typical of Leftwingnuts you try and pin it all on the Republicans. You still haven't gotten over Bush, heck you still blame Reagan. What's next, you'll be going after Chester Arthur(fyi: 21ist President)? And now you're down to calling people liars. You're right John, there is no point in talking to you, you can't deal with any kind of adversity. Go back to the comfort zone of your adoration of Obama crowd.

JoAnnaSmith1

Your claim is Barely True.

We could find no instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge along the lines of "if we pass the stimulus, we promise unemployment will stay below 8 percent."

But what we saw from the administration in January 2009 was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.

The claim that the White House "promised" the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent has been a popular attack line, cited repeatedly by Fox's Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other conservative pundits. And we have fact-checked it twice, first in July 2009 when then House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said, "We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed)" and again when columnistGeorge Will said something similar in July 2010.

Rather, the claim has its roots in a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

The administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/26/michele-bachmann/rep-michele-bachmann-says-white-house-promised-sti/

So there you have it from a non partisan fact checker.

@ safecracker

Cut & Paste Bev, please list the sites you receive your info from. Are their racist sites you also visit?

Sure there are. I visit redstate, Brent Bozell, biggovernment, FOX NOISE, human events those are just to name a few.

bev - is barely true the same as barely pregnant?

IR:

Fab post to end the week. I agree 100% and have written similar to support your position. We are on a very slippery slope to "Oligarchy" unless both the republicans and democrats unite together and take back their country from the Wall Streeter's, Big Business and the 2%. If we do not, well then I guess we deserve what we get.

Bravo, IR!

Given your post it is EASY to understand why this band of misfits can't WAIT to cut Education. Fat, dumb and stupid is how they WANT their constituency. And by the looks of many of the crowd shots at Tea Party events,...they are mostly there.

Let's see how the low earners jump on the corporate bandwagon in support of all things 'conservative'!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

IR, did you get the road plowed up to the Dew Drop? I am totally ready for Happy Hour tonight! Let's start early and hash out the quarterly scores for the Super Bowl! Go Steelers!

Well said, IR. Thanks to 30 years of Conservative economic dominance we now live in a society where only the already prosperous have much chance to prosper. We know it doesn't have to be that way, the record of other industrialized nations proves that. So why do we continue to insist that the only "right" way is to wait for some crumbs to fall of the tables of the wealthy so we can eat?

In a way Conservative Republicans are right...we DO need to return to some lost values. The only real difference is WHICH values. I believe we need to return to principles of fairness and egalitarian thought that have ruled much of our nation's history. That was particularly true for several decades in the middle of the last centrury. Their idea is to return to the hierarchichal societies of Old Europe, a failed system that America in no way resembled except in the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons.

Independent Redneck Va.

The Hurrieder We Go the Behinder We Get

What's holding back the U.S. economy?

I really liked this post and your interpretation. It's so true the engineers of exploitation, namely, the crooks and liars on Wall Street, in addition to the Koch Brothers spending millions and millions of dollars to retard us have us going now where slowly.

That's if we buy it.

Clara My Ace you don’t think that I’d leave the patron’s hanging do you? Parking lot’s all cleared and salted and even cleaned off the field out back for everybody that’s going to have to Parachute in ‘cause they can’t get the Transport uncovered.

Got the Bouncer down there opening up early and getting the Big Screens warmed up so we can watch the Super Bowl Commercials Special this evening. Mean Joe and the Kid is still my all time favorite

We’ll do the official Kick off and kind of lay out the Specials for the Weekend along about The Week Ahead time but for now if you get off early come on down and set by the fire and get warmed up and comfortable. Lights are on and things are fixing to start Kicking

Bravo, IR, for a wonderful post! As always, you say it in a way people can enjoy hearing it. Thanks for taking care of the Dew Drop Inn, you know how we all depend on you.

It's too late for the GOP, they have already got so deep in the pockets of the Corp. the only way out for them is to get out of politics and we all know that ain't going to happen.

Amen, IR---thanks for sharing the article and your thoughts. You are on target as usual. The ever-increasing income and wealth gap in our country is troubling and saddening. And I do think the constant stresses and struggles in the economy of the past years has taken a toll on us all. At least those of us who care about other people.

I hope you can find room on the Happy Hour menu for pierogies---I'll bring a batch of them with me. They will be homemade (not by me but by fine Pittsburgh Polish cooks in a church basement!)

I am entirely baffled at the blame the rich mentality I see so much of these days. I can't believe anyone honestly believes that a single person in the US, republican or democrat, actually wants to see this country fail (policies we see as contrary to what our country was founded on, yes, the country, not in a million years). The best I can figure it most of this boils down to personal initiative. I graduated college 15 years ago and saw a trend with many of my classmates- they someone felt they were entitled to $30k a year jobs because they had a piece of paper from a college. I took an $18k a year job because it seemed better than moving back home with my parents and hoping something with a bigger paycheck came along. Being on my own and making my way was more important than a big paycheck. Couple of years later I took a job as a receptionist with a law firm making even less money but I came to work every day demonstrating a desire to do whatever I was asked to do, taking the initiative to create new procedures where there was a need and within a year I received a promotion. A few months later, same thing. Within a few years I worked my way up to office manager where I am now and I'm making more than 3 times what I did when I got out of college. I understood that I was the only one with the power to improve my circumstances and that it was only going to happen through hard work and determination. I don't see a lot of that anymore. I see a lot of people who think it's someone else's job to fix their problems. I see a lot of lamenting what used to be and waiting for old circumstances to return but that's just not how the world works. Innovation IS the spark that drove this country and made our economy great. Unfortunately, the byproduct of some of much of that innovation was job loss to automation. As we've entered a global economy, more manufacturing has moved to places with lower costs of labor and often lower costs of doing business (even President Obama said in his SOTU address, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world- maybe he's starting to get it after all). I honestly believe the longer we continue this lament rather than looking forward- looking within ourselves, we are not going to see much improvement. Self-reliance is what made this country great- everyone needs a hand up from time to time but our drive to make it on our own, to rise above the circumstances that work to keep us stagnant is what's missing right now. Every single one of us has the power to change our circumstances for the better or for the worse, it's the choices we make every day that determine our path. Its not easy but it can be done. Instead of looking for blame, start looking for opportunity.

Suzy-2005071

I am entirely baffled at the blame the rich mentality I see so much of these days.

Yes, by all means, lets blame the poor for the crash that occurred at the end of the Bush presidency. The sharpies gambling with other people's money in the Wall Street Casino couldn't have had anything to do with it. As for globalization, Americans are competing with people like the Chinese workers who make I-Phones and who live in barracks under such miserable conditions that they've been committing suicide by throwing themselves out of windows, and in such large numbers that the authorities had to take preventative measures. So lazy Americans ought to show some "initiative" and agree to work under similar rotten conditions for bad pay.

Suzy - nicely said.

Innovation has always been a cornerstone of american growth because government was loathe to try and regulate it. Now many complain that the rich get richer because they chose to be innovators and take risks. Yet they feel that they are entitled to share in those same riches because they bouight the innovators products.

Why did they buy the products? Because they saw a perceived use for them and they were priced right. Now they bitch because the products are made overseas because of lower labor costs and less regulatory restraints, all so they can continue to buy at low cost. Buy american has no value to these complainers as they look only at price or on how they can get the innovators and movers to give them a big share of the pie that they did nothing to earn.

Houston, You have a problem. It is called liberalitis. Where in her post did she blame the poor? Where did she say Americans are lazy? Where did she say that taking initiative meant working under rotten conditions for poor pay?. Her initiative got her promoted from receptionist to office manager. Her only point is that ,if you work hard, you can better yourself. And yet you feel a need to bash her for her comments. You Houston are the problem, not the solution. Would it have made you happier if she just gave up and went on welfare?

The only things the Republicans seem to innovate these days is their rhetoric,...well, that AND revisionist history,...

just sayin'.

Rocco-2976776

Houston, You have a problem. It is called liberalitis. Where in her post did she blame the poor? Where did she say Americans are lazy? Where did she say that taking initiative meant working under rotten conditions for poor pay?

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you Rocco? Sarcasm seems to have gone over your tiny little head. No, in her praise for the wonders of globalization, she didn't say that Americans have to take the initiative to work under rotten condition for bad pay. But that's EXACTLY what Americans would have to do if they wanted to compete for those nifty jobs making I-Phones that are currently performed by Chinese workers.

It's been observed by someone (can't remember who) that the problem with America is not a lack of innovation. The problem is that when an American innovates something like the I-Phone, the jobs needed to mass produce it all go to cheap labor markets where OSHA and other issuers of odious worker-protection regulations don't put a damper on the corporate quest for limitless profit.

Maybe the fact that globalization or the iphone was no where in her post went over your big head. And yet in the third sentence of your rant, you start with "as for globalization". So your right, I missed the disconnected sarcasm. I am still trying to learn the symptoms of liberalits. It looks like taking one post and turning it into a unrelated rant is one of them.

It's ok Rocco, if Houston thought I was singing the praises of globalization then he missed my point entirely anyway. I offered no opinion one way or another, simply the observation that it is here and it is not going away. When times change, you change with them or you become obsolete. Attempting to assign blame is a waste of time- there is nothing productive that comes of it and the time spent on it is time we could have used to find a solution.

Suzy with all due respect if Houston missed your point then I I need to remind you that you missed mine. Nowhere in my original post did I "blame the rich". If you look at it it shows you how our Tax policy has been misused by a certain number to deny a lot of folks the opportunity to be as proud of their work ethic as you are. Most everybody that I know has that ethic but having the ethic and no place or limited opportunities to exercise it doesn't do them any good. Same with many small businesses that have to compete with other companies that have taken advantage of Tax breaks to offshore a product. They would be more than happy to keep production in the States but that Tax policy robs them and thier employees of the chance to even compete.

There's even more to it than cheap wages. Foreign manufacturing also gets massive subsidies from the Chinese government, much of it under the table. If that isn't enough to get the jobs relocated the Chinese will stipulate that you must manufacture in their country to sell there. Plus of course artificially tieing the Yuan to the Dollar in order to keep the exchange rate unnaturally low.

That's the problem with "Free Trade", it too often isn't Fair Trade.

Suzy:

if Houston thought I was singing the praises of globalization then he missed my point entirely anyway. I offered no opinion one way or another, simply the observation that it is here and it is not going away.

My mistake. I see that it's more like you were singing the praises of YOU in your long-winded single-paragraph post. I've done pretty well for myself, too, but I don't look down on people who've been less fortunate than I am the way you do. I'm not as judgmental as you and other smug conservatives are, I guess.

As for globalization, it may be here to stay, but if you think American workers should be made to compete with countries where workers are virtually slave laborers, I think you're wrong. Countries like China need to be persuaded to respect their own workers' human rights, even though respect for human rights would make them less attractive to "entrepreneurs" in the American private sector. And those "entrepreneurs" should be made to pay an extra tax for shipping American jobs overseas to countries ruled by dictators where the labor is cheap and the profits are easy.

If I did, IR, then so did all of your buddies congratulating you on your thoughts. Every one of you in some way made reference to the rich holding back the rest of our society. I'm saying that we hold ourselves back by looking for someone else to fault for our position rather than looking for ways to improve our own situations. Life may hand you a set of circumstances but you have the ultimate choice in how you deal with them. The current job market does make it more challenging than when the economy is booming, there is no denying that, but it doesn't mean opportunity doesn't exist if you're willing to take the leap and put forth the effort.

Houston, what is judgmental or smug in saying I believe everyone has the power within themselves to improve their circumstances?

johnb - wasn't it Reagan in the 80's that stipulated to Japan and Korea that they also had to build their cars in the US?

Not exactly. The Japanese carmakers responded to an "anti-dumping" tariff by building factories in the USA. Their factories were already running near full capacity anyway, so it wasn't hurting anyone on the Pacific Rim to do so.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923919-2,00.html

That's a little different than the current situation here, where American workers are already hurting yet business is in a hurry to move the remaining jobs overseas where people work at near slave wages.

Hi Frank----thanks for the shout out. I am proud of my Steelers and the season they've had and support them, win or lose, but I sure hope they bring home a SEVENTH Lombardi trophy!

I'm not sure how they count who is and isn't looking for work--hope one of the smart people who post here like John or Navy can tell us but I think we all have anecdotal evidence of people who have gotten discouraged in the market but never give up looking. I think that is where this recession may differ from others---it is global and the nature of jobs is changing. There just may not be jobs for those people to go back to due to outsourcing and automation.

Frank - I am following your thinking and I agree with you. We are not counting many of those that have given up looking or have taken 'under the table' monies doing jobs that are NOT recorded in the official statistics.

Maybe we should revise the model that we are using for how we record unemployment, don't you think?

I can agree with you that your logical thinking is sound; I can agree with you that those that gave up have re-entered the workforce because now they are seeing new opportunities to get a job.

But the reality is this - higher unemployment numbers are a political problem, no matter who is in office.

I also agree with David Walker and Steeler Fan - many of the jobs that we had - or could have counted on - are NOT coming back. Many employers are becoming more EFFICIENT in how they are doing business. This is why I believe we still see high unemployment and simultaneous record profits by Coroprations.

In other words - Americans are working more efficiently. Companies are more efficient in producing and presenting their product lines. Redundancy is being eliminated. Americans have ACCEPTED this as the norm (like what Independent Redneck, Va. had to say in his post earlier today).

Maybe David Walker and/or John A. are correct in their assumptions that 'full employment' as recorded should NOT be at 4-8%; maybe we need to change our metric to accurately reflect the TRUE unemployment rate.

Finally, I would like to state the obvious - the key to a job - ANY job these days - is based on WHAT YOU KNOW. If you don't know anything, or haven't kept up with new technologies, you will be left behind.

This is why EDUCATION is SO IMPORTANT these days.

I cannot believe that we have a Congress that wants to CUT Education. Maybe the education dolalrs need to be redistributed into areas of need so that those who need the jobs can be educated in what is needed FOR that job.

I agree that the unemployment rate is a dubious economic measure, but the media have treated it as a magic number because it simplifies their political forecasting: If the rate is higher than 7%, Obama loses in 2012. If it's higher, he wins. That's Chris Matthews' standards, at least.

Pietro - I do say cut funding for education as spending more has not shown us that it has been effective. We have a duplication of services between federal and state dept of educations. Reduce the federal dept of education drastically in size to only establish national educational goals for the states to uniformly meet. Forget about the paperwork required by our school school systems to file by the "no child left behind" or other regulatory $$$ heavy programs.

This can cut $$$ fundedfor regulatory paperwork and yet allow our school systems to return to teaching not filling out paperwork. Parents also need to stay moreso in the loop and stop treating our schools as nothing more than a babysitting service. Our current system of funding goes into the pockets of the regulators, not our school systems. Work smarter not dumber.

With regards to todays numbers, yes something is amiss and it looks like we ill have to wait for the february and march numberrs for clarification.

Let us also not forget that the unemployment numbers also reflact that many, many people have also fallen off the rolls because their tier 5 or 3 benefits have expiredand are no longer eligible to collect.

Actually, American, I was thinking on the lines of ADULT education. I did not make that clear in my post, and I apologise for that.

I think that learning should NOT stop with post-secondary school. I also think that we may be addressing this problem in the wrong way. Instead of shoveling boatloads of money at high-school students that really don't want to be there in school to learn (if the case is where the graduation rate is LESS than 90%) the take that money and provide if for training for second jobs for those who DO want to learn.

We are definitely not challenging our children ENOUGH (my opinion) to do the best that they can. Sometimes they have to learn the hard way. I say let them. Let them find out that what you KNOW is the currency of the future and how important that really is. After a few years of them bumping their heads, there will be a 'new found' interest in learning.

This is, of course, not a 'one size fits all' solution. We also should have training for those that are NOT academic so that they can make money in a vocation that suits them. THIS is where, I believe, we should be concentrating our dollars - where they are more effective.

Pietro - I see and agree with your point on the need for continuing education, either at a university or vocational level, but that such training be paid for by the students themselves. Government expenditures should be more in line with providing up to date learning equipment in the labs.

To date our university and graduate programs still entice foreign students to come to the US to learn.

Primary education needs an attitude adjustment to it, for without goal setting and a mastery of the fundamentals of reading, writing, math and a smattering of beginning civic, history and perhaps language in elimentary school we are not encouraging our youth to be the best they can become in middle and high school where they can then focus more on sharpening the fundamental skills and exploring in more detail sciences, civics, history and creativity. the disruptive students need to be seperated from those wanting to learn and parents need to return to a more active role in disciplinig and/or supporting thier kids.

I know we have had this discussion before, but it is nice to put it back out on the table so that others can see it fresh and hopefully with a different perspective than what they came here with.

Interesting points, American.

However, I have been looking at some education models in other countries, and I see that a lot of the time, education is low-cost or free to the citizens of that country. I was specifically looking at Denmark, which will provide a relatively 'free' education to any Danish citizen. Granted, Denmark is a lot smaller than the United States, but you have many more 'professional' workers in that country.

Maybe we should look at a model like that one where Education - not just up to high school, either - could be offered in fields where there are jobs that need to be filled?

I mean, we are spending the money anyway, so why NOT spend it on something that will BENEFIT the United States?

I don't disagree with you, American. I just think a little differently than most.

Clara...completely agreed. Like I said...it's a mixed report in my book. These two measures don't always work in synch. I hope you have a great weekend. How's the recovery going? (I seem to remember you had back surgery correct?)

I am doing GREAT, thanks for asking! Sparing the chandeliers for now!

Doctor says I should be back at work next week, part time.

Do you have a favorite Super Bowl food? My husband is going to get me some wings from a local joint here called The Peanut. They are the BEST wings I've ever had (and I've been to the Anchor Bar in Buffalo)! Have fun! Go Steelers!

Clara...great to hear that you're on the mend. My neighbor is actually from Buffalo and the wings he makes on his grill should be their own food group!!! Hope you enjoy the game. I can't root for the Steelers though. :-P

By the way...let me add this. I am NOT a fan of Philadelphia sports teams. But what DeSean Jackson and two other Eagles did on "The View" for that kid that was bullied on that video was phenomenal. Big time kudos and thumbs up for them. :-)

Grimey -

I'm from the Philly suburbs and even I'm not an Eagles fan - especially not a hot dog with extra relish like DeSean Jackson - but I just watched that clip and want to echo what you said about him and Jamaal Jackson and Todd Herremans - good on them! And big time kudos for Nadin Khoury himself, who seems to be a very mature young man for his age and who wants to be a Marine some day. Nice to see a happy ending for a change.

I was only an Eagles fan when I came in 3rd place in Fantasy Football when Donovan McNabb was my quarterback. This was really a sweet gesture; but Grimey, are you going to have to turn in your 'man' card for watching The View?

just kidding,...thanks!

Clara...OUCH!!! Hey...a guy can be sensitive can't he!!! ;-)

Actually, it was on the front page of Yahoo last night. (I can hear the responses now: Sure it was Grimey).

My conservative friends didn't seem to care about the deficit or spending until a democrat was in the WH and my liberal friends didn't learn the mantra "where are the jobs?"

At least the Democrats actually DID something about the job problem, whether you agree or not that it was effective: they passed the stimulus bill. The Republicans who took over the House don't show any interest at all in doing anything. They're much too busy with their futile attempt to repeal the health care law and imposing weird new restrictions on abortion.

BTW: The unemployment rate went down to 9%, private sector jobs have been added every month for the past year or so, and the stock market has nearly doubled in value. So maybe what the Democrats did wasn't as ineffective as even some on the left like Paul Krugman said it was.

Houston:

Very true, the DOW is hanging around 12,000 a 50% increase while President Obama is in office. Big business is sitting on almost 2 Trillion in CASH, the hourly rate increased 0.40%, 13 straight months of positive private sector job growth, 18 straight months on increased manufacturing growth, 71% of the corporations posting on the big board have profit and sales numbers that beat expectations. Not bad for a failure. Could and should it be better? Absolutely. But you have to remember President Obama is pretty much moving this country forward alone with help from the democrats only. The GOP has tried to stop him and every intersection filibustering or just outright blocking any bill that promotes creating jobs, giving tax breaks and capital to small business. Can you imagine how good these numbers could be if the GOP would help instead of "Obstructing" all the time????

dangerfield

The Democrats WERE thinking of SAVING jobs when they bailed out General Motors and passed the stimulus. Republicans wanted companies to ""go under" on free market principle. They wanted states to lay off teachers and police to "shrink" government. I know saving jobs is not as exciting as creating jobs, but it seems to me the only way the government instantly creates jobs is to start WWIII and ramp up weapon productions.

US Navy,

You just conjured up an image for me of Michael Keaton in Mr. Mom - when he starts beating Martin Mull in the annual company obstacle course and all of the employees start tripping him and hanging onto his ankles.

That is the image I have of President Obama trying to move the country forward and there is Boehner, McConnell and Cantor trying to trip him and stop him,...

Yeah, We're all Americans; but if they could just cause a Waterloo - perhaps they wouldn't be so impotent against him?

And Amy, the first GM bailout was thanks to W & Co.

Amy, I don't think it's always as easy as talking points and surface views. Many of us have wondered whether the GM/Chrysler bailouts were the best course of action not because we wanted to see thousands more out of work but because we understand that the bailout is only a temporary fix. Both still have unsustainable legacy costs and it's only a matter of time before that tips the scales again. I'll go a step further and speculate that there are a number of start up companies working their way into the marketplace with electric technology who could have quickly taken advantage of turnkey factories and a well trained work place ready to start production on day one. No one wants to see layoffs in education or public safety, but we do want to see our dollars spent on successful programs, not sucking black holes of failure. The teacher layoffs is a particularly sticky subject- in the largest district in my state, the unions were asked to make a simple concession- that teachers contribute a portion of their pension contributions themselves rather than the state footing the full bill. That concession would have allowed every single teacher to keep his or her job and actually put additional dollars into the budget to fill other shortfalls but the old guard decided they would rather get theirs and screw those facing layoffs. Sadly, it was the newer teachers on the payroll who often demonstrated the greatest success in the classroom but were the first ones laid off because they lacked tenure. This makes ZERO sense in the real world. Shrinking government makes good sense- redundancies and over-regulation stymie the private sector. Government employees do not add to economic growth. Growing the size of the government workforce takes more money out of the hands of taxpayers which means less to put into the market place. Ultimately I think both sides want the same thing, we just disagree on the best path to get there. As much as I don't want to admit it, I think Obama has increased his chances for reelection dramatically over the last 60 days or so- if he continues to work with both sides, I might be a very unhappy camper come November 7, 2012 about the leadership but if our country is back on track toward a successful future I'll learn to live with it.

Navy, et al - never heard of any economist saying that a presidents actions was an effective gauge on how wall street would perform. Anyone looking at the historical stock market performance since the twenties can see this. Market performance is based more on a variety of factors of which political influence is just a small part.

Suzy-2005071

Well put.

SS;

Very true and time will tell. If these numbers keep improving then we all will be very happy but who really knows. These are some strange times and appears to be constantly in flux. We do not know yet if the GOP is going to help us or not. If they do the numbers will be even better, if they continue to oppose everything and say no, no, no for the next two years we may have a problem. President Obama cannot correct everything by himself and that is where the problem lies.

US Navy, I have to take exception with your statement "we all will be very happy" You know the GOP will be very unhappy if the jobs numbers and the economy keep improving.

Mo - BS, more jobs means more revenue and lower deficits

Navy - Republicans don't have a veto proof house and the senate is still under democrat control. Obama has finally recognized the value of bipartisanship and the role bussiness has in creating private sector job growth. Private sector job growth I might add that is required to fund government jobs and programs.

It is nice to see that the senate democrats and obama can now be called the NO sayers if they can't work in a cooperative way.

Houston:

Kudos, 100% based in fact. If I remember correctly (have to check) but the Disclosure Act had I think 58 Yes votes or something like that and was blocked because every single republican voted NO and we could not get the 60 votes needed to override the filibuster. The minority jammed their agenda down the majority's throat as they say.

Ughh...you do realize that the Citizens United case had nothing to do with whether it was good or bad? That is not for the SCOTUS to judge, they judge the Constitutionality of the law.

I love how the left is so "aghast" at the Patriot Act and how it violates the Constitution for perceived security, yet are completely "OK" with the HCR bill or McCain Feingold, because they think it is "good".

We have laws for a reason, there is a process to amend the Constitution, use it. Don't just ignore the Constitution.

Houston-

My aim is true.

So is Mark Murray's.

His comments regarding the intention of Democratic fundraisers to immediately adopt the same fund-raising methods employed by the GOP in 2010 were completely appropriate.

He just hit a little too close to home for you...your whiny response confirms it.

If I had to defend what you're defending, I'd be a little insecure as well.

You'll get over it.

Ughh...you do realize that the Citizens United case had nothing to do with whether it was good or bad? That is not for the SCOTUS to judge, they judge the Constitutionality of the law.

The 4 justices who dissented from the abomination wrought by the Roberts Radicals thought differently. It had everything to do with the decision being good. Good for corporations who wanted to purchase more politicians than they already could under the previous rules, which already let them buy quite a few. Roberts' Radicals overturned 60 years of settled law, something he perjured himself by doing after swearing under oath to Congress that he would be an impartial referee.

Brent, your comments about Citizens United totally ignore the fact that the Conservative majority on the court overturned over 100 years of settled law. It also ignores the fact that several members of that majority are now paid handsomely by the Conservative Movement and lobbying organizations, thus creating a massive conflict of interest.

US Navy-

Complaining about the filibuster again, I see.

And, amusingly...doing so in the wake of the news that the Democratic majority has not, and will not, make any significant changes to the Senate's current filibuster and cloture rules for the new session of Congress.

I'm guessing the irony in that is completely lost on you...let alone, the hypocrisy involved.

Oh Brent, you silly goose. We're just following the examples set by GB2 and the GOP. When it becomes inconvenient IGNORE the Constitution, don't bother to change it. That's what the so-called Patriot Act did, it IGNORED the US Constitution. Abiding by the Constitution was just TOOOOO inconvenient for GB2.

It's up to the courts to decide whether the HCR is unconstitutional, so far it's a 50/50 split. Also, I might remind you that YOUR Senator McCain is a Republican, sometimes, when he's running for President. Not an example that helps your argument.

The Constitution says its the legislative branch that makes the laws, but Republicans, who don't have the votes to repeal HCR, are depending on the judiciary to simply invalidate it. I think its so sad to see the judiciary turned into the enforcement arm of the Republican Party. If Republicans want HCR appealed, they should convince Democratic senators its a bad law, as the founding fathers envisioned representative government would work. Using the judiciary to do their partisan dirty work seems, well, unconstitutional to me.

Well said Amy.

Amy B.: The Constitution says its the legislative branch that makes the laws, but Republicans, who don't have the votes to repeal HCR, are depending on the judiciary to simply invalidate it.

The judiciary will simply invalidate ObamaCare because it's unconstitutional. That's kind of their job, you know, that checks and balances thing they do. Or are you unclear of the role of the separate, but equal, judiciary branch within our government?

Or, maybe you agree with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who doesn't think the judiciary has any part in the branches of the federal government. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY

kinda countin' yer chickens afore they's hatched ain't ya Jo1

rat now I make 'er a 50/50 split in the lower courts.

or mebbe yer a-countin' on them activist judges o' yern on the soopreem court?

But, if the conservatives are depending on the Supreme Court to invalidate HCR "because it is unconstitutional", then we need to re-examine how the Citizen's United case was handled and how the conflicts of judges and their private lives are handled.

If the Supreme Court is indeed an absolute authority, then it's decisions must be consistent.

Can someone please offer a rational explanation of why corporations being allowed to participate in elections is an abomination but unions and groups like AARP being allowed to participate is giving voice to the people? I still haven't managed to wrap my head around that...

If I had to defend what you're defending, I'd be a little insecure as well.

You'll get over it.

It's not hard to defend at all. The Democrats are playing by the rules imposed on them by the Supreme Court, after vigorously trying to lessen the negative impact on democracy of the Citizens United ruling. Since the Republican Party is the party of big corporations and the Democratic Party is the party of actual people, the Democrats are at a disadvantage even so. But if they decided to be all noble and let themselves be totally steamrolled by the Republicans by nobly rejecting all corporate donations, I doubt you would be praising the Democrats for their nobility.

But I repeat myself. It's no use arguing with people like Bag. You can lead an idiot to facts but you can't make him think.

Suzy:

Can someone please offer a rational explanation of why corporations being allowed to participate in elections is an abomination but unions and groups like AARP being allowed to participate is giving voice to the people? I still haven't managed to wrap my head around that...

You'd have a point -- if someone here were actually arguing that it's just dandy that unions and AARP can do what the corporations are doing. No organization should be allowed to do what the Roberts Court's legislating from the bench has made legal. But again, the unions have to play by the rules imposed on them even though they cannot hope to compete with corporate cash. Unions have been severely weakened by decades of Reaganite union busting. As someone already pointed out here, only 7% of American workers are unionized now as opposed to 35% in the 1950s. The unions just don't have the enormous sums of money to throw around that the corporations do.

Bag:

And, amusingly...doing so in the wake of the news that the Democratic majority has not, and will not, make any significant changes to the Senate's current filibuster and cloture rules for the new session of Congress.

I'm guessing the irony in that is completely lost on you...let alone, the hypocrisy involved.

I don't doubt that some of the Democrats would have changed their position if they weren't staring into the possibility that the Republicans could take over the Senate in 2012 and put the Democrats in the minority. But Harry Reid and other old guard Democrats like the late Sen. Byrd have always been consistently AGAINST filibuster reform. I think Reid is wrong, but he's no hypocrite -- hypocrisy being a concept that Bag doesn't seem able to comprehend. Perhaps he has so much trouble understanding it because he's swimming in the boundless sea of ultra-right hypocrisy, and just doesn't notice it for the same reason a fish doesn't notice water.

Houston - keep in mind that the constitution allows for citizens to petition the government and that it doesn't limit it only to individuals.

Johnb - you have ignored the method by which Supreme court justices are appointed or that the justices are not required to vote along party lines.

american-2051576

Houston - keep in mind that the constitution allows for citizens to petition the government and that it doesn't limit it only to individuals

Sorry, I'll have to see the Massey Coal Company's certificate of live birth before I believe it is an American citizen.

High fives, Houston, and that's the point. A corporation is NOT a citizen. It is NOT as human being. It is a legal entity.

I guess you could say that AARP and Labor Unions are made up of people who, for the most part, understand and believe in what those organizations stand for. Not so for a corporation which is made of of hundreds, or thousands or tens of thousands of individuals but are controlled by a board of directors which has NO interest in what the politics of their workers may be.

Now in a closed shop situation where you have to join the union to work in that particular facility, then you might have some folks who didn't agree with the union's activities but who have no choice in the matter. They have to belong and pay their dues or they don't work there. And I concede that point. But AARP certainly is made up of folks (just like me) who WANT AARP looking out for my interests. I know what they stand for, I agree with their positions. But....

Frankly, I don't think it's right for ANYONE other than an American citizen/registered voter to make a contributions to political campaigns and candidates.

In fact, if it were me, I'd limit the spending, I'd limit the time in which campaigns can advertise and I'd make the elections publicly funded and federally regulated. But that's just me.

Skip:

In fact, if it were me, I'd limit the spending, I'd limit the time in which campaigns can advertise and I'd make the elections publicly funded and federally regulated. But that's just me.

Nope. It's not just you. I've been in favor of replacing the current campaign financing system with public financing, which has worked in other advanced democracies. However, I still make my piddly little donations to candidates that I would like to see win, despite being against private election financing. Certain sanctimonious individuals might call that "hypocrisy," but I call it playing by the rules. They're rules that I didn't write, but they're the only game in town.

Houston, you seem to ignore the fact that the unions have been among the democrats biggest campaign donors for years and corporations were only allowed a level table a few months ago.

Skip, both are groups made up of regular citizens. Neither are representative of the whole. I know as many people who belong to AARP for the discounts as for the political lobbying. While conservatives may be more difficult to find in the union ranks, they still exist and they are not being represented when the unions make large campaign contributions to democrats. There are as many if not more democrats heading major corporations as there are republicans and either way, their boards are made up of average citizens who should have no less right to support those who support them than membership groups like unions, AARP and the NRA.

Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily lobbying in favor of corporate campaign contributions, more that the playing field should be level. We the people cannot compete as individuals on anywhere near the level of large membership organizations or corporations. I'd much rather see a system more like Lincoln's day- where debates and publications from the candidates were the only real "advertising" they did. Too many people these days base their decisions on what they hear in ads (usually from the opposition candidate) based on half truths, misleading context and outright lies. Skip the rhetoric of campaign ads, give everyone an equal travel budget, broadcast the debates on public television and let people get to know who the candidates are from their own words- we'd get better information, spend a lot less and maybe actually have reasons for voting for our candidates of choice other than the ridiculous game of he said she said we play now.

You really need to get out more, Houston.

Because, only a true left-wing zealot would mistake the views I express here at First Read as "ultra-right" in nature.

Not that I'd expect you to be aware of the subtle, let alone the substantial differences among conservatives, given the self-imposed limitations of your exposure to points of view not in accordance with your own.

If ignorance truly is bliss...you really ought to have a sunnier disposition, Houston.

Johnb - you have ignored the method by which Supreme court justices are appointed or that the justices are not required to vote along party lines

No, they aren't required--but when several of them make substantial income from Conservative think tanks, lobbying groups, or other organizations, sometimes lie on their disclosure forms about those activities AND vote en bloc to overturn settled law it speaks for itself, doesn't it?

skip - so the thousands that make up AARP and unions have a free pass while the hundreds and occasionally thousands that make up a corporation don't?

Houston - to bad for you that the first amendment doesn't require a birth certificate. good luck though on getting the 1st amendment repealed.

Bag:

If ignorance truly is bliss...you really ought to have a sunnier disposition, Houston.

Ignorance hasn't done anything for yours. Or is it just stupidity that makes you so nasty?

Your lame attempt to defend the anti-democratic decisions of the Roberts Court marks you as an ultra-rightist. Whether you're dumb enough to believe Glenn Beck's droolings about the coming world-wide Islamic caliphate that George Bush and Barack Obama conspired to install in Babylon, I don't know. There are degrees of idiocy, but you're pretty far gone.

american-2051576

Houston - to bad for you that the first amendment doesn't require a birth certificate. good luck though on getting the 1st amendment repealed.

OK, you win. The Massey Coal Company is a "citizen" of the United States. So,should we address it as "Mr." Massey Coal Company or "Ms." Massey Coal Company? And does it have a Social Security Number like us lesser citizens who are mere human beings are required to have?

houston - quite sure that it has a federal ID number, will that do ya?

Nope, the FDI number isn't the same and a corporation is not a citizen, or a human being, or a person with a vote.

READ MY LIPS! I do not believe ANYBODY except citizens of the United States of legal age and registered to vote should be able to make LEGAL campaign contributions. Not the AARP, not the AFL-CIO, not Koch Industries, not foreign governments of their citizens, NOBODY except us Americans. Is that clear enough for you?

AND, PERSONALLY, I would prefer that elections be financed by the government and FEDERALLY REGULATED at all levels. City, State, National. PERIOD. No candidate should be allowed to use his/her personal funds to "buy" an office. They get a set amount and they pay for their advertising out of that amount. Everybody gets the same amount depending on the level of the campaign (city, county, state or national) and then they have to go out and CAMPAIGN, make speeches, talk to the press, the people, the trees, in order to get elected.

Get it?

skip - and yet the supreme court has stated otherwise. But you are expressing your opinion as you have a constitutional right to do.

Noble aspirations skip on wanting uniform election spending, but I think that the 1st amendment may get in the way.

As far as a businesses federal ID goes, isn't it a unique number given to a specific business entity just like our SS number is unique to every person (barring identity theft of course)?

I am glad that you clarified your position as you previously stated...

I guess you could say that AARP and Labor Unions are made up of people who, for the most part, understand and believe in what those organizations stand for. Not so for a corporation which is made of of hundreds, or thousands or tens of thousands of individuals but are controlled by a board of directors which has NO interest in what the politics of their workers may be.

Once I enter the voting booth I vote for who i beleive will best represent my beliefs and values, not who the aarp, unions, or employer says to vote for. I would hope that everyone else does as well.

Johnb - missed your earlier post 7.23 concerning the supreme court. I see that you still believe conservatives are an evil lot out to subvert Supreme court rulings.

I however, have faith in the premise of the supreme court to set aside party beliefs and rule based on the facts presented and supported by the US constitution. Sad that you would prefer a court solely aligned with your own political beliefs. Perhaps if enough of what you consider righty justices retire you can hope that a liberal president will nominate those more to your liking and who can get senate approval. Good luck!

BTW - got the links to prove your hearsay and supposition...

No, they aren't required--but when several of them make substantial income from Conservative think tanks, lobbying groups, or other organizations, sometimes lie on their disclosure forms about those activities AND vote en bloc to overturn settled law it speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Mainstream media only please with verifiable facts, no hearsay, supposition or alleged events.

If you insist. Ginni Thomas has brought hundreds of thousands of dollars the home she shares with her husband Clarence as a Conservative lobbyist and key figure within the Tea Party movement;

It’s like a Hollywood movie. One spouse goes off to work at the Supreme Court, that most august of institutions, where formality and discretion reign. The other puts on her power suit—and occasionally, a foam Lady Liberty crown—and enters the raucous, chaotic world of Tea Party politics and Fox News pontificating.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/12/sweet-virginia.html

A few hundred thou here and there must be easy to overlook in the Thomas house, because Clarence "forgot" to mention that income on his official disclosure forms;

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.

The justice came under criticism last week from Common Cause, a liberal advocacy group, for failing to disclose Mrs. Thomas’s employment as required under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. While justices are not required to say how much a spouse earns, Common Cause said its review of Internal Revenue Service filings showed that the Heritage Foundation paid Mrs. Thomas $686,589 from 2003 to 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25thomas.html

Now Ginni plans to cash in big with a new lobbying business that will deal directly with dozens of Congressional representatives on business that will inevitably come before the Supreme Court...where it can be asumed that hubby won't recuse himself;

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Adventures_of_Ginni_Thomas.html?showall

Thomas isn't the only one, either. Justice Scalia has been paid by the Koch Brothers to speak at the closed meetings where wealthy Conservative elites plan the message, goals, and tactics for the movement;

A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to the Palm Springs area for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.

Enlarge This Image

An invitation to an event in January that is being held by Koch Industries’ network of donors.

Blogs

The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

• FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
• More Politics News

Enlarge This Image

Left, Mike Burley/Topeka Capital-Journal via Associated Press; right, Robert Caplin for The New York Times

Koch Industries, an energy and manufacturing conglomerate run by the billionaire brothers Charles, left, and David Koch operates a foundation that finances political advocacy groups, but is protected from having to disclose much about what they do.

Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.”

The invitation, sent to potential new participants, offers a rare peek at the Koch network of the ultrawealthy and the politically well-connected, its far-reaching agenda to enlist ordinary Americans to its cause, and its desire for the utmost secrecy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html?ref=us

All of this has played a part in making the Roberts court the most radically activist in many, many years. And no surprise that it was the dirtiest of the bunch--Thomas, Alito, and Scalia, who made a strong statement of their feelings toward the President by boycotting the State of the Union address.

Someone once said something about correlation and causality, but I digress.

So ginny thomas wants to come across as a lobbyist as reported by "politico", is she capable of influencing justice thomas? Probably so. Is this illegal, immoral or unethical? I don't think so, just means that anything coming up before the SCOTUS directly involving ginny's organization will probably mean that justice thomas will have to recuse himself.

From the NYT article this pretty much sums it up...

"There’s no formal mechanism for review of conflicts among Supreme Court justices," Professor Rhode said. "Personally, I think issues like this are somewhat scandalous for the court, but from what we’ve seen when these issues have come up before, I don’t see that changing."

Rather sounds like other conflicts have occurred among justices in the past but no illegalities were found.

As for your newsweek link...

"I may not agree with Ginni Thomas on any policy issue, but what she’s doing seems—if I can’t say utterly commendable one could certainly say utterly proper in a democracy," says David Garrow, a historian at Cambridge University. Ginni Thomas is not litigating cases that might end up before the court, nor is she covering the court for a newspaper. This is no big deal, agrees Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog: married couples often have two big jobs between them. "This is a really ironic place for liberals to be," he says. "They’re giving the impression that a woman can’t have her own independent standing." In the event that Liberty Central is named as a party in a case that comes before the court, Justice Thomas will have to recuse himself"

Hardly a scathing condemnation of Clarence Thomas, I do like an intelligent strong woman myself rather than keeping them at home, barefoot and pregnant. Yourself?

as for your other referenced NYT article concerning the koch brothers and guests justices scalia and thomas so what? All it implies is that the justices are listening to others opinions, much like many read the opinion pages of their local newpapers and media for enlightenment on current events. Where is it stated that justices must live a cloistered life?

Other than "common cause" thinking that Thomases reason for failing to follow the federal disclosure act paperwork as "implausable", have the powers who be taken legal steps against him? Who hasn't found it oh so easy to miss allowable deductions on yearly income tax statements

Sorry Johnb, I see no compelling evidence in what you presented to think that the SCOTUS cannot present decisions based on how they interpret the US Constitution or that they are a radical group. Would you still consider them a radical group if they were made up as a majority of liberals. Of course not! And may I remind you that past decisions by this group have not always followed party lines.

Oh my, Houston...

Where to begin.

YOU describe me as an "intellectual weakling" and an "idiot", refer to my "stupidity", and then declare that I'M the "nasty"one...all in the wake of a discussion regarding left-wing hypocrisy. Forest for the trees, Houston! Priceless! You're making my argument more convincingly than I ever could.

I see that, like many of your liberal/progressive fellow travelers, you enjoy indulging in the popular view on the left that conservatives are intellectually inferior to liberals. This narrative can be seen on display in the left's view of conservative politicians from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, from Dan Quayle to Sarah Palin. The left apparently has trouble explaining conservatives like William F. Buckley, or Charles Krauthammer...I guess that would account for Bill Clinton's description of Krauthammer as "brilliant".

Ironically, my own personal favorite example of stupidty displayed by an elected official involves a liberal Democrat, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), who expressed the fear that the island of Guam might "tip over and capsize" from the weight of troops and equipment deployed there in military maneuvers.

In any event, do you think it was a smart move to lose 63 seats and control of the House, plus 6 U.S. Senate seats (including President Obama's Illinois Senate seat), in the recent midterm elections?

Hard to see the Democrats' intellectual prowess on display there, eh Houston?

And, I don't watch or listen to Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity; I cannot stand Rush Limbaugh. Beck is affable enough, but he isn't very smart, and Hannity is a one-note man...much like yourself, Houston. Limbaugh is merely obnoxious.

Lastly...

Give Mark Murray a break...surely you can tolerate just a little objectivity on occasion at First Read?

In other words there's no mechanism to investigate, no means available to sanction, and appearance of conflict of interest no longer matters.

Pretty much aligns with the Conservative "ends justify the means" attitude.

Johnb - more like your links don't establish any type of legal precedent or refer to any published judicial ethical standards the justices must uphold and follow.

I have no idea where you come up with the "ends justify the means" responce. I still regard the justices (liberal or conservative) to have the ability to make decisions based on merit as it applies to the US Constitution.

Since the US Constitution article 2 section 4 allows impeachment of civil officers (supreme court justices, if you will) for high crimes and misdemeanors, I suggest that you contact congressman Boswell to investigate and bring charges of impeachment against scalia and thomas.

Keep in maind that when congressman Gerald Ford was asked (in the 70's) on what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" his reply was along the lines of whatever Congress says it is.

By all means go for it, you have enough FR liberal supporters and FR editors to start an impeachment campaign. Heck you even have twitter and facebook to reach even more people to encourage congress to investigate and impeach.

BTW - I do thank you for taking the time to publish your links trying to support your arguments even though I used those same links to argue against your views. Ain't it great to be an American??

I've done what I intended, which is to show that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas learned the same lesson Nixon did..."I should have burned the tapes."

And you argued that it's OK to hold to that standard. Thanks for you cooperation.

rudy - in reading your post may I point out that obama has already addressed the bank issue and the jobs issue (ignored it, until 4th qtr 2010). Enforcing existing gun laws is more a function of local law enforcement and the ATF. Rather lost my in your last half of the post thou.

Since you brought up reagan...

Yea Ronnie! You got the iranian hostages home, the communists to tear down the berlin wall, gave us a star wars plan that completely buffaloed the Russians and brought us out of a recessionary period of inflation and stagflation with a new idea of trickle down economics..

Without your upbeat belief in America and its values we all would have had the attitude of "woe is me". You helped bring us out of the doldrums of carter and the shame of nixons tapes. Well done ronnie, even if you did take the occasional nap you had the faith in your staff and cabinet to carry on for the betterment of all Americans.

Your continual and unflagging willingness to work with tip o'neil through many issues shows us all on how bipartisanship should and can work.

Well done Ronnie!!

That is my story and I am sticking to it as we approch your 100th.

Wow...Did you really just say that Reagan had nothing to do with the USA winning the Cold War?

Do you realize that a cutting tax rates while eliminating loopholes, is a very conservative idea?

Brent, if you know anything about the history of those countries, you know those collapses were coming. Reagan was in office. That's it.

Brent, you're a transplant right? You were originally from Texas where they are currently re-writing the history books to match their particular mythology.

The fall of the Soviet Union happened due to internal pressures COMBINED with the fact that Gorbechov was a moderate. The country was collapsing from within. It could no longer support it's participation in the arms race and feed it's people. Something had to give and Gorbechov made the humane decision. Communist Russia was limping along on it's last legs for a decade or more before Reagan came along.

Reagan just benefitted from the timing, the Soviet Union collapsed on his watch and he claimed all the credit. The man was a master poser and an opportunist, nothing more.

Thanks for the backup newdayDAWNING10. Have a great weekend and remember to download, twit, facebook and request "Walk like an Egyptian" by Bangles I think. Just to show solidarity with Egyptians.

You're welcome, AnaBanana! Have a good weekend too, and Skip, glad to see you here, and you did an excellent job describing what happened.

By the way, Brent, just to be clear and I think my friends skip and Anabanana would agree: If it had not been Reagan in office, and a Democratic President instead, I would also call out those who tried to give credit to THAT President. It is just not true, it had to do with conditions stemming all the way back to WW1, and to say anything else is just disingenuous.

Good work everybody. It's about time Saint Reagan joins Saint Christopher and all those other "saints" who were de-canonized a couple of decades ago.

I was not a Reagan supporter when he was in office, but nowadays, given the radical right wing nature of the GOP, I find myself longing for a good old-fashioned Reagan Republican. Dour party-poopers but fiscally conservative and a good counter-weight to the left.

I sure hope we can derail this train before it's too late. If another 30 years goes by with the Republicans sliding more and more to the right they'll be goose-stepping and giving the "Seig Heil" by mid-century if not sooner. Very, very scary what's happening with the GOP.

Of course it's hard to see. History happens in slow-motion and when you are in the moment it's hard to recognize the trend. But look back. Look at Reagan, Eisenhower, TR and even Lincoln. Look at where they were coming from and what they accomplished during their terms in office. Then look at the 21st Century GOP.

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Rooseveldt, Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, none of them would recognize the 21st GOP and they would all be regarded as "squishes" and moderates leaning toward liberal.

Skip:

Good work everybody. It's about time Saint Reagan joins Saint Christopher and all those other "saints" who were de-canonized a couple of decades ago.

I would give much credit to Reagan and G. H. W. Bush for one important thing: continuing to negotiate with the Soviets as their "evil empire" was unraveling. If Reagan or Bush #1 had engaged in the bellicose rhetoric that conservatives are so fond of, or had refused to sully themselves by talking to the Commies, the collapse of the Soviet Union might have worked out very differently.

The collapse would have occurred, but life on this planet could have hung in the balance more than I think is generally realized. The nation that was disintegrating was a superpower armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over and was ruled by a collection of paranoid fanatics who might have decided they had nothing more to lose by starting a nuclear exchange. By negotiating, Reagan and Bush I strengthened Gorbachev's political position relative to the crazies in the Soviet government and military, who still were able to pull off a coup against Gorbachev and put him under house arrest during the USSR's disintegration. But Reagan apparently believed the wise words of that old British conservative Winston Churchill, who said "it's better to jaw, jaw, than war, war." So I think that in a way, we all might not be here to argue and bicker if it weren't for Reagan and Bush I. So for that, I thank him and his successor Bush, who was President in the final stages of the Soviet Union's fall.

Houston,

Absolutely and thank you very much for reminding us of that. They DID keep talking and that's very important. I remember a couple of weeks back all the hot air that was being dispensed over the UN and what a waste it is. Baloney. Pure Oscar Myer.

As long as you're talking, you aren't shooting and that's a good thing.

Good job and thanks for chiming in.

Anna - lets see reagan, president elect 1980, sworn in 1981 and left office in 1989. Berlin wall fell in 1989 and the soviet union declined rapidly thereafter...

On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the USSR, declaring the office extinct and ceding all the powers still vested in it to the president of Russia: Yeltsin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Soviet_Union

american-2051576

Anna - lets see reagan, president elect 1980, sworn in 1981 and left office in 1989. Berlin wall fell in 1989 and the soviet union declined rapidly thereafter...

WRONG. The USSR was declining for years before then, too. And one reason that's seldom mentioned for its decline was the great cost of its war in Afghanistan after the rebels got covert support from the U.S., which supplied them with lethal weapons like the Stinger antiaircraft missiles. That support for the rebels was started by (gasp!) Jimmy Carter's administration. OF course, we can't give Carter credit for anything, even if he deserves it. But Carter certainly can't be blamed for neglecting Afghanistan and letting it fall into the hands of Islamic extremists after the Soviets were driven out, culminating in the attacks of 9/11/01. That was Bush Numero Uno's failure.

Correlation is not causality, american...a basic lesson of statistics.

Johnb - Have a problem with me correcting anabanas time line? Your argument of causality falls flat as I used no statistical inference or correlation other than establishing a timeline of events different than what ana presented.

Houston, again just correcting anas time line. Regardless of when the soviets decline started they were still seen to be a force to be reckoned with in the 80's. Hindsight can be used to determine the start of the soviets decline, but it can't be used to say that actions taken by the US in the 80's were in error when your assumptions were not known at that time.

Houston - your post #9.11 got me curious on the timeline of the Soviet involvement in Afganistan.

Seems that it was under Nixons administration that efforts were started to contain the Soviet union after they were diplomatically involved in Afganistan affairs in 1973 and the Soviet forces invading and occupying Afganistan starting on Dec 8 1979. Seems that Carter was only carrying on what Nixon started.

In Feb 1992 the Soviet puppet government was ousted by Ahmed Shah Massoud. In Nov 1992 Clinton was president elect, since we only provided covert support to the Afganistans in rebellion against the Soviets and reduced aid into the 90's, seems that it was on Clintons watch that failure occured since the taliban didn't control large areas of Afganistan until 1996 (Wikipedia source)

The following is a link to the timeline of the Soveit involvement in Afganistan.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_soviet_occupation_of_afghanistan

BTW what date did you suggest that the Soviets started their decline?

I remember seeing Ronald Reagan at my University in 1984. I'll tell you truth: Somehow, I was able to get into the area he was speaking, which was outside in a place known as the Horseshoe. There were two entrances, and people were showing their tickets as they went in. Just to show how much times have changed...there were no pat-downs, no metal detectors, and although I am sure they were around, no visible security. I slipped in behind some people with a ticket, sat down and the President of the United States was soon about 12 feet from me speaking. I absolutely tell you the truth./// no security shake-downs at all. And this was even after this 1981 assassination attempt.
Anyway, it was a good speech. A few years later, I was to see the Pope at the same place, again...no security. That was in 1987.

Thanks to Obama, the Dow has doubled since the 2008 collapse...and you can thank your 401k and IRA recovery to that too!

I most certainly do. Unfortunately, the Tea Partiers either are so poor in handling money that they have no investments, or they're too busy drawing hateful posters of the President to notice he has recovered for them what G. W. Bush lost.

And I realize that it wasn't Obama all by himself, of course. But if he hadn't acted when he did to pass the stimulus and bail out the auto companies, we'd be in the middle of Great Depression II.

Pat:

Right on. When President Obama took office we were loosing 650,000 jobs per month. He managed to slow down the bleeding through the summer and fall and stopped it in January of 2010. Since then we have seen positive growth in jobs for 13 straight months. Do we need more, absolutely we do, but what can our President do when the GOP is on record saying they want him to fail and oppose, filibuster or block every job creating bill he proposes.

This is the GOP agenda in a nut shell, to do everything they can to make him fail, then blame him for their actions and try to ride that pony into the White House.

I'll bet those 36000 people are thrilled with this jobs report. And we all have lived through one of the worst weather months ever, so all the construction jobs that went unfilled will go on the Feb. report (if the bad winter lasts til April or May we'll all go nuts and won't care). So it is progress. We all wish it was more jobs but at least we are moving in the right direction, with no input or assistance from the Republicans.

So the millions of jobs that were lost due to the .com bubble bursting, 9/11 and Katrina were all Bush's fault? Man you kids find him awfully powerful, don't you?

Bush, much like Obama, started with a hell of a hole to dig out of because of circumstances handed to him. The fact that there was a net gain during the Bush Administration tells me something must have gone right. The fact that there is a net gain during the Obama Administration tells me the same thing. I don't think either one of them deserves direct credit or direct blame. Things happening today go back generations, not months.

pat - 8 years of millions and millions of job losses?? From previous FR liberals bush only created created a million jobs and that the real job losses started occurring in 2007 and accelerated thereafter, all while under the watchful eye of a democrat controlled congress. Nic attempt at revisionism.

However you are quite correct that the jobs lost have yet to be put back on the books and that those just entering the job market will only add to the number of jobs required. Looks like all of the experienced and skilled baby boomers with strong old fashioned work ethics will need to retire early so that the inexperienced, unskilled and work ethic challenged youngsters can take over.

american,

“all while under the watchful eye of a democrat controlled congress” Do you mean the same Congress that passed the law that sent out the “Rebate Checks” to help stimulate the economy early in 2008?

Everyone knows that unemployment, however high or low is accredited to the President, not Congress.

Dennis, as your compatriots continue to dwell on it, the president gets the privilege of the blame or success. Yet many liberals have changed their tune to continually blame the republicans and the republican controlled house of one month for the lack of jobs or ideas. Rather humorous actually when one stops to consider that either party has a high degree of wanting to spend more than what revenues bring in.

Rebate checks never entered my mind, but the fact that congress essentially holds the purse strings and provides a measure of regulatory oversight, they (whether bipartisan or not) are also accountable for the economic welfare of the US. In retrospect obama and congress probably would have stimulated the economy more by dividing the stimulus funds (not TARP or automakers bailouts) up equally amongst all taxpayers.

american,

“In retrospect obama and congress probably would have stimulated the economy more by dividing the stimulus funds (not TARP or automakers bailouts) up equally amongst all taxpayers.”

Possibly but I doubt it because the fear people feel due to loss of wealth in their 401k’s, stocks and property value (net worth) would cause them to pay down debt and increase savings. One problem observed with the “rebate checks” was that most of the money was saved, not spent, and this was a few months before the crash.

While many say “let the people have the money and they will decide how best to spend it” it will not boost the economy if they have lost their job, fear they may lose their job or have lost a substantial part of their net worth – they will save it. This is where, however ineffective they may be, it is the government that must spend.

Some will also say that saving and paying down debt will put money in the hands of investors, thus businesses, and will drive the economy has proven to be untrue as businesses have accumulated nearly $2 trillion in savings – they are not spending either.

As for those that point to the new Republican House for “where the jobs” it is part political maneuvering and part fun because they promised to focus on jobs first and have, for the last 2 years, especially John Boehner, asked the President “where are the jobs”. Turnabout is fair play – don’t you think?

dennis - Heck yes spend down on debt! I know that I would pay down my debt and would also pay cash for what I would want to buy. That is just fiscal responsibility, something that neither party has expressed a desire to do yet. Debt means paying interest which does not re-enter the economy at a fast rate or does it mean that the debt holder has the ability to spend more money. During the real estate runup prior to the burst in 2007 and 2008 I considered getting another mortgage for "fun things and home remodeling among other expenditures" I daresay that if I did my home and many of the new possessions would have been gone.

As I understand it, GDP was high in the 4th qtr 2009 because of the stimulas and dropped off steeply into the 1 -2 % range during the 1st three quarters of 2010. Hardly an effective use of those funds as well as our general population continued to falter

Americans propensity for debt over the years is in large part I believe the cause for our great recession. As risks were ignored and hawkers sold many on how we always needed to have the latest and greatest or that the economy and values would always increase.

Now we have a much deserved lesson learned on what can happen by carrying too much debt and the interest that we have to pay on that debt rather than have that money available to spend on what we want.

I have more faith in the american taxpayer to spend more wisely than I do in our government and I think that our government is still kicking the proverbial can down the street.

Business investment has always been a cornerstone of growth as well as throwing ones money away. Yes, corporations are sitting on a ton of money with nowhere to spend it as they wait to see how government policies will affect their bottom line and to a resurgence in demand for their products, after all inventory is taxable. Business likes to think 5, 10, 20 years down the road and to have the flexibility to change plans as needed. Politicians just think to the next election and government workers hope that the private sector continues to fund their salaries and benefits.

american,

On the reason businesses are sitting on so much cash we are not going to agree. Yes most businesses develop 5 and 10 year plans but when they do it, it is based on current and known factors and updated every year.

They are waiting on demand. Costs like taxes, health insurance and regulation rules/laws are the same for their competition and are not a big factor in decisions to expand or hire. Those costs are incorporated in the product pricing.

When they look at labor cost, tax rates and other overhead costs they will be comparing State to State or Country to Country.

dennis point taken in part on costs, I would say your point has merit in an ongoing strong economy that is not so much dependent on continuing job growth as ours is today.

Uncertainty in the direction the government wants to go and new regulatory rules not yet formulated and taxes do play a part in hiring as it reflects on the costs of doing business regardless of competition.

Business cost reflects on what a product will sell for, competition and branding refines the selling price even further. Small margins due to competition will have business looking at how to control costs to improve margins for a desired net profit.

Unfortunately for us today that means that labor cost is a big factor, hence machines being introduced to create products better and at lower cost than humans. Upside is that more skilled labor is required, the downside is lower skilled labor is not, or as you point out outsourcing to a lower cost locale

Consumer demand will only reflect on the volume of products produced and the number of additional laborers required to produce that volume. However with obamas (and I am reasonably sure the republicans support it as well) capital equipment stimulus tax credits will likely only be used by businesses that have confidence in consumer demand returning at a growing level for their product or who wish to update older less productive equipment. In either scenario more productive equipment is likely to replace workers as well until volume increases even more.

potential reasons on why businesses have so much cash on hand today...

uncertainty in what future products will be in demand and how to spend $$ to produce said products of the future.

Lack of viable and available mergers and aquisitions to maintain growth and market presence.

World competion and availablity of commodities

They created a product that has a high demand at a price consumers are willing to buy.

Higher worker productivity but not higher product demand to increase workforce size or hours

Cheaper to pay OT than hire more workers, because of volume

they don't want to give their investors a higher rate of return

Those are the ones most likely as they cover a wide range of possibilities to cover future growth and i haven't even considered financial company reserves.

american,

Good points all – thanks.

However I still contend that the primary reason to hire or layoff is demand. Like I said we will not agree on this. Have a great day.

American - I have a buddy of mine that is a corporate recruiter and he is telling me that companies are hiring consultants at a high rate right now. In other words, instead of hiring people, a lot of companies are hiring consultants. As far as the company's bottom line is concerned, many companies EXPENSE this cost.

Maybe our metric - full-time employment - is misleading. Maybe we should be looking at consulting and add these numbers into the 'employed' numbers. Maybe there should be a new category that would possibly show that employment did in fact increase, but not in the 'traditional' ways.

pietro - valid point, I call them contract workers and some job descriptions refer to them as 1099ers. Regardless, realized wages may be more than the companies pays its regular workers but there are little to no bennies and the period of employment is always temporary. The exceptional ones may be offered full employment and benefits later. All companies exspense out their labor costs whether full time or temporary workers. not sure on how 'consultants' are viewed by the IRS when it comes to a companies tax credits though.

States look at these people as being self-employed and generally not eligible to draw unemployment, hence they never are reflected in the numbers.

Solution on the number crunching??? Beats the heck out of me, and yet I know many are currently falling off of the rolls simply because the extended benefit period has run out, this also skews the unemployment numbers.

Dennis - point taken, If a company today only wants to manufacture buggy whips they are not likely to remain in business or hire many people.

pat, I think you covered that pretty well.

Hi Pat,

I myself was not a big fan of Ronald Regan at the time he was President. However, I did respect him as President, because he seemed to want to work with both sides. I think today he would have been greatly disappointed with the GOP-Tea People and the stance they are taking, in wanting to destroy President Obama.

I also wonder how a clone of President Regan would fare today. Most likely the Right would say he is too liberal.

What a depressing recital of Republican history, Pat....and I used to belong to that party. In trying to find a silver lining, our country has survived all of them when the Democrats come in to bail things out!

Don't all our representatives face an election every 2, 4, or 6 years?

If you don't like what your representative is done vote for his/her opponent next time.

If your point of view didn't take a particular race too bad...that's what happens in an election.

The state level Republicans aren't any better. First thing the Republicans in Maine did when they won the majority in 2010 was to propose repealing a policy to ban BHA from sippy cups. They are also trying to weaken our seat belt law. The "jobs" they hope to create are from a referendum, that barely passed in 2010, for a gambling casino. Maine doesn't have much going for it except beautiful scenery, farming, logging, and fishing and the Republicans' idea of job creation is to allow condos to be built on sand dunes, open 10 million acres of forests for housing development, and the relaxing of toxic waste restrictions, which I would say is not that great for our "brand."

Sorry, BPA, not BHA, my bad.

Wow, Jim---great post. Are you sure you live in Texas? The Republicans who were running in 20108 said "trust us---we won't be like those guys who did all that under George Bush" but I have yet to see any evidence that they will be any different. While calling for our country to fail will probably always top the list of unbelievable things Mr. Limbaugh says, the recent praise for brutality to journalists and derision of the Chinese should be in the Top 10.

Rush Limbaugh. I didn't hear it live (as I did the wish for Obama to fail) but did see and hear a clip of his gleeful tirade about the reporters. Sickening.

But don't worry, Jennifer. If he follows his usual pattern, he will deny that he said what he said, or was taken out of context, or that it is a leftist conspiracy to smear him ~ or some other off the wall lie to attempt to cover his tracks. Of course, if it had been a FoxNews or NewsMax or Weekly Standard journalist he would have had another take on the situation. They weez "mainstream" or "drive-by" media types so its okay in his book to terrorize and intimidate them.

I will never understand why otherwise "normal" people listen to these lying provocateurs and believe any of it. They believe the most unbelievable crap. Limbaugh is the last person to stand in judgement of anyone, so why take what he says as credible? Like I said, I just don't understand it. Maybe some Behavioral Psychologist out there can explain it.

Most don't believe anything Limbaugh says Jennifer, they just get their kicks out of his hate for Democrats. It's the same with Beck, Hannity, O'rielly and most of Fox talking heads. It's not the truth their after, it's the hate.