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

Recession risks up amid slow growth, debt standoff

Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:37 PM EDT
business, politics, us, economy, recession, another
Paul Wiseman, AP Economics Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>In this June 21, 2011 photo, Shell gas worker Toke Fusi changes gas prices down at a Shell gas station in Menlo Park, Calif. The economy slowed in the first six months of 2011 to its weakest pace since the recession ended. High gas prices and scant income gains forced Americans to sharply pull back on spending. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)</p>

In this June 21, 2011 photo, Shell gas worker Toke Fusi changes gas prices down at a Shell gas station in Menlo Park, Calif. The economy slowed in the first six months of 2011 to its weakest pace since the recession ended. High gas prices and scant income gains forced Americans to sharply pull back on spending. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The economy is at risk of slipping into another recession.

It nearly stalled in the first six months of the year, the government reported Friday. Economic growth was feeble in the second quarter and practically non-existent in the first.

The new picture of an economy far weaker than most analysts had expected suddenly made a second recession a more serious threat — and the threat will rise if Congress can't reach a deal to raise the government's debt limit.

"The only question now is, how much weaker could things get?" says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight.

In April, May and June, the economy grew at a 1.3 percent annual rate, below expectations. And the government changed its growth figure for January, February and March to 0.4 percent, far below the previous estimate of 1.9 percent.

Combined, the first half of the year amounts to the worst six-month performance since the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009.

Over the past year, the gross domestic product — the total output of goods and services in the United States, and the broadest measure of the economy's health — recorded actual growth of 1.6 percent.

Since 1950, year-to-year growth has dipped below 2 percent 12 times. Ten of those times, the economy was already in recession or soon fell into one, says Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities.

Normal economic growth is closer to 3 percent.

High gasoline prices leave people with less money to spend on other goods and services. And not all spending on gas contributes to the U.S. economy because some of the money goes to oil-producing countries. GDP figures are also inflation-adjusted, so spending $1 more for a gallon doesn't mean $1 of additional help to the economy.

Manufacturing disruptions from the Japan earthquake, cuts in state and local government and tighter household budgets have weighed down the economy, too.

Add to those problems the uncertainty fanned by the political stalemate in Washington, with Republicans refusing to raise the federal government's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit unless Democrats agree to deep federal spending cuts on the GOP's terms.

Without an agreement, the Treasury Department says, the government won't have enough money to pay all its bills after Tuesday. It will have to cut spending by about 40 percent and choose which programs and beneficiaries receive money and which don't.

The dismal second-quarter report led economists to reduce their estimates for growth in the second half of the year. Capital Economics, which had expected the economy to grow 2.5 percent this year, now says 2 percent looks more likely.

Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors says he's waiting until the debt-limit deadline passes to revise his economic forecasts for the rest of 2011. He knows he'll scale back his estimates. He just doesn't know how much.

If a deal isn't reached for another month, Naroff estimates there's an 80 to 90 percent chance that the spending cuts would tip the economy into recession. Even if there is a deal, it would likely trigger significant spending cuts that would slow growth, at least in the short run.

"You kick the federal government, and the economy is going to be doubled over in pain," Naroff says.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other economists have warned Congress against cutting too much too soon because the economy remains so fragile.

The economy needs to expand so it can create jobs for a growing population. It must grow at a 2.5 percent annual rate to keep the unemployment rate from rising and at a 5 percent rate to bring unemployment down significantly.

In a Twitter message, economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School said he thinks there's a 40 percent chance the economy has already been in a recession for the past four months.

Normally, when the economy is this weak, the government spends more and the Federal Reserve aggressively tries to stimulate growth. But President Barack Obama's $862 billion stimulus package of spending programs and tax cuts ran out last year — and won't be revived by a Congress focused on cutting government debt.

And the Federal Reserve last month ended a $600 billion bond-buying program designed to jolt the economy by lowering long-term interest rates and lifting stock prices.

The Fed is keeping short-term interest rates near zero, and Bernanke this month said the Fed is prepared to do more if the economy remains weak. But the central bank has been more worried recently about a resurgence of inflation.

The private sector hasn't picked up the slack. The housing industry, which usually drives economic recoveries, is still depressed after home prices started tumbling in 2006 and 2007.

Americans are still carrying heavy debts, and what little gains they've made in wages have been eaten up by higher gas and food prices. Businesses, getting more work out of staffs downsized during the recession, are reluctant to hire until they're sure their sales will pick up.

"What business is going to hire into the unknown?" Naroff says.

© 2011 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:

  • Paul Wiseman's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (140)
Fufu

Normally, when the economy is this weak, the government spends more and the Federal Reserve aggressively tries to stimulate growth. But President Barack Obama's $862 billion stimulus package of spending programs and tax cuts ran out last year — and won't be revived by a Congress focused on cutting government debt.

That is pretty basic economic theory, although many fail to understand that.

Without an agreement, the Treasury Department says, the government won't have enough money to pay all its bills after Tuesday. It will have to cut spending by about 40 percent and choose which programs and beneficiaries receive money and which don't.

I work for a federal contractor and have been doing so since the beginning of June. Prior to that, I had been unemployed for 4 months. I feel like there's a pretty good chance I'll be unemployed again very, very soon.

"You kick the federal government, and the economy is going to be doubled over in pain," Naroff says.

Too, too true.

  • 4 votes
#1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:52 PM EDT
Smith Cassidy

It's what the Republicans want.

  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:11 PM EDT
The Grim Creeper

It's what the Republicans want.

Of course; Republicans eat babies, kick dogs, and turn off granny's life support on a daily basis.

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:26 PM EDT
The Grim Creeper

I forgot one: Republicans go to schools across the country and take our childrens' lunches away.

  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:30 PM EDT
I'm just saying...

I work for a federal contractor and have been doing so since the beginning of June. Prior to that, I had been unemployed for 4 months. I feel like there's a pretty good chance I'll be unemployed again very, very soon.

I sure hope not fufu. I hate to see anyone lose a job. Good luck with everything and keep your chin up!

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:04 PM EDT
vol fan in chatt, tn

of course it is, the policies of spend, spend, spend to the tune of 14 trillion dollars has us on the ropes, DUH...

  • 3 votes
#1.5 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:07 PM EDT
I'm just saying...

I forgot one: Republicans go to schools across the country and take our childrens' lunches away

Now that's where you are wrong Grim. In many places they don't go any further than their desk where they sign legislation to discontinue or defund programs that help poor people and their children, such as free school lunches.

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:09 PM EDT
neenie1991

slipping into another recession

Another one? What was the date that the first one ended?

  • 4 votes
#1.7 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:58 PM EDT
Roxanne2Sweet

The Republicans deny climate science so its no surprise that they also deny simple economic logic.

They are even giving us Presidential Candidates who are pushing for the teaching of Creationism in school science classes.

As USAToday recently wrote in an editorial, the GOP is no better than Birthers and morons.

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.

  • 7 votes
#1.8 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:07 PM EDT
Roxanne2Sweet

The Republicans deny climate science so its no surprise that they also deny simple economic logic.

They are even giving us Presidential Candidates who are pushing for the teaching of Creationism in school science classes.

As USAToday recently wrote in an editorial, the GOP is no better than Birthers and morons.

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.

  • 4 votes
#1.9 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:07 PM EDT
Roxanne2Sweet

The Republicans deny climate science so its no surprise that they also deny simple economic logic.

They are even giving us Presidential Candidates who are pushing for the teaching of Creationism in school science classes.

As USAToday recently wrote in an editorial, the GOP is no better than Birthers and morons.

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:07 PM EDT
Roxanne2Sweet

My apologies to all the Vine for the multiple posts.

I only hit 'post' once but the slow web connection speed where I'm currently at, coupled with the vine's peculiarity causes the multi-posts sometimes.

  • 3 votes
#1.11 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:10 PM EDT
Marshall James

another recession??

wtf have these journalists been doing for the past 3 years??? it never ended.

what pure propaganda crap.

  • 4 votes
#1.12 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:42 PM EDT
US. GOVERNMENTDeleted
mountainmike-1199289

See those high gas prices? The last time that happened, Big Oil was price gouging and Wall Street was speculating on oil. What is so hard for Republicans to comprehend here? You are taking money from their lobbyists while they attack the economy for fun and profit.

Speculation on oil needs to be banned. The Republicans will howl, which is a good recommendation that Wall Street needs to QUIT its white collar crimes against America such as causing nation wide inflation for the sake of their greed. ExxonMobile needs to have all loopholes removed so they pay their fair share toward paying down the national debt.

  • 3 votes
#1.14 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:59 PM EDT
Smith Cassidy

The Grim Creeper

Of course; Republicans eat babies, kick dogs, and turn off granny's life support on a daily basis.

Agreed.

And Republican politicians are morons. And they have a divided, dysfunctional party with no guiding principles.

And let's not act as if you are at all reasonable, Grim, or that you don't feed exclusively at the trough of hyperbole, exaggeration and fear-mongering...we all see the @!$%# you seed.

  • 3 votes
#1.15 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:37 PM EDT
vol fan in chatt, tn

And Republican politicians are morons.

LMBO, and the dems are not???

  • 2 votes
#1.16 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:50 AM EDT
Smith Cassidy

LMBO, and the dems are not???

Politicians are politicians after all, but Republicans have "moron" all locked up and sealed away to enjoy for themselves right now.

Palin, Angle, Brewer, Scott, West, Walker, Kasich, O'Donnell, and Bachmann.

You might not like Democrats, but they don't have anything approaching that field of whackos in their stable at this point in time. Nothing even close.

  • 3 votes
#1.17 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:38 AM EDT
Marshall James

smith

yes republicans have moron locked up

and democrats have two faced and liar locked up.

peace.

  • 2 votes
#1.18 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:25 AM EDT
Ripley8

funny how the country started skidding to a halt again as soon as the 2010 elections were over. We were improving before that.

  • 3 votes
#1.19 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:38 AM EDT
tbart

To the Republicans: We all know that deficit spending has to be brought under control. That's your main point, so let's work to make it happen and it is beyond obvious that it cannot happen without more revenues.

To the Democrats: We all know that Medicare and Social Security have to be saved and we all know that we live longer than we did in the 30's so the age of eligibility has to go up as well. The programs are together fiscally now but it is beyond obvious that there will be big trouble down the road if we don't take action now.

To President Obama: We all know that the country cannot go into default, no matter what the Congress does or fails to do. Use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling now, you will not be punished for it in the history books.

  • 1 vote
#1.20 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:04 AM EDT
Marshall James

ripley

it started skidding because the democratic programs started taking their effect......government manipulation of the market will always have ripples...and you are seeing one of those ripples with that.

to think that you can manipulate the market without it causing any negative affects ....its just amazing to me that people actually can think that is so.

truly incredible.

  • 3 votes
#1.21 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:56 PM EDT
Global777

ripley...

funny how the country started skidding to a halt again as soon as the 2010 elections were over. We were improving before that.

You've outdone yourself this time.

Please cite where "We were improving."

Hint: You'll need to look at something besides unemployment and inflation to validate your point.

The Republicans took office in January. The left is consistent in their belief that January, 2009 belonged to Bush. So, by democratic calendar, the Republicans started in February, 5 months ago.

The first chore they had, when they took office, was to finish the democrats' homework; the 2010 Budget. It seems that Queen nancy and Court Jester harry had been too busy reading previously signed bills to tend to their business.

So, the Republicans cleaned up their mess.

Now, the Republicans are wrestling our country's checkbook away from the children and dealing with the spiraling debt.

This mess should be cleaned up soon.

...

The fact of the matter is that this country has been skidding throughout the last four years of a democratic Congress.

  • 2 votes
#1.22 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:19 PM EDT
vol fan in chatt, tn

funny how the country started skidding to a halt again as soon as the 2010 elections were over. We were improving before that.

Oh WOW, that is truly pathetic and funny at the same time. The economy has been on the skids since Obama and the Dems took over. Geez....when have we been improving? Even after bailing out company after company, Wall Street, throwing money around for the stimulus (porkulous actually- over 18,000 add ons on that and the Omnibus spending bill because Queen Nancy never passed a budget) and what did it create? Nothing but more debt...nearly 4 trillion under Obama's term in 2 1/2 years. Nothing has gotten better, only WORSE.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

National Debt Basics

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Federal Budget Spending, Deficits, and the National Debt

US Federal Deficit as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History

  • 2 votes
#1.23 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:20 PM EDT
Ripley8

james-1416766

ripley

it started skidding because the democratic programs started taking their effect......government manipulation of the market will always have ripples...and you are seeing one of those ripples with that.

to think that you can manipulate the market without it causing any negative affects ....its just amazing to me that people actually can think that is so.

truly incredible.

Global777

ripley...

funny how the country started skidding to a halt again as soon as the 2010 elections were over. We were improving before that.

You've outdone yourself this time.

Please cite where "We were improving."

James ..and Global..

it started skidding with Reagan policies. We do better with the economy under dems. Bush and cons like Phil Gramm wiped their asses with our nation and economy all for their gods corporation.

like I said , we were starting to dig out of the hole Bushco and cons left us in. Now cons want to put us right back in it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3X1ru8PSR6o/ThHtLQYUOaI/AAAAAAAAENg/hiF-qpMryh4/s1600/2011q1-final-1q-gdp-growth-rate-temperature-gauge.png

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=economy+chart+1980+to+2011&um=1&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1143&bih=671&tbm=isch&tbnid=nWbpZzry_NizKM:&imgrefurl=http://petesview.com/&docid=3gTZ-57GBQCdOM&w=481&h=439&ei=E4c0TpmqGeKJsALbx6yHCw&zoom=1

not to forget factual history ...

Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

Who's the Better Manager of the Economy, Republicans or Democrats?
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/manage_economy.html

Why the economy fares much better under Democrats
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

Bush Latest GOPer to Show Democrats Better for the Economy
By Jon Perr Sunday Jan 25, 2009

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-latest-goper-show-democrats-better-e

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810

    #1.24 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:50 PM EDT
    Marshall James

    ripley

    if you want to be truly honest...it started skidding when nixon took us off the gold standard.

    ha...did you one better.

    • 3 votes
    #1.25 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:43 PM EDT
    Global777

    ripley...

    We do better with the economy under dems.

    WOW! Convincing, articulate, well stated and fully supported argument. I guess we can all go home now.

    One question...

    By "dems", do you mean democratic Presidents, democratic Congress or just dem guys?

    • 3 votes
    #1.26 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:28 PM EDT
    US. GOVERNMENTDeleted
    Reply
    Norcal2

    That is to be expected with Congress playing with our economy's final nail so they can get an edge in the Presidential race. If republicans keep playing this game there may not be anything left to win. The market is nose diving downward. I hope those who thought the tea party would be a savior are now seeing they will take you and the rest of us down.

    I don't know what to say other than for the first time I think we are allowing politics and elections to destroy us. The President made some headway with the Bush recession but no President can fix the uncertainty the Congress is keeping us held under. Good luck to all of us.

    You do not cut off money in a recession without the very real prospect of turning it into a depression.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:55 PM EDT
    Life is Grand

    Like raising the debt limit will do to us anyways. We will be at 16.9 trillion if Obama gets his 2.4 trillion dollar check. The government spending is out of control, and we will see our triple A status downgraded soon anyways unless they make some major spending cuts. Both parties piss me off to no end anymore. It is about time for a major wipe out and start over with people who care instead of life long politicians.

    • 3 votes
    #2.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:08 PM EDT
    Fufu

    It is about time for a major wipe out and start over with people who care instead of life long politicians.

    80+ Republican representatives are freshmen, having never served in the House of Representatives before. Electing someone who isn't experienced does no good if that person does not understand basic concepts and makes decisions based on ideology or emotion. Kicking out someone who has served for a decade makes no sense if that person has served well.

    We're learning all too well right now the ramifications of blind "kick out the incumbents!" sentiment.

    • 4 votes
    #2.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:15 PM EDT
    Global777

    fufu...

    Electing someone who isn't experienced does no good...

    Tell that to those that voted for BO...

    • 4 votes
    #2.3 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:40 PM EDT
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    exactly right, LIgrand, it's going to be downgraded anyway...geez, spending like drunken sailors has finally caught up with us.

    Obama tells the people to keep the pressure on washington...sure enough, I caled my Congresspeople and said CUT, CAP, and BALANCE...it's the only way out of this mess.

    • 4 votes
    #2.4 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:10 PM EDT
    I'm just saying...

    I'm sorry, but the viewpoint that federal debt is causing a recession is just @!$%#ing stupid. It ranks up there with thinking that only a man and women should be married, or that women who are raped should not be allowed to have an abortion. It is therefore is no surprise to me that the tea party believes in all three.

    • 3 votes
    #2.5 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:18 PM EDT
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    really, saying? tell ya what, try spending only on credit at home and see if you don't go bankrupt like the country is now, and see what kind of other ramifications there are...sheeze it ain't rocket science, people.

    • 2 votes
    #2.6 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:57 AM EDT
    Smith Cassidy

    vol fan in chatt, tn
    really, saying? tell ya what, try spending only on credit at home and see if you don't go bankrupt like the country is now, and see what kind of other ramifications there are...sheeze it ain't rocket science, people.

    What is also not rocket science is that a government is not a family household.

    Further, regarding your "rocket science", would you tell your employer that you were earning too much - your debts were near paid off - therefore you would like to earn less while, incredulously, you increase the rate of your spending?

    If not, then you have a problem with GWB and his fiscal "tactics".

    • 2 votes
    #2.7 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:40 AM EDT
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    What is also not rocket science is that a government is not a family household.

    doesn't matter, smith, it friggin common sense...something that escapes many people these days, apparently. If it works for a family - living within your means- it will work for the governemtn. That is why people are fed up with the government telling us we
    "have to tighten our belts" and yet they keep on spending like there is no tomorrow. Tomorrow is HERE.

    • 2 votes
    #2.8 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:27 PM EDT
    Smith Cassidy

    First, it does matter - the difference between a government and a family is night and day. Families don't print or lend money, or set interest rates, to start with a few basic ideas that seem to be 'escaping" you.

    But you are right, spending needs to be cut down, no doubt.

    Are you in favor of: Cuts to the military? Ending oil subsidies? Closing all tax loopholes? Ending or modifying the Cap Gains rates? Ending the wars? Reducing the DEA and the failed war on drugs? Ending or reducing farm subsidies?

    Where do you believe we should cut?

      #2.9 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:10 PM EDT
      luckydog

      True, a family should live within their means but if they suddenly stop paying their bills, bad things happen. Things that could have been prevented if they worked their way out of debt in a logical orderly manner.

      • 1 vote
      #2.10 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:39 PM EDT
      Reply
      Dr. Reid

      Just what the republicans want.

      • 5 votes
      Reply#3 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:59 PM EDT
      Life is Grand

      I'm sorry, but I think it would be better if the whole system just crashes, and we can start over. The debt we have now is completely out of hand, and my kids won't be able to retire until they are 75 at the rate we are going. We need more tax payers. It isn't right that half of the population pays no taxes at all. They should at least have to pay copays at the Dr.s office so health care costs can come down a little. It really stinks that none of these politicians care about the American Public. They just care about their Cadillac plans.

        Reply#4 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:11 PM EDT
        Fufu

        I'm sorry, but I think it would be better if the whole system just crashes, and we can start over.

        And... the whole system crashing also represents millions of Americans' jobs and lives. Does that count for nothing?

        • 3 votes
        #4.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:16 PM EDT
        The Grim Creeper

        And... the whole system crashing also represents millions of Americans' jobs and lives. Does that count for nothing?

        Obama's spending is going to crash the system regardless. So who will you blame when that happens? The Republicans, of course.

        • 3 votes
        #4.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:28 PM EDT
        neenie1991

        So his proposed trillion in spending cuts in the debt limit debate are moot?

        • 3 votes
        #4.3 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:06 PM EDT
        I'm just saying...

        Grim, how much debt did the nation amass under your buddy GW?

        • 3 votes
        #4.4 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:11 PM EDT
        Smith Cassidy

        Obama's spending is going to crash the system regardless. So who will you blame when that happens? The Republicans, of course.

        What spending? How much? List the expenditures and their amounts, and let's see what the total is. Let's see how it stacks up against GWBs debt responsibility.

        • 1 vote
        #4.5 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:41 PM EDT
        tbart

        LifeIsGrand - So you want to "...just let the whole system crash..."??? Do you have any grasp of what that would involve? Does it not bother you that we will not bepaying our armed forces or will be eliminating [not delaying] social security payments, or shutting down airports, or closing down the Coast Guard, or....migawd man how can you possibly say that crashing our government is a good idea???

        THINK for a change. We can bring deficits under control, we have done it before. We can save social security, we have done that before too. This country is capable of great things, we always have been and still are, but self-defeating behavior and attitudes will not lead on to greatness.

          #4.6 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:15 AM EDT
          Reply
          The Grim Creeper

          Another recession? I wasn't aware the first one had ended. I know, Jimmy Carter just needs to spend a little more money on another porkulus bill. That'll solve the problem.

          • 5 votes
          Reply#5 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:29 PM EDT
          Smith Cassidy

          What you means to say is we should cut taxes further, fire more government workers, attack more unions, go after women, teachers, police and fire fighters while ignoring oil subsidies and tax law that favors jet owners.

          Right? Isn't that what you @!$%#ing mean with your same old tired @!$%# post after post?

          Further, we should engage in 2 wars but keep them off the books until a new president takes over and we should also sign a bill the pharmaceutical companies will just love to death.

          GWB does the lion's share of the spending, drives the @!$%#ing economy and country into the ditch, and now it's Obama's fault. How's life in bizarro world?

          What a joke.

          • 1 vote
          #5.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:44 PM EDT
          Global777

          smth...

          How's life in bizarro world?

          Please, do tell!

          This is 2011. Bush retired in 2008.

          • 3 votes
          #5.2 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:42 AM EDT
          luckydog

          This is 2011. Bush retired in 2008.

          Muhammad Died June 8th 632. Do you think his actions might still be affecting current events?

          • 1 vote
          #5.3 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:02 AM EDT
          tbart

          Grimmy

          Another recession? I wasn't aware the first one had ended.

          That's because your information filter is clogged. The recession ended in the last quarter of '10 which point is not really a matter of interpretation. We have been expanding, not shrinking, our economy since then but the growth rate has been too slow to get us out of the hole we were in.

          Econ 101, Grimmy. You really need to take it again and try to stay awake this time.

            #5.4 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:20 AM EDT
            Smith Cassidy

            Global777

            Please, do tell!

            This is 2011. Bush retired in 2008.

            Ahh, so everything Bush did during his 8 years ended when he walked out the WH door?

            No. Of course not. But please, do try more bad logic to find Republican excuses. It's always fun to tear someone's house down.

            • 1 vote
            #5.5 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:18 AM EDT
            Global777

            dog...

            Muhammad Died June 8th 632. Do you think his actions might still be affecting current events?

            What state/district does he represent?

            Which way did he vote in the last Budget?

            What party is he affiliated with?

            LOL! Nice try...

            please, do try more bad logic to find democratic excuses.

            • 2 votes
            #5.6 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:23 PM EDT
            luckydog

            What state/district does he represent?

            Which way did he vote in the last Budget?

            What party is he affiliated with?

            Are all those prerequisites to affect the future Global? Whom did bin laden represent? Yet because of him, King George in his wisdom spent trillions of dollars chasing him and it took a Democratic president to get the job done.

            To not understand history you are doomed to repeat it.

            • 2 votes
            #5.7 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:41 PM EDT
            vol fan in chatt, tn

            global, they are grasping at straws by invoking Mohammed. LOL, Who cares and what does that have to do with ANYTHING related to our economy?

            • 1 vote
            #5.8 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:29 PM EDT
            Global777

            vol...

            I agree. Mohammed??? Too funny.

            • 2 votes
            #5.9 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:36 PM EDT
            Reply
            Castor Bridge

            How's that hope and change workin' out for ya'?

            • 3 votes
            #6 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:34 PM EDT
            Global777

            Castor...

            How's that hope and change workin' out for ya'?

            As I've said before, I just Hope I still have some Change in my pockets, in 2012...

            • 3 votes
            #6.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:44 PM EDT
            Smith Cassidy

            Better than Bush, so it's working out fine so far.

            • 1 vote
            #6.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:46 PM EDT
            Global777

            smith...

            Better than Bush, so it's working out fine so far.

            You're one of the lucky few:

            Unemployment, during 8 years of Bush: 5.3%

            Unemployment, during 30 months of BO: 9.4%

            Consider yourself one of the lucky few...

            • 2 votes
            #6.3 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:40 AM EDT
            tbart

            Castor - how's that Sarah Palin wisdom workin' out for ya? How's that dumb-as-we-wanna-be politics doing these days? How's that string of bozos contending for the Repub nomination looking today?

            Obama 2012 - you're gonna have to learn to live with it.

              #6.4 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:24 AM EDT
              Fufu

              Unemployment, during 8 years of Bush: 5.3%

              Unemployment, during 30 months of BO: 9.4%

              That is probably the single most irrelevant number posted here at Newsvine. President Bush was given a booming economy (albeit somewhat bubbled with a relatively minor market correction) upon taking office, as well as a balanced budget. President Obama was given a collapsing economy with an already high unemployment rate.

              When President Bush took office in January 2001, the unemployment rate was around 4.3%. When he left office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8%. So, to recap, President Bush took a booming economy and trashed it, raising the unemployment rate by 3.5% (among other economic indicators, there are plenty more that show how terrible his economic policies were). President Obama had a crashing economy and, while admittedly not fixing it, slowed down the rate of collapse and the unemployment rate under his administration has gone up by 1.4%.

              • 1 vote
              #6.5 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:22 AM EDT
              Smith Cassidy

              http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

              Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009.

              Unemployment in January was 7.8%. That is, without a doubt, GWBs unemployment rate.

              The rate you listed, Global, was GWBs average throughout 8 years in office, which started January 20, 2001 when unemployment was 4.2%.

              In other words, unemployment went up from 4.2% to 7.8% (at minimum), during the Bush presidency. Along with massive increases in the debt and deficit.

              In Feb of 2009, less than 1 month after Obama had been in office, unemployment went to 8.2%, then 8.6% in March, to 9.4% in May...in other words, Dubya gave Obama the keys to an unemployment disaster.

                #6.6 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:34 AM EDT
                Global777

                Pay attention fufu and smith. This is where you might learn something...

                The unemployment rate was, in fact 4.2% in January, 2001.

                It was also 4.9% in April, 2008!

                Your attempt to spin the numbers does not negate the fact that during 93 out of 96 months, of Bush's Administration, the Unemployment Rate did not exceed 6.3%!

                The delusion, which you labor under, is that unemployment consistently rose, during Bush. The unemployment rate was consistently steady and low, during Bush.

                ...

                President Bush was given a booming economy... as well as a balanced budget.

                Thanks to Clinton and the Republican Congress, that he was blessed with the last 6 years of his administration.

                ...

                Now, we would be remiss in handing out credit, if we left out the democratic Congress that started in 2007.

                Youy remember them, right? They're the ones that create budgets.

                The average unemployment rate, during the first 6 years of Bush and a Republican Congress, was only 5.3%.

                The average unemployment rate, during the four years that the democrats controlled Congress, rose to 7.4%.

                ...

                Dubya gave Obama the keys to an unemployment disaster.

                As we have learned, Bush AND a democratic Congress.

                BO begged for the job and told you he would fix things. Things are worse today, 30 months later, than when Bush handed BO the keys.

                ...

                Gallup BO Approval Poll (July 26 - July 27, 2011):

                Approve: 40%

                Disapprove: 50%

                Obama is out in 2012 - you're gonna have to learn to live with it.

                • 3 votes
                #6.7 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:42 PM EDT
                Smith Cassidy

                It was also 4.9% in April, 2008!

                So @!$%#ing pathetic.

                May 2008 = 5.4%.

                July 2008 = 5.8%.

                December 2008 = 7.3%.

                Before Bush left office the unemployment rate increased 3.1%. There's no @!$%#ing spin there, at least not to those of us who know the difference between 'fact' and bull@!$%#.

                January 2009 = 7.8%. Obama took office January 20 2009. In other words, that is still GWB.

                Unemployment up 3.6%.

                February 2009 = 8.2% = Unemployment up 4%.

                And May 2009 = 9.4% = Unemployment up 5%.

                That's all on GWB and Congress, not Obama.

                Spin it any way you like, it's still bull@!$%#.

                Also, GWB took a great economy (as we've both agreed), and beat it with a shovel with 2 tax cuts, 2 wars, medicare part d and other irresponsible acts.

                • 1 vote
                #6.8 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:00 PM EDT
                Global777

                smith...

                Let's apply your flawed "logic" to the following:

                A student goes through 4 years of high school and 4 years of college. That's 96 months.

                The student gets straight A's and B's, through every class and every term, up until the last three months of the last term. During the last three months, when his degree is in the bag, he gets C's and D's.

                What will his GPA reflect? The first 93 months or the last 3 months? Exactly!

                Will he be remembered as an A student or a C student? Exactly!

                ...

                I agree with you in that May, 2009 is on Bush and the democratic Congress. However, we are 31 months into BO and things are worse now, than they were in 2009.

                The CURRENT situation is all on BO and the democratic Congress, not Bush.

                • 2 votes
                #6.9 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:55 PM EDT
                tbart

                Global - Spin it any way you want bub, but the great majority of people in this country know dammit well that the Bushies drove us right to the edge of a precipice, then retired. There has not been an administration that came to power with this much of a mess on their hands on Day One since FDR took over from Hoover in 1932. And now I even see the Birchers & Associated Revisionists telling us that Roosevelt was responsible for the Depression too.

                Take off your blinders ferchrissakes. We had an unsustainable housing boom fueled by consumer greed, Wall St cluelessness, an administration certain that the whole mortgage world desperately needed to be freed from regulation of any type, etc etc. Now this is when you will be wanting to bring up Barney Frank, so go ahead, but remember who nominated the head of the FTC, HUD, and the US Treasury, and it sure wasn't Dennis Kucinich.

                The mess began to crumble in the last quarter of 2007 but inertia carried it forward in 2008. Those are the years when you love to quote the UE rate, but if you couldn't see the writing on the wall at that point then...I don't know. Can you see ANYTHING??

                Obama '12 - time to kick some Bagger butt.

                  #6.10 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:48 PM EDT
                  vol fan in chatt, tn

                  You are more patient that I, Global....they just don't get it, and really it is quite simple...

                  • 3 votes
                  #6.11 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:30 PM EDT
                  tbart

                  Well, something is simple, that's for sure.

                  • 1 vote
                  #6.12 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:14 PM EDT
                  Global777

                  tbart...

                  The great majority of people in this country don't give a damn who caused "it" or when "it" began.

                  The great majority of people in this country know damn well that BO is not the answer NOW...

                  Gallup BO Approval Poll (July 27 - July 28, 2011):

                  Approve: 40%

                  Disapprove: 52%

                  ...

                  BO: Shelve in 2012...

                  • 2 votes
                  #6.13 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:43 PM EDT
                  tbart

                  Obama down to 40% approval? Well, given the current state of affairs I doubt that Benjamin Franklin or George Washington would be doing better than 40%.

                  But chew on the Pew Research poll on Republicans in Congress, and this is from way back on July 20 - rather doubtful that their numbers have gone up since then:

                  "Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"

                  .

                  Approve
                  Disapprove
                  Unsure

                  %
                  %
                  %

                  7/20-24/11

                  25
                  66
                  10
                  http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

                  Also, according to RealClearPolitics - certainly not a bastion of the Dems, Obama leads the Repub field like this:

                  Obama vs Romney + 4.3%

                  Obama vs Bachman + 12.4%

                  Obama vs Perry + 11.6%

                  Obama vs Pawlenty + 12.3%

                  Obama vs Gingrich + 14.7%

                  Obama vs Paul + 9.8%

                  Obama vs Huntsman + 14.0%

                  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

                  With the current circus happening it is real hard for me, a strong Obama guy, to be very positive about anyone or anything in our government. But it is totally clear that it is the Repubs in general and the Tea Party in particular that has brought us to the edge of the precipice. How will it all work out? You seem to be pretty sure, but I have to say that I'm not sure at all. But one thing I do know:

                  Obama 2012

                    #6.14 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:31 PM EDT
                    tbart

                    Hmmm....that didn't really come across on the screen as it should have....it was like this:

                    Approve/Disapprove of Republicans in Congress:

                    Approve: 25%

                    Disapprove 66%

                    No Opinion 10%

                      #6.15 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:36 PM EDT
                      Smith Cassidy

                      Global777
                      smith...

                      Let's apply your flawed "logic" to the following:

                      A student goes through 4 years of high school and 4 years of college. That's 96 months.

                      The student gets straight A's and B's, through every class and every term, up until the last three months of the last term. During the last three months, when his degree is in the bag, he gets C's and D's.

                      What will his GPA reflect? The first 93 months or the last 3 months? Exactly!

                      Will he be remembered as an A student or a C student? Exactly!

                      C'mon, you can't be serious with that argument. This isn't baseball or academia, it's money and the economy.

                      By your "logic", if my average monthly income - the amount of money I had available in my bank account - was $1 million dollars for the past 4 years, but right now I'm down to $200, I should still be considered a millionaire?

                      Averages regarding unemployment mean squat, and I think you know that but you are just trying your best to make it look like Bush handed Obama anything but a completely dysfunctional economy. It won't work.

                      Here's another way to look at it. Say I am your financial planner, handling all of your money for the past 3 years and for every year I have managed to double the capital you have invested.

                      Year 1 = $10,000. 2 = $20,000. 3 = $40,000.

                      I "average", for those 3 years, a 100% return on investment. Spectacular. But I make some bad investments that 4th year and the economy/market are "off", and I lose 70% of your invested capital to leave you with $12,000 total. I still "made" you money (although my fees and inflation cut into that $2000), and my "average for those 4 years is probably going to be pretty good, but how are you going to feel about my performance when I tell you I lost you about $28,000?

                      In other words, there is a huge difference between "averages" and the final result.

                      I agree with you in that May, 2009 is on Bush and the democratic Congress. However, we are 31 months into BO and things are worse now, than they were in 2009.

                      The CURRENT situation is all on BO and the democratic Congress, not Bush.

                      Of course, it's up to Obama and Congress to fix the mess. But is it your belief the mess is Obama's fault like so many others from the "right"?

                        #6.16 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:05 PM EDT
                        Global777

                        smith...

                        Nice try but still no cigar.

                        Your analogy measures accumulation, which is not what we're discussing.

                        Mine measures performance by an individual, which IS what we're discussing.

                        ...

                        I was a stock broker for several years. If I had consistently made my client an above average rate of return for 93 straight months and then had 3 bad months, I would not lose a client.

                        ...

                        But is it your belief the mess is Obama's fault like so many others from the "right"?

                        Once again, BO begged for the chance to fix the problems that Bush and the democratic Congress created.

                        He got that chance.

                        He has not fixed the mess. In many ways, it is worse than when he took over.

                        It wasn't his doing, other than his participation in that same democratic Congress. But he has been on the job for over 2 1/2 years.

                        Is it your belief the current mess is not Obama's responsibility like so many others from the "left"?

                        • 1 vote
                        #6.17 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:36 PM EDT
                        Smith Cassidy

                        Your analogy measures accumulation, which is not what we're discussing.

                        RoI can be viewed in dollars or percentages, totals or averages, just like so many other things. I chose to create an example where my average was good, but my results were less than spectacular at the end, illustrating two things: where you end up regarding almost everything except backpacking through Europe is more important than how you got there.

                        The money you have at the end of the day is more important than the money you had last week, and the unemployment rate last year or last month isn't as important as the unemployment rate right now. And depending on when you determine the rate to switch from GWB's numbers to Obama's numbers, there is about a 1% difference between the 2.

                        In other words, if Obama, right now, has a bad unemployment rate in your opinion, so too did GWB. It's that simple and can't be argued any other way with a consistent line of reasoning.

                        If we're driving a car and I pass gas station after gas station until we're in the middle of nowhere, then I let you drive the car and not long after it runs out of gas without a station in sight, whose fault is it?

                        He has not fixed the mess. In many ways, it is worse than when he took over.

                        Agreed. He definitely has not fixed anything. But how many Jobs bills have Republicans voted down? Or, where are their jobs bills?

                        Part of the problem is no matter what Obama does, some people will go against him. He's just that polarized, and it's not really because of anything he has done. He's no worse - and likely better (better only because he was vetted during the presidential process, and to survive that you better be pretty "clean") - than the typical politician. And no matter what he does, he gets no credit for the good things and all the blame for the crap. He didn't get Osama, GWB did...but it's Obama's fault the economy is @!$%#ed. etc.

                        What ways? Surely you can't blame him for the rise of the Tea Party (not directly, anyway) and the fact that the Republican party has an uncontrollable element in their midst.

                        In what ways are things worse?

                        It wasn't his doing, other than his participation in that same democratic Congress. But he has been on the job for over 2 1/2 years.

                        Is it your belief the current mess is not Obama's responsibility like so many others from the "left"?

                        Agreed.

                        And not completely, No. But he shares the burden, no doubt, and I wish politicians - left, right, middle - would stop playing these dickey little games and work on bringing Jobs back to this country. So much will work itself out when you put people back to work.

                        • 1 vote
                        #6.18 - Mon Aug 1, 2011 10:58 AM EDT
                        Global777

                        smith...

                        You present many "reasons" why BO has been unsuccessful.

                        I recognize that Bush made some mistakes. "Part of the problem is no matter what Bush did, some people went against him."

                        Putting Bush aside, do you hold BO accountable for the economic issues in our country, TODAY?

                        If not, how many years do you feel a President needs, before they are held responsible for events, during their Administration?

                        Or does BO simply get a pass, until things turn positive and then it's because of BO, regardless of how many years it takes?

                        Where are you drawing the line in time for BO?

                        You measured the Republican line in months:

                        where are their jobs bills?

                        • 1 vote
                        #6.19 - Mon Aug 1, 2011 7:13 PM EDT
                        tbart

                        Global

                        However, we are 31 months into BO and things are worse now, than they were in 2009.

                        Really?

                        In 2009 we were looking at the loss of our auto industry. But now they are in pretty good shape and with a far better focus on their products.

                        In 2009 the stock market had tanked to around 7000 on the Dow, now we are just over 12000.

                        In 2009 we were LOSING 750,000 jobs a month, now we are gaining every month - not enough, that's for sure, but we are gaining.

                        In 2009 the banking system was on the verge of collapse, due largely to lx oversight [in my own humble opinion]. Today the banking system is pretty strong and we have passed a robust regulatory bill.

                        In 2009 no one had heard of the Tea Party. Today...uhhh....well you got me there. I sure would like to go back to the day when I had never heard of those yahoos and morons.

                        • 1 vote
                        #6.20 - Mon Aug 1, 2011 8:17 PM EDT
                        Global777

                        tbart...

                        Really?

                        Really!

                        ...

                        January, 2009: Unemployment Rate - 7.8%

                        June, 2011: Unemployment Rate - 9.2%

                        ...

                        January, 2008 - January, 2009 CPI: 211.080 - 211.143 for a .03% annualized increase in inflation.

                        June, 2010 - June, 2011 CPI: 211.080 - 211.143 for a 3.6% annualized increase in inflation.

                        ...

                        I'm assuming that the average American is more affected/concerned with the unemployment rate and inflation than they are about the stock market...

                        • 1 vote
                        #6.21 - Mon Aug 1, 2011 9:08 PM EDT
                        tbart

                        Yeah, but you might be assuming wrong. With the fading away of defined benefit pensions, these days most people are looking to 401K-403B-IRA plans as a way to - hopefully - retire. For people in their 50's or 60's, seeing their assets crater was not a good thing. It was a real bad thing, actually. Note that the market has not recovered, prior to the crash it was approx 14500. Still, 12100 looks a whole lot better than 7000.

                        As to the unemployment rate, I'm not going to argue with you that it is too high and many more jobs are needed. But crowing about the 7.9% rate when Obama came in is way out of line and just plain spurious BS. Yeah, it was 7.9, but with concrete boots on. The most applicable number when Old Whatzhizname left office was 750,000 which was the number of jobs we were losing per month. That number dropped every month for the first ten months of the Obama admin until Oct 10 when it went to zero and we began to add jobs.

                        "So where are we now?" you may justifiably ask. The answer is that we are gaining jobs, but not fast enough.

                        "Why not? Especially when Corporate America is reeling in some pretty healthy profits?" Because there is still too much uncertainty in the marketplace for the corporate guys to place their bets. When they see uncertainty, their immediate impulse is to hold their cards ever closer to their chests.

                        "But where does all this uncertainty come from??" It comes from several sources, some of which we have little to no control over. The European debt crisis and the japan disaster are high on the list there. A good deal of the uncertainty, however, comes from our own political system.

                        "Who benefits from uncertainty and economic chaos?" The Republicans and the Tea party.

                        Any other questions, children?

                        • 1 vote
                        #6.22 - Mon Aug 1, 2011 11:04 PM EDT
                        Global777

                        tbart...

                        Yeah, but you might be assuming wrong.

                        Not a chance. Ask the average guy on the street if unemployment/inflation worries him/her more than their 401k.

                        ...

                        But crowing about the 7.9% rate when Obama came in...

                        Who's crowing? Nice spin.

                        ...it was 7.9, but with concrete boots on.

                        The only reason it has "boots on" is because BO didn't know how to repair the unemployment situation. If someone had restored the single digit unemployment figures, enjoyed throughout the last decade, we wouldn't be talking about "boots" 31 months later.

                        Either way, BO's 9.2% is even less to crow about.

                        P.S. it was 7.8% in 01/2009.

                        ...

                        "Who causes uncertainty and economic chaos?" The democrats.

                        • 1 vote
                        #6.23 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:03 AM EDT
                        Smith Cassidy

                        The only reason it has "boots on" is because BO didn't know how to repair the unemployment situation. If someone had restored the single digit unemployment figures, enjoyed throughout the last decade, we wouldn't be talking about "boots" 31 months later.

                        That's crap. First, what's a newly elected President supposed to, or even able to do regarding jobs? Second, don't many from the "right" believe government cannot in fact create jobs? Third, apparently Congress, including the Teapublican House, don't know how to repair unemployment either.

                          #6.24 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 9:57 AM EDT
                          Global777

                          smith...

                          Third, apparently Congress, including the Teapublican House, don't know how to repair unemployment either.

                          Your comment implies that BO doesn't "know how to repair unemployment."

                          We agree. He should have mentioned that when he begged for the job.

                          • 1 vote
                          #6.25 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 1:57 PM EDT
                          Smith Cassidy

                          We agree. He should have mentioned that when he begged for the job.

                          You mean when he got voted in. Sounds like you're not a big fan of democracy.

                          Republicans absolutely do not know how to create jobs, but they sure do know how to kill them.

                          And Bush neither knew how to create or to maintain jobs as unemployment went from ~4% to above 8% (maybe 9%) during his tenure.

                          Oh, those darn Republicans and "jobs, jobs, jobs".

                          http://www.care2.com/causes/republicans-kill-jobs-bill.html

                          Republicans going after Labor, again: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43988207/

                          Republicans Kill Measure That Created 240,000 Jobs

                          http://muskegoncritic.blogspot.com/2011/07/republicans-kill-1288-michigan-jobs-as.html

                          "Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke!" Boehner, R-Ohio, exclaimed. "It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money."

                          http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/so-be-it-pelosi-rips-boehners-dismissal-of-potential-job-loss.html

                            #6.26 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:38 PM EDT
                            tbart

                            Smith Cassidy - You have understand that Global thinks there is a dial on the desk in the Oval Office which the Prez uses t set the unemployment rate. And danged if Obama can't get the hang of how to use it!!

                            No matter who won the election, we were headed for a major recession in '08, anybody who can't see that needs to work on their reading comprehension. With a Prez working on repairing the mess and an opposition party dedicated solely to defeating his policies and his administration, it isn't an amazing thing that we are not making the progress we should. The carnival that we have just been treated to over the Debt Limit is a perfect illustration of that.

                            But Mr Smart&Skinny is doing pretty good at playing chess with the Tea Party while they think they are playing checkers. Sure, Global and his little buddies think they will wipe the floor with the Dems next November, but I have a pretty good hunch that they will be moaning & groaning on the first Wednesday of Nov 12.

                            • 1 vote
                            #6.27 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 7:49 PM EDT
                            Global777

                            smith...

                            Republicans absolutely do not know how to create jobs...

                            Wrong again.

                            The average unemployment rate, during the first 6 years of Bush and a Republican Congress, was only 5.3%.

                            The average unemployment rate, during the four years that the democrats controlled Congress, rose to 7.4%.

                            ...

                            And Bush neither knew how to create or to maintain jobs as unemployment went from ~4% to above 8% (maybe 9%) during his tenure.

                            We covered this earlier. You must have been away.

                            Your attempt to spin the numbers does not negate the fact that during 93 out of 96 months, of Bush's Administration, the Unemployment Rate did not exceed 6.3%!

                            It was NEVER higher than 7.8%, during the Bush Administration, and that was in January, 2009, a month that he shared with BO.

                            • 1 vote
                            #6.28 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:25 AM EDT
                            Global777

                            tbart...

                            You have understand that Global thinks there is a dial on the desk in the Oval Office...

                            Those that are challenged by their own thoughts, shouldn't assume they know the thoughts of others...

                            ...

                            With a Prez working on repairing the mess...

                            By doing what?? Even the left is getting wise to his ineffectiveness:

                            Gallup BO Approval Poll (July 27 - July 28, 2011):

                            Approve: 40%

                            Disapprove: 52%

                            ...

                            Global and his little buddies think they will wipe the floor with the Dems next November...

                            I'm not doing anything except voting. BO will be filling out Change of Address Forms.

                            but I have a pretty good hunch that they will be moaning & groaning on the first Wednesday of Nov 12.

                            Due to celebration hangovers.

                            BO is one and done...

                            • 1 vote
                            #6.29 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:35 AM EDT
                            Smith Cassidy

                            Your attempt to spin the numbers does not negate the fact that during 93 out of 96 months, of Bush's Administration, the Unemployment Rate did not exceed 6.3%!

                            It was NEVER higher than 7.8%, during the Bush Administration, and that was in January, 2009, a month that he shared with BO.

                            We did cover it, yet you don't seem to be understanding that averages mean @!$%#all regarding unemployment.

                            It's a pretty simple concept, actually. I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble with it.

                            93 out of 96 months, of Bush's Administration, the Unemployment Rate did not exceed 6.3%!

                            That's 2 points higher than when Clinton handed it off to him.

                            It was NEVER higher than 7.8%, during the Bush Administration, and that was in January, 2009, a month that he shared with BO.

                            Not when he was sitting in the White House, but less than 1 month after it was 8.2%, and it May 2009 unemployment was 9.4%.

                            See, when the numbers keep climbing from 5% in December of 2007 to 6% in August of 2008, to 7.8% in January of 2009, there is a problem. The problem started with the GWB administration and congress, and it continued on into the Obama administration. That 9.4% in May of 2009 is GWB's as much as it is Obama's. Spin it all you want, but the steady increase says you're wrong.

                              #6.30 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 2:41 PM EDT
                              Global777

                              smith...

                              Maybe pictures will work better for you...

                              Check out the unemployment rate, during Bush.

                              Select January, 2001 to January, 2009.

                              How would you describe those 8 years, in terms of unemployment?

                              • 1 vote
                              #6.31 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 5:16 PM EDT
                              tbart

                              Global

                              We covered this earlier. You must have been away.

                              Repeating your mantra doesn't help with the fact that it is based on bullpucky. Better try a different line cuz the rest of us know that W did not ride off into the sunset with a glowing economy. He's really lucky that he got to leave in January 09 rather than July 09. But then, he is such a lucky guy, right?

                                #6.32 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 7:33 PM EDT
                                Global777

                                tbart...

                                ...the rest of us know that W did not ride off into the sunset with a glowing economy.

                                As do I. Please cite where I stated anything different. Otherwise your entire comment "is based on bullpucky."

                                • 1 vote
                                #6.33 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:11 PM EDT
                                Smith Cassidy

                                Global777
                                smith...

                                Maybe pictures will work better for you...

                                Check out the unemployment rate, during Bush.

                                Select January, 2001 to January, 2009.

                                How would you describe those 8 years, in terms of unemployment?

                                A quick jump right out of the gate. A steady climb, then a steady decline for a longer period followed by a very sharp increase well above any average or recent rates.

                                  #6.34 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 12:38 AM EDT
                                  Global777

                                  smith...

                                  OK, so data analysis isn't your forte.

                                  From the middle of 2003 until the middle of 2007 (half of his Administration) the unemployment rate consistently dropped.

                                  Sidebar: According to the BO Backers, a President can't be held accountable for the unemployment rate for the first, how long has BO been in office, oh yeah, for the first 30 months.

                                  So, according to your camp, Bush enjoyed consistently dropping unemployment rates from about the time that it was his responsibility.

                                  Shortly after the democrats took control of the white House, from 2007 to 2011, the unemployment rate started climbing and hasn't stopped yet.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #6.35 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:39 AM EDT
                                  Smith Cassidy

                                  OK, so data analysis isn't your forte.

                                  LMAO. Says the person who can't seem to understand there is a world of difference between averages and real numbers. Says the person who can't see the relation between a dramatic climb in Unemployment happening while GWB was president and continuing through to the next administration.

                                  Willful ignorance is not a virtue.

                                  Sidebar: According to the BO Backers, a President can't be held accountable for the unemployment rate for the first, how long has BO been in office, oh yeah, for the first 30 months.

                                  According to GWB backers, he did no wrong and was a smart, savvy, well-spoken and fiscally responsible president.

                                  Shortly after the democrats took control of the white House, from 2007 to 2011, the unemployment rate started climbing and hasn't stopped yet.

                                  I see, so it's not Bush, it's the Democrats.

                                  Ok, what did the Democrats do exactly that started the unemployment rate to rise? Name the policies, the concrete Democrat actions that caused the rise.

                                  I guess this played no part:

                                  The financial crisis was triggered by a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system in 2008.[3] The collapse of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[4] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[5] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.

                                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

                                  And even if it did, Bush wasn't at all responsible, right? No, wait, all of that occurred while Bush was president and began well before Congress went Democratic. Oh @!$%#...how are you going to deflect that?

                                  I guess you'll link it back to Clinton, right? But then, Clinton had a Republican Congress, right? So that still leaves the heaping pile of @!$%# on Republican's doorstep, doesn't it?

                                  Too @!$%#ing Funny. Seriously, what's life like in denial?

                                    #6.36 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:05 PM EDT
                                    tbart

                                    Global -

                                    ...the rest of us know that W did not ride off into the sunset with a glowing economy.

                                    As do I. Please cite where I stated anything different.

                                    From you on 6.28

                                    Republicans absolutely do not know how to create jobs...

                                    Wrong again.

                                    The average unemployment rate, during the first 6 years of Bush and a Republican Congress, was only 5.3%.

                                    Although I'm sure your selective filter will allow you to read that you were being quite critical of the Bushies, it's pretty obvious that you think things were fine & dandy during those eight disastrous years.

                                    Which is why you aren't going to get a chance to repeat them. But anyway Dude, I'm done with you now.

                                    Tah...

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #6.37 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 10:46 PM EDT
                                    Global777

                                    tbart...

                                    Which is why you aren't going to get a chance to repeat them.

                                    Nor is BO...

                                    Gallup BO Approval Poll (Aug. 2- Aug. 3, 2011):

                                    Approve: 41%

                                    Disapprove: 52%

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #6.38 - Sat Aug 6, 2011 1:25 AM EDT
                                    Dr. Reid

                                    Just 24% of Americans surveyed think the Republican Congress is doing a good job, while 66.2% say they disapprove of the GOP is handling the country's affairs, accordingto Real Clear Politics..

                                    The polling data suggests that voters are feeling a sense of buyer's remorse. When the GOP swept control of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections, the promises they made have not turned out to be the pledges they are attempting to keep.

                                    Political talking heads, like MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, suggest that republicans are indeed keeping their campaign promises; not to voters, but to the corporations and lobbyists who funded their election campaigns.

                                    Poll data above had a margin of error of plus or minus 3% and were conducted during the month of March 2011.

                                    Sorry Steve...

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #6.39 - Sat Aug 6, 2011 4:37 AM EDT
                                    Global777

                                    Citing one survey, asking how folks feel about a party, does not indicate how they'll vote when faced with 4 more years of BO vs. a particular individual.

                                    Many dislike Kobe, but root for the Lakers.

                                    BO: One and Done.

                                    Sorry Reid...

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #6.40 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:21 PM EDT
                                    Smith Cassidy

                                    Many dislike Kobe, but root for the Lakers.

                                    WTF? That's a horrible comparison. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

                                    And Obama will be re-elected unless Republicans or Democrats come up with better candidates than what they currently have. Much better.

                                    Sorry 8(

                                      #6.41 - Tue Aug 9, 2011 1:53 AM EDT
                                      Global777

                                      smith...

                                      And Obama will be re-elected...

                                      LOL! uh-huh. Riiight...

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #6.42 - Tue Aug 9, 2011 1:33 PM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      Global777

                                      Combined, the first half of the year amounts to the worst six-month performance since the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009.

                                      This one is on BO, and the democratic Congress, all the way...

                                      • 3 votes
                                      Reply#7 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:42 PM EDT
                                      Smith Cassidy

                                      Of course...it has nothing to do with the Republican control of the House. Nothing at all. In fact, we should get rid of the House. What do they do exactly?

                                      And, as so many have said before, the great economy Bill Clinton handed over to GWB (which he destroyed and left smoking in a crater) was all because of Clinton and his policies. It had nothing to do with congress.

                                      And so everything was good when GWB took control - solely because of Clinton - and everything started going to @!$%# while GWB was in office.

                                      GWB screwed up royally and Obama is left trying to fix the wreckage that is the post-GWB country.

                                      Yup. Everything is because of the President, and the President alone.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #7.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:51 PM EDT
                                      Global777

                                      smith...

                                      ...as so many have said before, the great economy Bill Clinton handed over to GWB...

                                      Clinton had the luxury of working with a Republican Congress, during the last 6 of his 8 years in office. Clinton, and the Republican Congress hnded a great economy over to GWB.

                                      ...

                                      ...everything started going to @!$%# while GWB was in office.

                                      And, as so many have said before, got much worse after BO took office.

                                      ...

                                      GWB screwed up royally and Obama is left trying to fix the wreckage that is the post-GWB country.

                                      BO isn't "left trying to fix the wreckage."

                                      Yes, he was stuck with the same democratic Congress that Bush had to deal with, his last 2 years in office.

                                      But BO begged for this job. We didn't volunteer him. He campaigned that he had the answers to our problems. He begged us to give him the chance to bring about Hope and Change.

                                      He fooled everyone, including himself...

                                      ...

                                      Everything is because of the President, and the President alone.

                                      Now, THAT you got right...

                                      • 2 votes
                                      #7.2 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:35 AM EDT
                                      tbart

                                      The Repubs know that their ONLY chance of winning next year is economic chaos and so - surprise surprise - we are having economic chaos. I certainly all fits with McConnels priorities, doesn't it?

                                        #7.3 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:26 AM EDT
                                        tbart

                                        The Repubs know that their ONLY chance of winning next year is economic chaos and so - surprise surprise - we are having economic chaos. I certainly all fits with McConnels priorities, doesn't it?

                                          #7.4 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:26 AM EDT
                                          tbart

                                          The Repubs know that their ONLY chance of winning next year is economic chaos and so - surprise surprise - we are having economic chaos. I certainly all fits with McConnel's priorities, doesn't it?

                                            #7.5 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:26 AM EDT
                                            tbart

                                            Posting glitch.

                                            "Try it again." they said. I did.

                                            "Try it again." they said. I did.

                                            Sorry about that....

                                              #7.6 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:53 AM EDT
                                              Fufu

                                              Everything is because of the President, and the President alone.

                                              Now, THAT you got right...

                                              Yes, because Republicans of the 1990's are exactly the same as Republicans now and we also live in a dictatorship, where the president has complete and ultimate authority.

                                                #7.7 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:28 AM EDT
                                                Smith Cassidy

                                                Clinton had the luxury of working with a Republican Congress, during the last 6 of his 8 years in office. Clinton, and the Republican Congress hnded a great economy over to GWB.

                                                Everything is because of the President, and the President alone.

                                                Now, THAT you got right...

                                                Contradicting yourself within 1 post is pretty impressive.

                                                In other words, if everything is because of the president (a point I made facetiously), then the Republican Congress had nothing to do with Clinton's success.

                                                Also, I agree completely that Clinton and Congress handed GWB a "great economy", which he then proceeded to butcher mercilessly.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #7.8 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:36 AM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                Caryl S. Foster

                                                All according to the Republican Strategic Plan For Failure.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                Reply#8 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:49 PM EDT
                                                vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                Obama didn't need any help for that...he doing it all by his little self...even Valerie Jarrett, came out and said poor Obama isn't getting any sleep...aw, poor thing, and no golf either since he decided he needed to look like he was large and in charge.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #8.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:13 PM EDT
                                                Caryl S. Foster

                                                The House Republican Job Bills certainly did not help.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #8.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:19 PM EDT
                                                luckydog

                                                Bush was responsible for the great recession, now the house Republicans are responsible for the great recession part II.

                                                Wake up America. Voting for Republicans got you into this mess and won't get you out.

                                                • 4 votes
                                                #8.3 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:21 PM EDT
                                                Smith Cassidy

                                                vol fan in chatt, tn
                                                Obama didn't need any help for that...he doing it all by his little self...even Valerie Jarrett, came out and said poor Obama isn't getting any sleep...aw, poor thing, and no golf either since he decided he needed to look like he was large and in charge.

                                                I assume you are ok with all the golfing Boehner does though, right? Or are you just a hypocrite?

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #8.4 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:52 PM EDT
                                                tbart

                                                Luckydog - How right you are. They got us into this mess and now seem bound and determined to keep us in it. Deep thinkers, those Tea party folk.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #8.5 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:55 AM EDT
                                                vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                gee, I don't know how much he golfsa but Obama does just about every weekend...even while the debate was going on, he couldn't pull himself away, but hey...whatever floats his boat.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #8.6 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:32 PM EDT
                                                Smith Cassidy

                                                vol, get some arguments with substance as opposed to the petty hypocritical @!$%#.

                                                enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaYVf4J1zus

                                                http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/19/politics/bush_legacy/main4735360.shtml

                                                  #8.7 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:15 PM EDT
                                                  Reply
                                                  Gnosis13

                                                  Yeah, looks like this article does an excellent job of reviving old arguments and distracting some from the problem that we are about to smack into.

                                                    Reply#9 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:35 PM EDT
                                                    luckydog

                                                    It isn't the article it's the policies. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result doesn't work.

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #9.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:39 PM EDT
                                                    Gnosis13

                                                    Yeah, but it tells us things we ( should ) already know. This is just more fuel to add to the fire.

                                                      #9.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:39 PM EDT
                                                      Reply
                                                      writer21177

                                                      Where was that recovery again??? Seems like the same ole recession round here.....

                                                        Reply#10 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:40 PM EDT
                                                        Jim-584538

                                                        What part of your not getting anymore money !!!! Do the democrats not understand ?

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        Reply#11 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:14 PM EDT
                                                        writer21177

                                                        Spend, spend, raise taxes, spend, spend some more, raise taxes again, spend some more, raise taxes again, spend, spend it never ends....

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #11.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:22 PM EDT
                                                        truthbtold-530139

                                                        Jim and writer,

                                                        Please do tell what exactly Obama is spending money on? please present factual evidence - not opinion pieces or blogs. Your posts appear to be emotion-based responses, which makes little sense if you can't specify exactly what "big spending" this administration is guilty of. (and yes I know you're going to throw in the stimulus, even though that spending ended last fiscal year)

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #11.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:19 PM EDT
                                                        writer21177

                                                        Let's see how about the continued spending on wars in Iraq and the Stan, bank bailouts, car company bailouts, there has been a lot of spending by both sides wouldn't you agree? The spend never ends, I am not blaming just one party I blame both, Fair enough.

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #11.3 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:31 PM EDT
                                                        truthbtold-530139

                                                        bank and car bailouts started with Bush (and this is not a Blame Bush response) and I don't think its realistic to think that the President could just simply stop spending for Iraq and Stan - that wouldn't sit well with the troops and definitely fuel the "Obama wants to destroy America" crowd, don't you think?

                                                        Other than the stimulus - which was a necessity - there isn't any excessive spending by this administration.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #11.4 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:43 PM EDT
                                                        writer21177

                                                        Or is it that excessive spending has become so commonplace as to not deserve notice. We are trillions in debt. Are you sure there is no where spending and waste could be cut?

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #11.5 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:50 PM EDT
                                                        truthbtold-530139

                                                        No I agree that there needs to be cuts in spending. However, I think we are doomed to repeat history by trying to dramatically restrict government monetary policy at a time in which the private sector is stagnant. I believe that until we address rising healthcare costs and develop policies to control it, our spending problem will never be solved. Most of the hysteria surrounding Medicare, Medicaid and SS has to do with future costs/spending. It will soon be our largest expenditure, surpassing defense spending. If we control health costs, we will dramatically improve our debt situation. SS should be adjusted in accordance with life expectancy as well as means-tested for benefits.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #11.6 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:02 PM EDT
                                                        writer21177

                                                        The cost of healthcare is very challenging. It is a product only the few can afford. W/O governement aid or assistance most Americans could not afford even basic healthcare. I do not have the answers on health care.

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #11.7 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:14 PM EDT
                                                        Smith Cassidy

                                                        Jim-584538
                                                        What part of your not getting anymore money !!!! Do the democrats not understand ?

                                                        The debt ceiling is about money that is ALREADY SPENT. The party of "fiscal responsibility" (LMAO!) should know that.

                                                        Go buy a clue.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #11.8 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:53 PM EDT
                                                        Global777

                                                        smith...

                                                        Go buy a clue.

                                                        You make more money than I do. You should pay for it, for me. That would be fair...

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #11.9 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:46 AM EDT
                                                        Smith Cassidy

                                                        Do I appear altruistic to you?

                                                          #11.10 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:39 AM EDT
                                                          Global777

                                                          No, you appear to lean to the left.

                                                          Isn't taking from the Haves and giving to the Have Nots, a major Talking Point, for liberals?

                                                          • 2 votes
                                                          #11.11 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:45 PM EDT
                                                          Smith Cassidy

                                                          Amusing.

                                                          No, I don't believe it is. But I'm not "liberal" (whatever that really means), and I don't speak for the "left". Just myself.

                                                          But, to answer a question with a question: isn't taking from the Have's better than taking from the Have Not's as the "right" always does?

                                                          Further, from my point of view, the Have's, the wealthiest 1% or 2% of this country do not pay their fair share, and they should.

                                                          Case in point, Cap Gains. If you have enough money - and the wealthiest of this nation do - you can live off of Cap Gains at an interest rate of 15%. And, of course, that isn't counting all the other little accounting tricks and loopholes and methods to shrink ones income and pay as little as possible.

                                                          But nice generic "right" talking point, Global.

                                                          Look through this if you are really interested:
                                                          http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #11.12 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:06 PM EDT
                                                          Reply
                                                          Jim-584538

                                                          This is Obama's big plan is to have the United States default. Just like General Motors the democratic poster child, Obama wants to screw the investor but keep all the federal jobs. In Obama's sick mind he thinks this is a win win situation for democrats in 2012 and 2014 because he will blame the GOP..

                                                            Reply#12 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:25 PM EDT
                                                            mountainmike-1199289

                                                            That is pure partisan BS!!!

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #12.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:00 PM EDT
                                                            krounded

                                                            Just like General Motors the democratic poster child,

                                                            The car companies are doing fine. Obama saved the industries and the jobs that go along with it.

                                                            Deal with it. It's a good thing.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #12.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:55 PM EDT
                                                            Global777

                                                            krounded...

                                                            Obama saved the industries and the jobs that go along with it.

                                                            Correction: BO, and a democratic Congress, FORCED you and I to "save the industries."

                                                            It is not a healthy thing. Deal with it.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #12.3 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:49 AM EDT
                                                            Reply
                                                            xylctyDeleted
                                                            black spider

                                                            Yo Adrian? The Party is Over. WE ARE BROKE.

                                                            READ MY BIG LIPS: WE ARE BROKE....

                                                            I guess 20% unemployment, rising costs of energy and food, which affects mostly the poor and lower middle class, is your IDEA OF HOPE AND CHANGE.

                                                            Riddle me this Joker: why is is that Obama voted against the debt ceiling increases in 2006 when BUsh was POTUS, and now wants to increase the debt to cover the bills until after his hopeful 2nd term?

                                                            Is this greasing your own wheel at the expense of the lower and middle class folk?

                                                            Answer JOker? YES.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            Reply#14 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:46 PM EDT
                                                            krounded

                                                            You give Frank Gorshin a bad name.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #14.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:57 PM EDT
                                                            Reply
                                                            truthbtold-530139

                                                            No,

                                                            Context is everything - 2006 and now are completely two different situations. In 2006, we were spending out of want, not necessity. In 2011, we have a fragile economy that can afford to gamble on the possible ramifications of default.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            Reply#15 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:52 PM EDT
                                                            Joseph Patrick Bulko, MBA

                                                            As the tepid economic "recovery" fizzles to a stall and an ideological civil war rages in Washington, millions and millions of otherwise hard-working Americans wonder if they will ever be employed again. Clearly, we need a jobs solution NOW! I have a plan to restore the U.S. economy to full employment. It's a complex private-sector mechanism that involves giving another dose of financial nitroglycerin to Wall Street hoping that this time they won't nuke the economy. In exchange, we get lots and lots of jobs. Read the plan here:

                                                            Joseph Patrick Bulko, MBA

                                                              Reply#16 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:46 AM EDT
                                                              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