Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

STIMULUS WATCH: Unemployment eclipses fiscal jolt

Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:12 AM EST
business, politics, stimulus
Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press

Graphic shows status of stimulus spending

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The jobless got a hand. Taxpayers got tax breaks. And a sinking economy stabilized.

But the public's response to President Barack Obama's recession-fighting policies has been increasingly dreary. And the reason is simple: six months of unemployment above 9.6 percent.

"It doesn't yet feel like much of a recovery," Obama had to concede Wednesday, even as he sought to promote his year-old massive economic stimulus bill.

Unemployment trumps all else. It provides a lens through which the public reads an economic narrative of bank bailouts, executive bonuses, expensive health care remedies and exploding debt.

In that environment, gross domestic product growth is an abstraction. Obama gets little credit for an economic turnaround under his watch. And Republicans seek political advantage by merely asking, "Where are the jobs?"

This week, on the anniversary of the stimulus plan, the White House is seeking redress. Obama and the president's political arm at the Democratic National Committee are casting the program — initially priced at $787 billion and now estimated at $862 billion — as a demonstrable success and its critics as hypocrites.

It's a political necessity.

As with previous instances of high unemployment, the public's skepticism — anger, even — poses a threat to the president's party in Congress. In 1982, with unemployment above 10 percent and Ronald Reagan in the White House, Republicans lost 26 House seats.

The public's frustration also threatens efforts in Congress to win the kind of new short-term spending the White House believes the economy needs to stay on a positive trajectory.

Support for the stimulus plan has gone from 55 percent last June to 38 percent, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center this month. More worrisome for Obama's allies in Congress, support for the stimulus fell 18 percentage points, to 60 percent, among voters who identified themselves as Democrats.

"For the first time, we have as many people saying that Obama's policies have made things worse as say his policies have made them better," said Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut. "In all fairness, many more people say it's too early to tell."

With that in mind, the White House dispatched Cabinet members and Vice President Joe Biden to 35 communities across the country to promote programs funded by the stimulus. Biden issued a glowing first-year report, and the president declared, "We have rescued this economy from the worst of this crisis."

In an e-mail to Obama's vast network of presidential campaign supporters, his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, boiled down the pitch: On the first anniversary of the stimulus package, job losses have seen a reversal of the trend experienced in the last year of the Bush administration.

It's a simple and effective message, even though many economists say a financial sector rescue initiated by the Bush administration and by the Federal Reserve are also factors affecting the changing, positive turn.

White House officials maintain that the stimulus suffered a certain guilt by association with the unpopular $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund.

"People have conflated money lent to banks — much of it paid back with interest — to stabilize the financial system, or investments that had to be made in restructuring auto companies, with the recovery plans," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday. "I'm not sure exactly what could have been done to rectify that."

But Pew's Kohut says the public does distinguish between the programs, and while more disapprove than approve of both, people have a much more negative reaction to the bank bailout than to the stimulus.

What's more, the White House and the national Democratic Party have launched a counterattack on Republicans, noting that while many in the GOP criticize the stimulus package, several have applauded spending in their own home districts. "They can't really have it both ways," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said on his White House blog.

Still, the administration has had to make its own corrections along the way, which haven't helped the salesmanship. Before Obama took office in January 2009, his economists promised that a sizable jolt to the economy would keep employment below 8 percent.

It didn't.

To be sure, few economists back then saw the recession plunging as low as it did and many agreed with the Obama team's projections. But Obama has borne the criticism for that misjudgment.

The administration also sought to make the program a model of transparency, posting data on spending, projects and contracts. New or saved jobs, administration officials said, would be counted. But the data exposed serious counting flaws. In the end, the White House was left estimating job creation after all.

With the public losing faith in the stimulus, the White House is begging for some patience. "We've only been halfway through the act," Biden said on CBS Wednesday. "The job-creating portions are really loaded at the second half."

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jim Kuhnhenn's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (108)
Plain Sick O taxes

What a load of Donkey Dong . There is no earthly way of calculating what jobs if any were saved except in Government service . And there were no sustainable jobs created . This isn't the 1920s gentlemen. We have TVs and Computers and know the future before it happens . You spin and spin, but the facts , or lack of them in your case , are there for all to see. It the stimulus was so successful, how is it that you are asking for another one ? Where are all the " Shovel in the Ground jobs " that were suppose to overwhelm us. Why is it that the unemployment rate is way over the 8% ceiling that Obama promised it would not go beyond ? And we know the unemployment figure is much higher in a lot of states. With the climate of lies told to America over this past year and the 16 years before, you all will have to do a lot better if you expect us to believe anything from Washington in the future.

  • 14 votes
#1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:35 AM EST
my-pockets-r-mt

One question no one seems to want to answer. Why are they getting ready to pass another stimulus (by another name, of course) when they haven't even spent the first one?

Why not redirect the money not spent to something useful (if they feel they REALLY have to spend, spend spend)?

  • 9 votes
#1.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:08 AM EST
A Sergeant's Mom

When a large majority of Americans are teetering on the verge of homelessness, is that not useful?

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:22 AM EST
mountainmike-1199289

So why is it that the Republicans pushed through the first stimulus bill to bail out Wall Street, and the corporations have bounced back this last quarter to be handing out a new round of obscene salaries and bonuses? Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants are now are even more "too big to let fail" while we talk about a jobless recovery.

I know Republicans will line up to say this is the worst leadership in years, but that is too blatant of a free pass for Bush-Cheney over the previous 8 years, the administration that helped to cause the recession. Everyone knew the housing market bubble would burst, but no one acted to prevent it. Wild derivative speculation was obviously a new area of white collar crime that needed regulation, but no one acted to prevent it. And now it is soooooooooooo very convenient for Republicans to blame the Democrats.

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:41 AM EST
mavrick03

well of coarse they can make wild claims who can forgot this?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/farewell-saved-or-created-obama-administration-changes-the-counting-of-stimulus-jobs.html

Mav

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:43 AM EST
ebookout

The only thing that was accomplished was Unions were bought,and Teachers were bought. Other than that the rest will be used just before the election this year to buy more votes or the same again.

Jobs saved or created ? Someone smoking to much pot.

  • 7 votes
#1.5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:44 AM EST
Roy-933464

What a load of donkey dong.

Unemployment is a load of donkey dong. I'm active duty military of 20 years and counting pulling a 6-figure salary NOT including all benefits, 3 degrees, and a life-long pension. I've got a job for that 9.6 percent, and there are plent more out there besides in this line of work...but sorry the catch is that you might have to try something new, get your hands dirty, and MOVE WHERE THE JOBS ARE!!!

"Job creation" is also a ridiculous thing to measure a President's effectiveness by, when all other indications point in a positive direction. I thought we would have expected jobs to decrease as technology is incorporated into society. I suspect that as people were laid off or fired, those businesses and companies started operating smarter and more efficiently. Where do you measure that and give the President credit for saving a business through other incentives in the stimulus?

  • 9 votes
#1.6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:48 AM EST
usn_fastattackDeleted
UNA_Lion

As a Conservative, I thought the bank bailouts were a terrible idea. Just as should happen with irresponsible corporations and companies, the banks that had set conditions for their own failure should have been allowed to fail and collapse.

IMO, Mr. Bush was no Conservative.

  • 8 votes
#1.8 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:56 AM EST
Raindream

Kudos to Roy at #1.6 and UNA_Lion above. I don't know what tax cuts this articles is referring to, and extending unemployment benefits doesn't help people get a job, does it? The 14% stimulus spent so far appears to have gone to state governments (according to an NPR report I remember). That's not the way to boost the economy! And fixing bridges, while important work, is not the way to do it either. I fear the White House has no clue how to make or save money. I mean, Mr. Obama said businesses needed to borrow money to make payroll. What the heck?

  • 4 votes
#1.9 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:11 AM EST
Funkpocket

If he doesn't create jobs he's a liar...if he does create jobs he's a socialist!

Infrastructure and state support, are responsible ways to create jobs without meddling in the private domain.

When I drive around the country I see Tuns of projects from Florida to Montana.

  • 1 vote
#1.10 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:40 AM EST
silver163

It the stimulus was so successful, how is it that you are asking for another one ?

when the stimulus was first proposed many economist said it needs to be more or there needs to be a second one.

I don't know what tax cuts this articles is referring to, and extending unemployment benefits doesn't help people get a job, does it?

i remember an article that said only 12% people were informed on tax cuts i guess you the other percentage. as far as unemployment benefits that's kept your wet dream of people rotting in the streets from happening.

  • 1 vote
#1.11 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:45 AM EST
Ron Christman

'dream - 95% of us got a tax cut as part of the stimulus. It should be showing up in your paycheck (if it's not big enough for you, you can send it to me).

State (and local) governments needed the money to keep basic services in place. Our infrastructure is in desperate need of maintenance. . . Just ask the Republicans about how quickly they had to move to try to replace the bridge that fell down (killing 13 people) on I-35 so it would be in place before their national convention. How else do you get people back to work with public money unless it is on (shovel ready) infrastructure work?

If you believe that you know more than the White House about stimulating the economy, please share with us.

BTW - President Obama said businesses needed to borrow money for new development. .

    #1.12 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:51 AM EST
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    "People have conflated money lent to banks — much of it paid back with interest — to stabilize the financial system

    Really, so why is Obama proposing to tax the banks when he said to them "We want our money back" - that sounded so stupid when he is the one who gave it to them in the first place- as a Senator he voted for the TARP bailout and as president he asked for and presided over the second half of the bailout. A 100 million dollar tax (which, of course, you will be backdoor taxed because the consumer is always handed the "fee")?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704281204575002502656839716.html

    http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/do-banks-deserve-obama-s-proposed-bank-tax

    With the public losing faith in the stimulus, the White House is begging for some patience. "We've only been halfway through the act," Biden said on CBS Wednesday. "The job-creating portions are really loaded at the second half."

    Really? So then the stimulus wasn't the "dire emergency" with "shovel ready jobs" that they said it was, if so much of it is back ended. In the meantime, nearly 16-17 million people are out of a job....but, they "are going to help us". Reminds me of the old adage, "I am from the government, and I am here to help" - run the other way!

    • 3 votes
    #1.13 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:57 AM EST
    California Militia

    Just want to comment on a snippet of this article.

    The article states "What's more, the White House and the national Democratic Party have launched a counterattack on Republicans, noting that while many in the GOP criticize the stimulus package, several have applauded spending in their own home districts. "They can't really have it both ways," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said on his White House blog."

    It can be both ways...people can not pay taxes and still get government assistance. I can hate nascar and still watch the crashes. I told my wife I do not like her new car, but I still drive it.

    • 3 votes
    #1.14 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:03 AM EST
    Mad as hell 306

    "White House officials maintain that the stimulus suffered a certain guilt by association with the unpopular $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund".

    The 700 billion TARP action, combined with trillions in liquidity released by the Fed into the financial sector is primarily responsible for any recovery so far. And, at least with Tarp we have gotten close to 500 billion payed back!

    Much of the 200 billion in stimullus monies that actually was channeled into jobs, wound up in the government sector, where the employer pays no federal taxes!

    But nice try Mr President crediting the poorly conceived stimulus plan for any good economic news - Even your own stimulus job website (http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx) contradicts you - it quotes 595,263 jobs total (not the 2 million you mentioned on TV).

    Mr President, your credibility is falling like a stone, and if you don't start getting in step with popular opinion, you will have a republican controlled house and Senate next year year to deal with.

    • 3 votes
    #1.15 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:05 AM EST
    ZeroX

    Delusional! Deceitful! Dishonest! I wonder if the sheep that voted for this clown are seeing the light yet! Soon we will not even be able to pay the interest on the massive debt this LIAR-IN-CHIEF has accumulated. Can you say, massive debt, massive layoffs, massive tax increases, massive BANKRUPTCY! The sad thing is obama actually has the NUTS to get on national TV and tell us all is fine and his socialist agenda is working

    • 4 votes
    #1.16 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:12 AM EST
    A Sergeant's Mom

    Hey Roy...

    I did try something new, aced it, and your tax dollars are paying for it. AND my sons serves in Iraq.

    Hire me.

    Mighty pompous attitude coming from a probably middle-aged Caucasian male...who has most of the advantages this country has to offer - by self-serving -

    • 2 votes
    #1.17 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:12 AM EST
    FrJackHackett

    As repugnant as the bank bailout was, if it hadn't been done our entire financial system might have collapsed and the subsequent need for the government to completely take it over would have been the next step. This conservative fairy tale that markets are somehow divinely guided and will always self correct is just awesome in its naivete. Yeah, sure, markets will always self correct just as terminal illness will always "self-correct." The real problem with the bail outs was the way the money was distributed by Hank have-as-much-as-you-want-no-strings-attached Paulson.

      #1.18 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:10 AM EST
      Roy-933464

      Sergeant's Mom. Pompous attitude? Not sure what it is that you aced, or what part of my post you didn't understand enough to call me privileged, or conclude that i'm middle-aged or caucasion! LOL! Everything I accomplished, I earned. I haven't run across too many privileged military types since I entered Enlisted bootcamp 20 years ago at age 17. The ones that I did, I would call blessed, and they were true patriots not in it for the money. Sound kinda like a victim to me...with all due respect.

      The point is that there are plenty of jobs available to those motivated to seek them out. If you have limitations on what jobs you will take, how hard you want to work, where you will move, what status you want that job to bring you, so will be the limitations on your options. I flipped burgers, stocked vegetable market stands, rounded up shopping carts, cleaned movie theaters and health spas for employment all before the age of 17...if I HAD to do it again, I would. If that makes my attitude about unemployment (not working) pompous, then I've earned that right to have and express it.

      I didn't say there was no reason for being unemployed, I said that unemployment is not a reliable measure of the state of the economy, and that that 9.6% has its share of those unemployed by choice. If the shoe fits where it. If not, keep it moving.

      • 2 votes
      #1.19 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:52 PM EST
      Raindream

      Ron (#1.12), here are comments I made on an NYT article seeded by Killfile on this topic.

      In the early months of last year, spending by state and local governments was falling rapidly, as was tax revenue. In the spring, tax revenue continued to drop, yet spending jumped — during the very time when state and local officials were finding out roughly how much stimulus money they would be receiving. This is the money that has kept teachers, police officers, health care workers and firefighters employed.

      This jump in spending is for the salaries of teachers, etc.? So, they were not getting paid before the stimulus came in?

      And then it says corporate spending rose at the end of last year because certain tax credits expired on Dec 31. What were the credits for? I doubt it had to do with job retention.

      ... the billions of dollars in tax cuts, food stamps and jobless benefits in the stimulus have still made a difference.

      What are these tax cuts? My payroll tax deduction rate was changed, but my income taxes were not reduced. And food stamps and jobless benefits don't create jobs. They create people dependent on the government.

      The writer then says consumer spending rose due to stimulus checks, but no one is earning anything here. We're just shuffling money around, and we aren't even doing that because we are so high in national debt. Consumption is not the whole of the economy, and when the government takes money from one person to give to another, that's no better than stealing.

      • 2 votes
      #1.20 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:35 PM EST
      A Sergeant's Mom

      "Sergeant's Mom. Pompous attitude? Not sure what it is that you aced, or what part of my post you didn't understand enough to call me privileged, or conclude that i'm middle-aged or caucasion! LOL! Everything I accomplished, I earned. I haven't run across too many privileged military types since I entered Enlisted bootcamp 20 years ago at age 17. The ones that I did, I would call blessed, and they were true patriots not in it for the money. Sound kinda like a victim to me...with all due respect."

      *Yeah – pompous attitude – you are sure judgmental about millions of unemployed American citizens, Sir. If I were you I’d be very careful what I said about that in the harshest economy this country has seen since the Great Depression. I don’t know what your mother taught you about how to treat others – but we certainly don’t make fun of people starving.

      Everything I accomplished, including three and four full time jobs held simultaneously AND going to school AND giving piano lessons AND many other things to improve my life I EARNED. Do you feel that because I’m female I didn’t earn it?

      OH, I’m running into a ‘privileged military type’ right here – perhaps you are projecting how you feel about yourself? You feel somewhat entitled to special treatment over most US citizens because you made the decision to sign a paper to join the military? I worked before age 17. Does that count as important? Or is it ONLY those who join the military are important?

      I’m starting to see civil rights violations that prove ONLY military and police are important and the rest of the US citizens can starve. That’s what’s happening. You all are soaking up the perks along with politicians in Washington and watching your fellow Americans starve – except for the kids over in Iraq and Afghanistan – they are truly the ones serving this country on your sorry ass. They are stuck in a hellhole because of men like you who sit here and do nothing but bitch about the rest of America. What exactly DID you do in the military, Sir?

      You are right – I am a victim – and my civil rights were horribly violated by people who work for the government and broke my bones, robbed my bank accounts and left me for dead – after 48 years of peace. Why? Because money is tight in the nation and they determined that because I’m female and middle-aged I’m no longer worth anything?

      Well – those who made that decision are watching my son serve in Iraq.

      What American heroes those legislators in Washington, DC are – mostly middle-aged or geriatric men. True servants. Determining the rest of America as not worth saving – but ensuring their jobs are absolutely secure. Judging older women to have NOTHING, no benefits in any way unless they go on welfare – and then bitch that they are LAZY!

      No matter how hard we older women work – YOU will complain. My group of peers will NEVER do anything to satisfy YOUR group of male peers. You hate women.

      "The point is that there are plenty of jobs available to those motivated to seek them out. If you have limitations on what jobs you will take, how hard you want to work, where you will move, what status you want that job to bring you, so will be the limitations on your options. I flipped burgers, stocked vegetable market stands, rounded up shopping carts, cleaned movie theaters and health spas for employment all before the age of 17...if I HAD to do it again, I would. If that makes my attitude about unemployment (not working) pompous, then I've earned that right to have and express it."

      *Prove it, Sir. And since you are so knowledgeable about the current economy – tell me where these jobs are for older women and why so many are not being hired. Tell me why most women still make only ¾ of what men make OR LESS. Show me how many women are able to live on their own and pay for a mortgage or rent, vehicle, utilities – in 2010 – give me names. YOU CAN’T! Unless you make them up.

      You have no idea what I have done for jobs. And I guarantee – you wouldn’t do half of the ones I have had! You wouldn’t lower yourself to make ends meet. You’re talking to someone who DIDN’T get proper unemployment because the state saw she was single and wouldn’t pay the lousy $50.00 per week so that I could buy groceries. So – you don’t have room to judge me.

      I’ve earned the right to tell you like it is! You know nothing about reality. You certainly know how to spin a lie like most males with your attitude. You hate women and run them out of jobs so that your needs are met. To hell with us – starve the bitches out. You would watch your grandmother go out to the dogs.

      You’re talking to someone who had perfect credit all of her adult life and worked damned hard every freaking day to care for her family and worked outside the home and completed her degree. I was a minister’s wife – whose minister/executive husband worked for a governor of a state. He assaulted my sons and took everything from me. Then he illegally fled to Texas where that governor he worked for made sure he had a cushy job waiting for him.

      Well, that governor is under investigation right now – Easley in North Carolina – don’t wonder why – he is what they say he is – corrupt as they come. He permitted my ex – a former director of his – to leave this state with my son after assaulting him . I won’t get into the horrific details of what he did to me – don’t have to. I don’t owe you or anyone an explanation. But – before you go around judging everyone who doesn’t have a job or is disabled or too ill to work – because of this economy – you better have your facts straight. You are starting a conflict where you don’t want to. I will tell you that right now. Leave it alone.

      You and other people with your attitude are messing with the lives of the majority of Americans and claiming that you are a patriot – what I see is scum. Self-proclaiming to be some kind of royalty where none exists.

      If you knew my true heritage – heh – you wouldn’t be saying the things you are saying to me. You are not worthy, Sir to spew hatred to me.

      "I didn't say there was no reason for being unemployed, I said that unemployment is not a reliable measure of the state of the economy, and that that 9.6% has its share of those unemployed by choice. If the shoe fits where it. If not, keep it moving."

      *Don’t mitigate your words to me – you make no sense. There is no choice where a company looks at you and says, “We’re sorry, but we’ve gone in another direction.” Be careful who you say your careless rants to without having the authority to do so. Your identity is not that hidden that it cannot be reported.

      Spewing hate isn’t limited to racists. Hate can come from those who wish to view themselves as better than others and say careless things to preclude others from food and life necessities. Starving people out because they are unemployed is immoral. The law is clear in what it says.

      Equal protection is for everyone regardless of their income or lack thereof.

      • 2 votes
      #1.21 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:19 PM EST
      Roy-933464

      Seek therapy.

      • 2 votes
      #1.22 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:41 PM EST
      A Sergeant's Mom

      You need intensive mental health therapy, Bub.

      Didn't like that I sounded off on your lies.

      Hate is not equal to health, Roy Boy.

      • 1 vote
      #1.23 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:29 PM EST
      Roy-933464

      Do you honestly believe I read it? You do need therapy though...seriously.

      • 1 vote
      #1.24 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:55 PM EST
      A Sergeant's Mom

      No. You do.

      Yes, I do honestly believe you read it, and didn't like it. I don't see anyone else on here brave enough to tell you like it is.

      I DO see a lot of bullcrap of "what the economy is like out there." Bunch of know-it-alls like you. You have no clue because you're sitting in your cushy military benefit world, clinging to your security blanket - that thousands of Americans don't have. Get a grip on reality, Sir.

      You still haven't revealed what you did in the military. I think you're all hogwash and on here trying to impress people with what you DON'T know.

      What?

      *crickets*

      • 2 votes
      #1.25 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:04 PM EST
      Roy-933464

      Hmmm...what does this button do ("Ignore this author")?

      • 1 vote
      #1.26 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:26 PM EST
      A Sergeant's Mom

      Hmmm...what does this button do ("Reality check - MaybeImNotSuchABigMilitaryHeroThatITellEveryoneIAmALoadOfDonkeyDong")

      Remember to press.

      "I'm active duty military of 20 years and counting pulling a 6-figure salary NOT including all benefits, 3 degrees, and a life-long pension"

      Sure.

      • 1 vote
      #1.27 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:08 PM EST
      Roy-933464

      You are probably the most immature middle aged woman i've ever interacted with Lol! How's the job hunting going? Just taking a little break? I understand.

      • 1 vote
      #1.28 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:45 PM EST
      Reply
      authorondo

      Truly sad, this is the worst leadership we've had in scores of years. Obama has been a failure. The nation is bankrupt, unemployment is soaring, and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't flickering.

      Please resign, Obama, find a good executive to run the show.

      • 7 votes
      Reply#2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:08 AM EST
      A Sergeant's Mom

      Baloney.

      See my post below.

      How can you ignore that Bush gave away trillions of our money during the hardest economic times since the Great Depression? How can you blame Obama for that? He inherited that economy when he took office.

      Show me how you can blame a president that has only initiated programs to thwart worse-case scenarios.

      President Obama does not control the Congress - so he didn't slow the progress down. He's sitting and waiting for Congress to do something responsible. He's waiting for taxpayers to use their good common sense and hold members of Congress responsible for not acting on what Americans need right now - jobs!

      • 4 votes
      #2.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:45 AM EST
      authorondo

      I thought Obama said the stimulus plan was going to hold unemployment to 8%. It's probably double that. He needs to lower taxes and tell the Democratic congress he needs their support. He's their guy.

      Low unemployment (5%) during eight years in office for President Bush is the fact. Your boy, Obama, doesn't know the business side of governing.

      Obama better go back to business school and stay away from the crooks he's running around with. Any president with both house of congress under his command should be improving on the past.

      Obama is tearing the country down. He's a socialist trying to run a democratic republic. Obama is a loser not a leader. He's still campaigning.

      The list of lies that Obama tells is souring the voters. Look at the poll numbers, they tell a story of a president and the Democratic Party who are in serious trouble. Come November 2010, he'll need to do better. He can't blame Bush forever.

      • 5 votes
      #2.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:09 AM EST
      Psimon

      Distorted facts as usual. Bush inherited 4.6% from Clinton. It climbed basically from day one of his presidency. Actually most economist in 2008 predicted it would peak out at 10% in 2009 and it did and has began to recede abit. So the plane had taken off before President Obama ever got in office.

      • 3 votes
      #2.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:52 AM EST
      A Sergeant's Mom

      Alright, geniuses, why were you not elected president, then? I mean, since you have all the answers.

      • 2 votes
      #2.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:55 AM EST
      ebookout

      How can you ignore that Bush gave away trillions of our money during the hardest economic times since the Great Depression? How can you blame Obama for that? He inherited that economy when he took office

      First of all Obama gave more than he did away and is still going on like there is no end in site. But I think you will find the first bailout was 780 billion which Obama had control over when he came in and added twice that? Bad leading the bad.

      How did Obama inherited the economy ? He help create it with Franks and Nancy. Chech who they got funds from and what they did to start this mess.

      • 2 votes
      #2.5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:49 AM EST
      OBAMA-FAN

      First of all Obama gave more than he did away and is still going on like there is no end in site. But I think you will find the first bailout was 780 billion which Obama had control over when he came in and added twice that? Bad leading the bad.

      Partly correct. I think you are confusing your words. The only bailout was the TARP which Bush signed with full support from Obama. The $780 was the stimulus, not the "Bailout."

      How did Obama inherited the economy ? He help create it with Franks and Nancy. Chech who they got funds from and what they did to start this mess.

      Completely false! You, like others are under the delusional thinking that this recession only came about during the time when the Dems controlled congress. Wrong! The dems only gained control in Nov/2006. The recession started 2007!! No new economic policies were set fourth by the democratic congress! It was the lack of oversight during the 1st 6yrs of the Bush administration when the reps had the majority! Obama didn't enter the U.S. senate until 2005, so if you can show me where he voted on policies that caused this collapse I'd be glad to see it! I think you need to get the facts. What you are trying to suggest makes absolutely no sense!

      • 2 votes
      #2.6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:33 AM EST
      California Militia

      To A seargents mom:

      you wrote "He's sitting and waiting for Congress to do something responsible. He's waiting for taxpayers to use their good common sense and hold members of Congress responsible"

      just as an FYI, "Waiting" is fairly synonomous with "doing nothing".

      personally, i think that the last year in its entirety was a waste and they all need a beating.

      • 2 votes
      #2.7 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:42 AM EST
      Ron Christman

      For all of you who are taking shots at our current president with erroneous data or just plain speculation, here are a few facts:

      Dow was at 10587 on the first day of George Walker Bush’s presidency.

      The Dow was at 7,949 on the first day of Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency. A 25% loss during the Bush years.

      The Dow on January 20, 2010 = 10603. The accumulated Bush loss was restored after just one year of Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency. Just a fact.

      Yes, we still need jobs but two factors enter into job growth (at least two). We've been losing jobs to overseas sources for years (and not just because of lower wages but also because there are better trained and higher educated workforces in many countries), and every economist in the world will tell you that job growth is the very last thing to happen in a recovery.

      • 2 votes
      #2.8 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:02 AM EST
      vol fan in chatt, tn

      He's waiting for taxpayers to use their good common sense and hold members of Congress responsible"

      I think we are going to do that in Nov. 2010 - and a lot of them are getting out ahead of the beating they will take. Smart move.

      • 3 votes
      #2.9 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:03 AM EST
      California Militia

      LOL....

      sometimes i read things and just wonder....

      • 2 votes
      #2.10 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:15 AM EST
      FrJackHackett

      Actually, unemployment had fallen to 3.8 and 3.9% in the last two months of Clinton's presidency. Some economists think that it never gets lower than that no matter how booming an economy.

        #2.11 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:15 AM EST
        FrJackHackett

        A 25% loss during the Bush years.

        That would be net loss. During Bush's term in office the DJIA got up to 13,000 so the real loss off its high was nearly 40%. Bush's legacy is disaster, foreign and domestic, social and economic. He is far and away the worst president this country has ever had.

          #2.12 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:18 AM EST
          Ron Christman

          FrJack - That's true but I didn't want to make my post too long (which I'm known to do) and confusing for the righties. GWB and the leaders of the GOP drove me out of the Republican Party after 45 years for many reasons including being anything but fiscal conservatives. The amazing thing is that many of those GOP leaders who are still around would like you to believe that they wouldn't recognize Bush if he walked into the room. Hypocritical ba$tards, all of them.

            #2.13 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:24 AM EST
            Reply
            AmusedinVa

            With the public losing faith in the stimulus, the White House is begging for some patience. "We've only been halfway through the act," Biden said on CBS Wednesday. "The job-creating portions are really loaded at the second half."

            The round about way of saying that somewhere down the road at a future point things will get better. But we don't know when that will be, however we'll claim credit for it whenever it happens.

            • 7 votes
            Reply#3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:40 AM EST
            UNA_Lion

            Indeed. The economy has always been cyclical, with highs and lows. The economy is quite capable of recovering (and nose-diving) on its own, without government assistance. But then, who would be able claim credit for an economic recovery and gain votes without government intervention?

            • 5 votes
            #3.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:55 AM EST
            Funkpocket

            before he was even elected everyone said "Jobs will be the last thing to recover."

            Take a look at the Conway Chain in Orlando FL...

            for the past 8 months, not a single house sold over a million...in the last 2 weeks 5 have sold.

            We were part of a sales team with a piece of property that the realtor
            wanted to list at 250,000 the seller set the price at 500,000 it sold in 8 days.

            these are some of the stories you are going to hear more of.

            every business owner I have talked to in multiple states have noted business is better than last year...granted SEVERAL businesses have gone down : ( but it is getting better... We need EVERYONE on board... Even you baggers...it's time to put your Patriotism where your mouth is!

            YES WE CAN!

            lol, I bet the Rush crowd loves this post!

              #3.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:56 AM EST
              California Militia

              wow amused, you grasp of the democrat language is impressive.

              • 2 votes
              #3.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:58 AM EST
              Reply
              A Sergeant's Mom

              Jim - AP

              What are you talking about? Can you show facts to prove that the jobless got a "hand?" or that taxpayers got breaks, or that a sinking economy stabilized?

              Show us numbers.

              None of this has anything to do with a president who inherited a bad economy. It has to do with corporations who caused the deficit in the first place. Corporations who still are bilking Americans out of millions each day - slamming their checking accounts with high interest rates, still not being regulated or monitored.

              Paired with the last criminal presidential administration - what exactly are the facts you can provide to prove that shore up this news article?

              I see hungry people.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:42 AM EST
              authorondo

              I see a president who's a socialist. He wants the people to feed out of the governments's hand. Many people need the government to support them. It's a way of life. The trouble is, the people paying the bills don't think this is right.

              Under Obama the foodbank and unemployment lines grow. If we change horses now (dump Obama) we might be able to return to normal. He might be a nice guy, but that isn't going to put food on the table.

              Obama's programs aren't working. The voters don't have any choice. They have to elect new leaders.

              • 3 votes
              #4.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:19 AM EST
              putman

              Author, You see only what you are told. You have an obvious predisposition to believe the worst statements about the president. The continual barrage from the right about Obama being a socialist has taken hold in those that do not want to see anything else. I doubt that many of the people who claim Obama is a socialist even know what a socialist is. All they know is that Russia was called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Repiblics" and associate the negative connotations from that to anyone who calls someone a socialist.

              Maybe if we had more Americans look at situations intelligently and had a constructive dialogue, we would have our politicians actually working for the good of the country rather than fear mongering in order to get elected, and the country be damned.

              • 1 vote
              #4.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:25 AM EST
              mountainmike-1199289

              The Republicans were big on deregulation, and that was the same thing as telling a bunch of white collar crime sociopaths that there was nothing to keep them from exploiting the situation.

              And the charge of "socialism" is worn out. Republican legislators will call a program for free child care in low income areas "socialism" - even though it helps single mothers and struggling low income families survive while mom and dad work multiple jobs. But when it comes to corporate welfare and subsidies for ExxonMobile and other billionaire corporations, Republicans have no issue with giving away taxpayer money.

              • 2 votes
              #4.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:47 AM EST
              zanilth

              None of this has anything to do with a president who inherited a bad economy.

              He didn't inherit a bad economy, he asked for the job. He knew what he was getting himself into, and tried to tell everyone he knew how to fix the situation.

              Lo and behold, he can't fix the situation that he claimed he could, so that is what people are irritated about. Instead of even really trying to fix the problem, he's taking the country down a path we don't need to be.

              • 2 votes
              #4.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:25 AM EST
              A Sergeant's Mom

              Show me a statement proving that President Obama asked for the job?

              You absolutely cannot, anywhere at anytime.

              Lo and behold, the situation is not for one man to fix. It is for an entire country to find a solution. Or...did I miss the last dictatorship election?

              • 1 vote
              #4.5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:43 AM EST
              OBAMA-FAN

              Show me a statement proving that President Obama asked for the job?

              Actually Obama "asked" for the job by virtue of him running for office.

              My question to Zanilth is, this recession is second only to the Great Depression. If it took 4 years and a World War to get us out of that, how did you expect Obama to get the economy running like normal in the first year of his administration??? it's only those who didn't/don't support Obama that have unrealistic expectations of his ability!

              • 3 votes
              #4.6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:05 AM EST
              California Militia

              hahahah...

              • 2 votes
              #4.7 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:29 AM EST
              Reply
              Juliana Smith, An Alaskan

              And Republicans seek political advantage by merely asking, "Where are the jobs?"

              That answer to your foolish question Republicans is - wherever you find a socialism method of payment you will find fully funded jobs (because a federal spending $ usage can create jobs)
              Employment opportunities in jobs using capitalism - that would take another method of payment to circulate money.
              The (Taxpayers got tax breaks) an opportunity to spend money to support those Americans who depend on a capitalism method of payment (because a taxpayers spending $ usage can help create jobs).

              "Independent"

              • 1 vote
              Reply#5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:46 AM EST
              putman

              Even the early constructors of this republic realized that unchecked capitalism was not good for the country, because greed rules. Regulated capitalism is a needed check and balance to benefit all, not a few.

              • 1 vote
              #5.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:28 AM EST
              Reply
              Sonia Kermaz

              2000 to 2009 manufacturing job losses: 5,515,000

              Not to mention other "job" areas shipped overseas.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:01 AM EST
              A Sergeant's Mom

              Concur.

              • 1 vote
              #6.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:06 AM EST
              zanilth

              2000 to 2009 manufacturing job losses: 5,515,000

              How about a source firstly, and secondly find one that breaks up and shows the losses per year (so we can see how many job losses were during republican controlled government versus democratic controlled government, which is a 6/3 ratio for those years...)

              I would even take a simple comparison of 2000-2005 versus 2006-2009.

              • 1 vote
              #6.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:29 AM EST
              Mad as hell 306

              Ladies,

              Since Americans are too greedy to buy American products when they can get cheaper imported alternatives, American manufacturers were left with either outsourcing the work to remain competitive, or going out of business.

              Outsourcing hurts the workers - but going out of business hurts the workers, and investors (including people like you and me with company stocks in their 401K's)

              Since China and Japan now own almost 2 trillion in US debt, don't count on Obama to threaten import tariffs! He recently sent HRC over their to try and get them to buy much of the 2 trillion in added spending from 2009 alone!

              • 2 votes
              #6.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:30 AM EST
              Reply
              Chuck101

              The current administration is without a doubt the worst thing that has happened to America since 9/11. Instead of reacting and trying to stabilize the economy, the president is on TV or traveling trying to change public opinion on Healthcare.

              The only way for America to survive this is to take the house and senate away from the Democrats and isolate and neutralize Obama for the remainder of his term.

              • 5 votes
              Reply#7 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:14 AM EST
              Sonia Kermaz

              I hope that you're not in the investment counseling business, because it requires that one studies the data and numbers.

              2000 to 2009 manufacturing job losses: 5,515,000

                #7.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:35 AM EST
                putman

                The president is doing what presidents have always done, used the bully pulpit to get their message across. Unfortunately, we live in an era unprecedented vitriol on the airwaves, with so many pundits using what is supposedly news shows, to push their agenda and instill fear and hate in our citizens. It has escalated to where it is difficult to have honest open debate, based on intelligent discussion and review of ideas, rather than 30 second sound bites, which can not fully explaing the dynamics of the situation being discussed.

                I can tell not too many people take the time to research what they hear, they just believe based on what they have already decided to believe in. We are also a country controlled by pollsters, by those organizations paid to find people who will say what is wanted to be said. Ask a question a certain way, or give limited options to answer, and you have skewed results, put forth as absolute fact. We are a country of 300 million, yet we have reresentations of 2000 people state what we feel? and the supporters of this say it is scientifically sound. But science be damned when it comes to climate change?

                Does anyone else see the irony in this? Can anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? Are we really sinking to the level of hating everything we disagree with? If there are objective consensus from various organizations, both on the left and the right, that support the presidents policies or results, why do so many not listen?

                • 1 vote
                #7.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:50 AM EST
                mountainmike-1199289

                "The current administration is without a doubt the worst thing that has happened to America since 9/11."

                Sounds too much like a Rushbot. Rush recently said that Obama was the worst thing to happen to America since WWII.

                America at its best had turned war time productivity into industrial productivity. We were producing tangible goods through manufacturing. Currently, we have outsourced jobs, factories and productivity of tangible goods. And because Americans have less to spend, they are now happy to go to Walmart and buy products from offshore.

                • 1 vote
                #7.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:53 AM EST
                PhxAZMom

                lol @ the worst thing since 9/11.

                The worst thing to happen to America is how "business as usual happens in Washington D.C." The politician holding down the fort, regardless of which party their affiliated with, is a well seasoned politician by that time.

                I'm as average an American as you will find. Barely into the "lower middle class" bracket, I've spent the past 20 years raising four children alone after my husband was killed on the job. My hands full, bills rolling in, mouths to feed, and holding on to the faith that our quality of living would improve as our country evolved. Educated, smart, and a practical thinker, I felt I was knowledgeable about issues, current events, and my elected officials/candidates. Years are passing by and the SAME issues are still being battled back and forth by Republicans and Democrats. Like most Americans, my life didn't allow me the luxury of time, money, or resources, to compare what was being said by both parties. Election time would generate a underlying hope that who ever was elected would REALLY do their best to improve OUR quality of life, etc. On the campaign trail I could go to rally's and it made me feel like I was really a part of something important. My vote might actually matter. (stop laughing) I was every candidates dream. Struggling mother with 4 children, able to vote, smart enough to understand but too busy to dig deep if I needed. Like most voters, we re-elect politicians term after term because we're familiar with their name, we buy into their campaign promises, and we WANT to believe that someone really cares about the people. S-U-C-K-E-R-S. Fast forward 20 years. My children are now grown and on their own. Suddenly being "mom" didn't consume my entire concentration. The past 3 years I've had to swallow my pride, my stupidity, and rewrite what I've been trained to believe about politicians, politics, and the way America runs. It's been overwhelming, a bit confusing at times, and my level of frustration and genuine anger about how 85% of us Americans really don't see what's going on. A crash course of politics101 via "Meet the Press" or similar shows, allows just enough of what's going on to overwhelm them. Shoulders shrug, and "what can ya do about it?" is usually the gist of it.

                Myths about politics, politicians, and the American Way:

                * Your vote counts. You matter. (the only time your vote REALLY counts is to get the politician elected, after that you wont matter again until election time)

                * Politicians are elected to represent the people of his/her State. By represent the people, we would assume that voting "yes or no" would be based on how the majority of voters feel towards issues, bills etc. For instance, I live in Arizona. McCain and Kyl, Shadegg, etc should be casting votes to allow/deny bills to pass based on how the majority of voters have decided and NOT based on how they feel personally about something. If Arizonans say "yes" on pro-choice than every one of our elected officials should be casting a "yes" vote even if their personal view is against it. They're JOB is to represent the people of their State in Washington where decisions are made for the country as a whole. So if my elected officials personal viewpoint is "pro-life" that's their business. BUT to cast a "no" vote because they feel it's the best choice for the people.... is BS. It happens day after day. It's so routine that most Americans don't make the connection. When are we going to demand that the job be done right, or they're fired? WE are having decisions being made without our consent, input, and without the majority of people saying how the vote should go. And we wonderwhy things are out of control? No direction? What's going on? Why doesn't anything change for 85% of Americans?

                Lobbyists represent legitimate causes and issues and they only want to make sure that our elected officials hear the concerns "facts" before voting on crucial things like health care, gun laws, funding, Wall Street, accountability, etc. Here's where most Americans get a little overwhelmed with what exactly is going on. There are definitely legitimate lobbyists who tirelessly walk the halls of Congress to address issues/concerns/causes etc. Like most Americans, we kind of sort of 'get it' but not exactly. So they walk the halls of Congress and try to be heard by our elected officials? Big deal, right? Oh.... in a perfect America it would only be just causes, issues, and things that matter. But of course it's not that way at all. BILLIONS of dollars are spent or I should say contributed to campaign funds of our elected officials. Isn't that nice? Some "just because" we care money. But it boils down to (follow the link, and jump in where ever.) lobbyists mission is to buy the vote of our elected officials. Now of course it turns into the river of DE-NIAL by every politician when questioned about how they cast votes. But it only took me 30 minutes on this site, and flip flopping around to connect the dots to my State representatives. It's bull@!$%# and it needs to STOP. Lobbyists should be heard, but never allowed to contribute to campaigns. PERIOD. They work around the "we don't try to buy votes" by putting contributions in the names of wives, husbands, etc It would take a dedicated watchdog to connect the contributions to the source but the trail IS THERE.

                It blows my mind that it's allowed to begin with. Our elected officials, who head to Washington D.C., might start their political careers with good intentions, and wanting to make a difference for the people they represent. BUT once they arrive in D.C. they learn quickly that the way things are "run" have nothing to do with improving the quality of life for Americans. It only takes a few months and our once hopeful politician becomes just another big talking, little action, finger pointing politician. Lobbyists who contribute hundreds of millions $$ to campaign funds are locking in votes for the cause, issue, bill etc. OUR elected officials hold hands with Wall Street on one side, and Lobbyists/big Corporations with the other hand. The rest of us are S.O.L. Republicans, Democrats all have a vote for sale.

                Besides a few guidelines (citizenship, age, etc) ANY AMERICAN should be allowed to run for ANY PUBLIC office where a vote is cast by the people in order to secure the position. Public service announcements, and a dedicated broadcasting station(s) would cover the issues, the candidates, and televised town halls. NO COMMERCIALS from any "special interest" aka smear campaigns allowed. NO candidate could buy airtime for commercials. EVEN playing field for ALL. $50 million spent by candidates would be a thing of the past. Isn't anyone else sick to death of seeing ads run for candidates who are up for election but not for 3 more years! These candidates need to understand one thing. The majority of us Americans may appear to be clueless in their eyes, but keep pushing our country in a downward spiral and their going to be dealing with millions who aren't going to accept 4 years of finger pointing and blame as "solutions".

                Are my ideas wishful thinking? I suppose to some. But I'm not afraid to admit that I'm still learning about how our country is basically controlled by the money of Wall St big shots, huge corporations, and our elected officials. WE bailed out banks instead of fund retirement accounts, and investments that were stolen by the Bernie Madoffs. 80 year old Americans too old to work, who thought they could afford to live on money they invested weren't even considered as a necessity. It's sickening. Seniors in our country are overlooked, yet have given us everything we take for granted. You tell me what's wrong with that picture. It points to Washington D.C.

                I don't care what side of the paint you like to stand. Red or blue. I'm embarrassed to be either and the only other color is white. I'm an American that's all that really matters to me. I've read the posts up to mine. Most seem to follow the same ol same ol pattern of finger pointing, party bashing, and basically digging the "hostility and no tolerance" line deeper and deeper. Just the way Washington likes us to be. Divided, at odds, blaming and finger pointing. Their jobs, health care, retirement are nice and secure thanks to laws they pass for themselves. Look up. The strings attached to our arms and feet are being held by the politicians. I'm sick of being played like a puppet.

                • 4 votes
                #7.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:15 AM EST
                PhxAZMom

                oops, the link I mentioned above is right here:

                www.opensecrets.org

                • 1 vote
                #7.5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:21 AM EST
                zanilth

                The politician holding down the fort, regardless of which party their affiliated with, is a well seasoned politician by that time.

                Reminds me of something kinda funny I heard the other day...

                Politics, from the root words Poly (meaning many) and ticks (which we all know are blood sucking parasitic insects.)

                That about sums DC up.

                • 2 votes
                #7.6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:32 AM EST
                Reply
                Kareem in my Coffee

                Working together might be a good idea. There is however a current civil war in this country. Each side is hell bent on ruining the other side. There is no cooperation.

                As long as this continues, the haters win. The country will luxuriate in status quo. Until we work with each other, we are doomed to fighting and stagnation.

                And I don't give a rat's behind what "side" you are on. If you aren't working with us, you are working against us.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#8 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:03 AM EST
                PhxAZMom

                EXACTLY.....

                  #8.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:24 AM EST
                  Reply
                  BKER1492

                  Job creation. As if they will just continue to crap out the extra money for them year after year. And each job costs the taxpayer what, $200,000 in beauracratic overhead? A bargain!

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#9 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:03 AM EST
                  Nicole-1272536

                  Take back our manufacturing from other countries and that will re-open jobs here. These corporate fat cats need to get a grip and realize that if we Americans are unemployed, we are not spending money to buy the products anyway. Yeah, it may be cheaper to manufacturer outside the U.S., but at what cost to our own people. Enough is enough already. I try my best to NOT buy products from China. Most of it is crap anyway.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#10 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:18 AM EST
                  Pedro Perdomo

                  What we need at this time is to extend the regulations applied to durable goods to all kinds of products. Only when consumers can decide based in the origin of all parts that go into any large item we can start making informed decisions.

                  My car has only 2% American made parts; the manufacturing of this parts in Malaysia or China is probably a source of pollution wherever it is made. We need to bring back manufacturing so that the whole world can benefit from new clean technologies. The issue of the cost of production plus freight is taking us all to the collapse of the planet's ability to regenerate.

                  We need legislation that will force retailers to consider and label all items including the cost of production, transportation, cleaning of by-products and recycling/disposal.

                  The local governments tax all of us for the cost of garbage disposal when 10% of the richest people produce 50% of the total volume of garbage. We need to bring to America city council ordinance that will charge garbage disposal by the volume as it already happen in other industrialized countries. Yet again, we can not bring health care that works to the middle republic..

                  • 3 votes
                  #10.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:20 AM EST
                  Pamela Drew

                  #10,1...Pedro Perdomo...We need to bring back manufacturing so that the whole world can benefit from new clean technologies. The issue of the cost of production plus freight is taking us all to the collapse of the planet's ability to regenerate.

                  You've hit on a lot of the essential points of the problem and solution. Petrochemical, weapons and banking interests that make up the Military Industrial Media troika have gained the ability to socialize their costs and pursue a burn baby burn policy of subsidized oil and post production disposability of everything but the profits.

                  We need legislation that will force retailers to consider and label all items including the cost of production, transportation, cleaning of by-products and recycling/disposal.

                  Yes we do and we need a media that will stop feeding us fodder like Palin's tweets and look at the State of the Union that has been dumped on the mortal citizens by the immortal corporate persons.

                  Over 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released by industry into the nation's environment each year, including 72 million pounds of recognized carcinogens. Scorecard can give you a detailed report on chemicals being released from any of 20,000 industrial facilities, or a summary report for any area in the country.

                  The irony that dumping 72 million pounds of cancer causing material on the American public is allowed, but a stupid kid willing to set his underwear ablaze over Detroit is a mortal threat.

                  Dumping waste, polluting, producing illness causing toxic waste get nothing more than token costs in the future. Corporations have individual rights but no individual suffers for deaths and deceits done by them behind the corporate shield.

                  The local governments tax all of us for the cost of garbage disposal when 10% of the richest people produce 50% of the total volume of garbage. We need to bring to America city council ordinance that will charge garbage disposal by the volume as it already happen in other industrialized countries.

                  On a local level the community and council interact and share the problems. In Washington we have corporate representation from Members who would rather feather their own nests and score points for their team than behave as the Public Servants.

                  They have not only been hired to work for us they have taken an oath and sworn to put the good of the people of the United States above all other aims. Not seeing that are we?

                  They work for us in theory and every one in public office should roll up their sleeeves, put in the over time and do the heavy lifting we all do, to get the work of the people done before they go home to their gated communities and gold plated health care plan.

                  Yet again, we can not bring health care that works to the middle republic..

                  The game is not over until the fat lady sings. Every revolutionary change was a hopeles cause until the power of discontent was too enormous to deny.

                  Right now we have a public so angry with the Beltway Bandits and Bull@!$%# Pundits that we will see a shift in power and health care reform. If we don't, no Members of Congress will feel they have a safe seat and at the end of the day isn't that the one thing that counts when Washington looks to the will of the people?

                  • 3 votes
                  #10.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:07 AM EST
                  Reply
                  Woodenboatguy

                  31000 more jobs lost today. How does this mesh with what the President is saying? They propped up the state unions with the stimulus. Now all the states have blown that money and there is no more. We will probably see anywhere between a 5% to 10% culling with state employees across the nation very soon, which will tick the unemployment rate up to around 12% (workers looking for jobs) and the "real" unemployement rate to around 19%.

                  You couple that with Tax increases on everyone, and yes it is going to happen, and increased interest rates and this thing is going to snow ball. Saved us from a depression? He only postponed it 12 months and in the process put us in so much debt, that they have no more cards in the deck to try to head it off.

                  Why do you think they need another stimulus. It is not going to go to us, it is to keep the states propped up and silent until after the mid-term elections

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#11 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:22 AM EST
                  OBAMA-FAN

                  wooden,

                  31000 more jobs lost today. How does this mesh with what the President is saying?

                  If you are a business owner you do what you think is best for your business, correct? If in the past year you barely made a profit, and with all your cut backs still find it hard to maintain your current salary obligations to your employees, in doing your budget for the coming fiscal year you may have to cut some workers. It's business! That has nothing to do with Obama! It's the private sector! Funny how if there is job loss it's the presidents fault, if there is job creation the private sector did it in spite of the president!

                  We will probably see anywhere between a 5% to 10% culling with state employees across the nation very soon, which will tick the unemployment rate up to around 12% (workers looking for jobs) and the "real" unemployement rate to around 19%.

                  These numbers are already wrong! As for the "Real" unemployment numbers, I guess the Bureau of Labor Statiistics is unreliable!

                  February 05, 2010
                  The unemployment rate fell from 10.0 to 9.7 percent in January and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-20,000). Employment fell in construction and in transportation and warehousing, while temporary help services and retail trade added jobs.

                  i'd love to see your source for the "real" unemployment numbers.

                  You couple that with Tax increases on everyone, and yes it is going to happen, and increased interest rates and this thing is going to snow ball. Saved us from a depression? He only postponed it 12 months and in the process put us in so much debt, that they have no more cards in the deck to try to head it off.

                  What tax increases? If you have a way to tell the future why haven't you picked the winning lottery numbers? You like soooo many others act like this country was debt free before Obama took office! Give me a break with the "He put us in debt" nonsense! We were up to our eyeballs in debt when he took office and were hemorrhaging money due to 2 wars, Medicare part B, Tax cuts to the wealthy, and a health care system that cost the equivalent of over 17% of the U.S. GDP! yeah, but we're in debt because of Obama! Unreal!

                  • 1 vote
                  #11.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:56 AM EST
                  Mad as hell 306

                  Obama Fan - The president took this job knowing unemployment was a top concern. he spoke numerous times about how they would fill shovel ready jobs in 2009. But his stimulus plan did little to stimulate small business - the undisputed key to generating job growth.

                  The key point is it's the presidents responsibility to drive the solution - and if higher than expected job losses are reported at the same time he's taking credit for economic recovery - that's hypocritical at the least!

                  We need Obama to start acting like the commander and cheif, and driving solutions through his democratically controlled House & Senate. And not joining in on the blame game!

                  • 3 votes
                  #11.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:54 AM EST
                  A Sergeant's Mom

                  MAH -

                  And we need American citizens to realize - setting the president aside for a moment - that one man is not going to take care of this problem. He can drive one solution - but with this complicated issue there are many solutions at the local and state level.

                  I hold you responsible and all of my fellow Americans for permitting us to get into this situation in the first place - me included.

                  So - what can WE do about it?

                  Hold our state representatives accountable for the action or lack of action they took in office in Congress.

                  Have you done that? I did. I'm still working on it.

                  We can't have members of Congress sitting in Washington doing nothing to help us. What we are seeing is the consequences of electing liars - those who claimed they would bring our issues to Washington - whether we are vets with no medical benefits, single mothers living in poverty - adult males that can't get a job and living off retirement -

                  the problem is not solely with one person. President Obama is first an American citizen, second, a president.

                  The problem is with each of us and what we are willing to do to improve our nation. I took these steps but I can't do it alone - no one can.

                  You need to contact the President of the Congress and report whether or not your state representative is effectively doing his or her job.

                  Period.

                  • 3 votes
                  #11.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:01 AM EST
                  OBAMA-FAN

                  MAH,

                  Common sense would tell anyone that before you can start to even think about creating jobs you first have to stabilize the flailing economy. The economy is stable, unemployment has dropped a little to 9.7% and now it time for a job creation solution! things have to happen in phases! trying to create jobs in an unstable economy is like bailing water out of a sinking ship with a fork! Your mistake like most is that you equate economic recovery with employment recovery. They are 2 different things!! This is why, although the economy is starting to right itself, the unemployment rate is making little headway!

                  We need Obama to start acting like the commander and cheif, and driving solutions through his democratically controlled House & Senate. And not joining in on the blame game!

                  O.K. I'll have a talk with Obama as soon as you sit down with the Republican leadership regarding this!

                  Yes, in our current U.S. Senate, the Republicans have used the "Filibuster" over 140 times in the past 12 months.
                  Totally unheard of in our nation's history. For those that are unaware of what a filibuster is, it is a tool that can be used by a party to delay, disrupt or bring a "bill" to a stalemate. It prevents a fair vote.

                  • 1 vote
                  #11.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:37 AM EST
                  Reply
                  Raindream

                  I'd like to see stimulus money dedicated to Social Security funding.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#12 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:36 AM EST
                  Woodenboatguy

                  Not going to happen. Those of you ready to retire,.... get ready to be thrown under the bus by the current congress and administration. Social Security is going to get cut, and your medicare funding is going to get cut. I work in the medical industry and we are seeing it now with the federal gov't denying claims and procedures,... and are being warned that it is going to get real bad.

                  • 3 votes
                  #12.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:39 AM EST
                  vol fan in chatt, tn

                  You are exactly right, woodenboatguy!

                  • 2 votes
                  #12.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:09 AM EST
                  putman

                  If one really looks at Social Security over the last thirty plus years, s.s. was actually paying for itself. However, in order to cut taxes for the wealthy, pay for an arms race and still not look like we were breaking the bank, a shell game was perpertrated on the American public whereas the government used S.S. money to cover other debts.

                  Been that way for years. Numerous groups and organizations have been screaming about this since the 80's, but being that it was not what the media wanted said, it was backburnnered.

                  • 1 vote
                  #12.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:46 AM EST
                  A Sergeant's Mom

                  What? lol.

                  • 1 vote
                  #12.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:48 AM EST
                  Mad as hell 306

                  Putman - What utter BS!

                  No govenment funded entitlement has gone more than a few years paying for it's self - congress learned how to raid the coffers shortly after WW2. Each year congress has to approve an appropriations bill to hold it up.

                  • 1 vote
                  #12.5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:59 AM EST
                  putman

                  the Federal budget basically was a pay as you go for many years, with small debt.

                  There really wasn't much entitlement programs run by the Fed Gov't until Roosevelt and S.S. Insurance. And yes, the fund was raided time and again during the 80's. In fact, to my knowledge, the funds are still "borrowed", an IOU that will never be paid.

                  Call it BS, or LOL if you want. It is an ugly truth. Left alone, SS would be a solvent entitlement.

                  • 1 vote
                  #12.6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:36 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Al 616

                  The American public has a short memory span. Mr. Obama stated explicitly on the campaign trail that the economy and joblessness would most likely be worse in one year. He stated that explicitly. And, the american people voted for him knowing that.

                  Some of those jobs will never be recovered because the exceedingly wealthy shipped a lot of jobs oversees. They claim that it was to make goods cheaper for the american public, but that's a lie. It was to give themselves ludicrously high salaries without "trickling down" any of that wealth down to the lower classes in the form of job opportunities.

                    Reply#13 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:37 AM EST
                    Woodenboatguy

                    Yes, and he promised unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed the stimulus.

                    • 4 votes
                    #13.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:40 AM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    Yes, and he promised unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed the stimulus.

                    And the weatherman said it would be rainy today and it's sunny out! your point?

                    • 1 vote
                    #13.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:05 AM EST
                    vol fan in chatt, tn

                    And you will see more jobs going overseas too, if he passes the taxes and ridiculous regulation he want to pass on the private sector business.

                    • 3 votes
                    #13.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:11 AM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    if he passes the taxes and ridiculous regulation he want to pass on the private sector business.

                    What taxes and regulations has he proposed that would force businesses out of the U.S.???

                    • 1 vote
                    #13.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:37 AM EST
                    Mad as hell 306

                    Obama-Fan - you are truelly blinded by your bias

                    • 2 votes
                    #13.5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:02 AM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    Mad,

                    Are you going to add something substantive to the conversation or are you going to speculate about something you know nothing about?

                    Answer these question or move on!

                    What taxes and regulations has he proposed that would force businesses out of the U.S.???

                    Call me blinded if you wish, but I like to challenge people who make idiotic statements that they have no ability to prove! I'm funny that way....

                    • 1 vote
                    #13.6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:24 AM EST
                    vol fan in chatt, tn

                    What taxes and regulations has he proposed that would force businesses out of the U.S.???

                    Sorry, I have been away... crap and tax, for one...

                    http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/analysis-of-cap-and-trade-shows-harsh-economic-realities113/

                    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/09/for-farmers-cap-and-trade-is-a-permanent-drought-season/

                    http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/08/waxman-markey-bill-carbon-emission-opinions-contributors-cap-and-trade.html

                    http://www.thecherokeescout.com/articles/2009/09/15/news/doc4aafe547101e8756117790.txt

                    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/apr/12/obama-plans-hurt-business/

                    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/gdp-hit-found-with-cap-trade/

                    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

                    http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/

                    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_11/b4123022554346.htm

                    It seems to make sense that it the government imposes more regulatory fees on a company for emissions, that company will move to another country where it is cheaper to manufacture (this is the reason so many have already left- they can manufacture overseas and ship things back cheaper than they can if they make it here). Keep in mind that China, and other countries like it, where labor is cheap, do not handicap themselves with emissions controls measures (Links below)

                    http://www.businessinsider.com/buffetts-no-2-charlie-munger-says-cap-and-trade-is-monstrously-stupid-right-now-clip-2009-5

                    http://www.qando.net/?p=3477

                    A business is going to go wherever it can to make the most profit - that is why they are in business, to make a profit.

                    As to other taxes:

                    he already proposed this one:

                    http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi20100115_247526.htm

                    and then there's this:

                    Business advocates charged that multiple tax increases on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year would whack small businesses who pay the individual income tax, too, and produce as much as 60 percent of all jobs.

                    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/obamas-budget-to-raise-small-business-taxes/

                    http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/pf/taxes/obama_budget_tax_changes/

                    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519783

                    Doesn't seem to idiotic to me...and as someone already pointed out over 5 MILLION jobs have already left this country.

                    • 2 votes
                    #13.7 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:49 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Jimmy-915356

                    Ahhh...America...a collection of people who want everything but can't pay for it unless it's on the back of someone else or everyone else. The stimulus money (our money in case you've forgotten) was supposed to serve multiple purposes such as stabilizing the banks, increase lending etc. What a joke. Our economy collapsed because it's been based on everyone spending more than what they can afford. Great idea. (lol) So what does the government do...spend more than they (we) can afford to try to fix it. Another great plan. Get used to it everyone, this IS the new normal 20%+ real unemployment, low wages and lower standard of living.

                    • 4 votes
                    Reply#14 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:09 AM EST
                    vol fan in chatt, tn

                    exactly right - the people live on credit and the government lives on credit. BTW, the CBO says that the actual cost of the stimulus was not 787 billion, but 862 billion!

                    http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/26/news/economy/stimulus_cbo/index.htm

                    • 2 votes
                    #14.1 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 AM EST
                    UNA_Lion

                    Jimmy-915356

                    Ahhh...America...a collection of people who want everything but can't pay for it unless it's on the back of someone else or everyone else.

                    Yours is officially nominated for "Common Sense Post of the Day"

                    • 4 votes
                    #14.2 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:15 AM EST
                    A Sergeant's Mom

                    Jimmy -

                    Prove it.

                    • 1 vote
                    #14.3 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:16 AM EST
                    UNA_Lion

                    Easy to prove: Try spending more than you make for a long period of time, and find out what happens.

                    • 3 votes
                    #14.4 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:19 AM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    The stimulus money (our money in case you've forgotten) was supposed to serve multiple purposes such as stabilizing the banks, increase lending etc. What a joke.

                    That is what the TARP was for! Please get it right people if you are going to be critical! The only 'joke" seems to be the ignorance of the topic by the people commenting!

                    • 1 vote
                    #14.5 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:33 AM EST
                    UNA_Lion

                    TARP was just as bad an idea. Zero government funding should ever go to banks, corporations, or industry, unless it has to do with the purchase of goods or services for government infrastructure or the military. "Bailouts" of any kind - to anyone or anything - are a terrible idea.

                    • 3 votes
                    #14.6 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:36 AM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    UNA,

                    You do realize there is such a thing as FDIC, right?? If the banks had gone under and the money in the average Americans with bank accounts in those banks would have been insured by the gov up to $250k. One way or another the gov was going to pay! It makes more sense to keep the banks afloat then let them fail and take down others with them! Do you really think that if these banks were left to fail that the banks would be the only ones affected?? Come on!! The TARP and Stim were necessary evils! Plain and simple! You don't have to like them, but there was no denying the need for them!

                    • 1 vote
                    #14.7 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:48 AM EST
                    UNA_Lion

                    Sorry, don't accept it. People should be held accountable for their own actions, always. Those in the private sector who set their businesses up for failure in whatever manner should bear the costs of their mistakes, and that includes those who put them in their position (boards or stockholders). The same should go for banks.

                    Stupidity should be painful.

                    • 5 votes
                    #14.8 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:52 AM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    UNA,

                    Sorry, don't accept it.

                    You don't have to accept it, but you do have to deal with it. Can you prove that the economy would have been better of had the bank be left to fail??

                    People should be held accountable for their own actions

                    Very true, but should their punishment come at the expense of those who had nothing to do with the failure? NO! Millions lost their jobs as a result of the banks irresponsibility. Do you make millions more lose their jobs to teach the banks a lesson?? NO!

                    Those in the private sector who set their businesses up for failure in whatever manner should bear the costs of their mistakes, and that includes those who put them in their position (boards or stockholders).

                    The reality of the situation is the businesses in the private sector (on a whole) are no so big that their failure would send ripples throughout the U.S. and overseas economies. That's fact! Hate the term "Too big to fail" all you want, but it's reality! Corporations that employ hundreds of thousands, into the millions and handle assets in the high billions into the trillions are not normal private sector businesses.

                    Stupidity should be painful.

                    True, but my concern is the collateral damage (no pun intended).

                    • 1 vote
                    #14.9 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:17 AM EST
                    smokedbrisket

                    Who is gonna bail me out? Bank bailouts is bullsh!t. They screwed up. Let 'em close.

                    • 6 votes
                    #14.10 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:23 PM EST
                    OBAMA-FAN

                    Who is gonna bail me out?

                    bail yourself out! If you go under you don't take the American economy with you!

                    • 1 vote
                    #14.11 - Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:28 PM EST
                    AmusedinVa

                    You do realize there is such a thing as FDIC, right?? If the banks had gone under and the money in the average Americans with bank accounts in those banks would have been insured by the gov up to $250k. One way or another the gov was going to pay! It makes more sense to keep the banks afloat then let them fail and take down others with them! Do you really think that if these banks were left to fail that the banks would be the only ones affected??

                    That's only partially correct. If the few large banks that were in trouble had been allowed to "fail" they would have been taken into receivership by the FDIC and then either shut or broken up and sold to other healthier banks. In the US the 10 largest banks handle roughly 50% of transactions but they are only 10 of over 2600 banks. The smaller and mid size banks were in good health and would have absorbed the assets of the larger ones. There was never danger of a system wide collapse.

                    • 2 votes
                    #14.12 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:25 AM EST
                    Reply
                    roketboy

                    as the gov manipulates numbers the people are becoming wiser to this-thank god!

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#15 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:12 AM EST
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com