Much of the Sunday shows were dominated by a simple question: asking Democrats whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago. Dems inexplicably seemed to be caught off guard by the question, and struggled with the answer. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) even felt compelled to clarify his "no" answer from yesterday.
This morning, Democrats tried to get back on message.
With a definitive "absolutely," Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the country was moving in the right direction by pointing to job growth and the auto industry.
"By any measure the country has moved forward over the last four years," she said on NBC's Today. "It might not be as fast as people hoped. The president agrees with that. He knows we need to do more. That's what this week is about, laying out a road map of how we can continue this progress, how we can continue moving the country forward." [...]
This attack was echoed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the Democratic National Convention chairman.... "[T]he answer is yes, we are better off. But we've got to keep on working harder."
While Dems struggled with this yesterday, I think they may be missing the importance of this opportunity. If Republicans and many in the media are going to be focused on the "are you better off" question, it's a chance for Democrats to remind the public of something much of the country has forgotten -- just how cataclysmically terrible things were before.
Indeed, I'm at a loss to explain how this is even a debate. Whether you love the president or hate him is irrelevant -- four years ago the economy was shrinking, now it's growing; four years ago the nation was hemorrhaging jobs, now it's adding jobs. The auto industry, the stock market, American manufacturing, the deficit -- they're all better now than when Obama took office.
Put it this way: Mitt Romney thinks the American economy has improved under Obama.
Consider this gem.
In his remarks [Friday], Romney also acknowledged the economy was getting better -- something he has said before....
"And [President Obama]'s going to say the economy is getting better," Romney said. "Thank heavens it's getting better. It's getting better not because of him, it's in spite of him and what he's done."
Notice, in this quote from earlier in the year, Romney said twice in three sentences that he believes the economy is "getting better."
Or how about this stunning exchange between Romney and conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.
INGRAHAM: You've also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president's argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it's getting better?
ROMNEY: Well, of course, it's getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession. There is always a recovery.
INGRAHAM: Isn't that a hard argument to make, if you're saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps and tried to turn the economy around. And now, we're seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?
ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? This happens to be the truth.
If the president's critics want to argue that conditions haven't improved enough, fine. If they want to argue that conditions have improved, but Obama shouldn't get credit, fine. If they want to say conditions would be even better if we'd tried a different course, we can at least have the debate.
But to say a growing economy that's adding jobs is worse than a shrinking economy that's losing jobs is demonstrably ridiculous. Is the country better off than it was in the midst of a global crash four years ago? Is that a rhetorical question?
Leave a Comment:
Are you "Better" off is a question to avoid. So is, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The sooner the Democrats get onto a different topic, the "better".
No, most people are better off than they were four years ago when catastrophe was staring everyone in the face. There's no shortage of easily identifiable economic metrics to make that point.
This just goes to show YET AGAIN how politically stupid and impotent Democrats are. I take grief on it every time I point it out. But it's the honest truth and failing to see it is just Democrats' own reality denying act.
I'll have to disagree Day , we can point to failed economic policies that the gop are STILL offering , and successful policies dems want to move forward with , that and asking about the failed policies of the gop houses job jobs jobs campaign of 2010 , which is linked directly to the romney campaign with ryan
And it can REALLY make the gop look foolish when you bring up your own individual states economies , iowaseconomy is taking off again as we speak here , everyone I know in the construction field is back to work , tho this will not be reflected in the big pic for now , and the hiring here has went nuts the last few months
Those "Successful" policies that put so many Liberals out of work in 2010? the same policies that has resulted in 42 months (and counting) of 8%+ unemployment a record that will never be broken and the highest rate of welfare and food stamps in American history? You guy's are unbelievable in the length you will go to ignore the disaster which resides in The White House currently.
Uh, oh. Looks like a wingnut got lost on his way to redstate. It's this way:
================================>
But I guess before you go, you need a little history lesson. You see, we're not going to let you get away with blaming our guy for what the GOTea did. So pay attention and when you get to redstate, give your fellow Fox-educated wingnut ignoramuses the same history lesson:
THE DEFICIT-TO-GDP HAS GONE DOWN AND THE DEBT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO W AND COMPLICIT REPUBLICAN CONGRESSES:
- http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490
- http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/
- http://mediamatters.org/research/201205300021
As for the stagnant economy, that's owned by Boehner/McConnell's and GOPee obstruction. Pay attention:
Boehner's GOP House obstruction => Boehner's GOP economy and unemployment of 2012.
WHAT HAPPENED:
The economy was on the upswing after the first two years of the Obama Presidency with the rescue of the auto industry, the stimulus package, etc. Then hate, Boehner, and the GOTea happened and there was to be no more consideration of ideas to solve problems because that was considered by the GOTea handing political victories of a political opponent.
GOP OBSTRUCTION:
What we have is the Boehner/GOTea economy of 2012 which is a scandal and is what the country gets with a GOTea House obstructing every attempt to solve the problems 30+ years of failed conservative ideas and policies have caused. Just like Boehner and McConnell wanted it.
GOP PUBLIC SECTOR OBSTRUCTION:
Republican obstruction at funding the public sector is costing 0.9 to 1.3 percentage points in employment. This is the opposite of what happened in other recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2000 when the federal government helped local and state government but Republicans in the House obstruct against.
GOP JOB OBSTRUCTION:
Republican obstruction on President Obama's American Jobs Act (AJA) is a scandal that costs another 1 to 1.3 percentage points.
This whole Republican scandal is too huge to fathom in terms of human misery, but Republicans believe it can fool an irresponsibly inattentive and ignorant public.
GOPers continue sabotaging the economy! - and blaming Obama for unemployment...
GOP House votes to repeal Obamacare - 37
GOP House votes to name Post Offices - 60
GOP House votes for American Jobs Act - 0
GOP House "jobs bills" analyzed by independent sources to provide actual jobs – 0
Boehner's GOTea obstruction => Boehner's GOTea economy and unemployment of 2012.
YOU WANT LINKS? I GOT YOUR LINKS?
PUBLIC SECTOR AUSTERITY AND OBSTRUCTION BY BOEHNER'S HOUSE AND MCCONNELL'S FILIBUSTERS:
- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/the-secret-of-our-un-success
- http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/31/government-cutbacks-separate-this-expansion-from-others/?mod=WSJBlog
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html?_r=4&hp
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html
- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/american-austerity/
AMERICAN JOBS ACT (AJA) AUSTERITY AND OBSTRUCTION BY BOEHNER'S HOUSE AND MCCONNELL'S FILIBUSTERS:
- http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/american_jobs_act.html
- http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-american-jobs-act-greater-than.html
I don't think so... there is a very good reason why there are no jobs! Every effort to build on the stimulus package by re-tooling American's workers and legislating projects like the Transportation Bill were blocked by a Republican majority in Congress that said 'no' to every bill introduced by the rest of Congress.
When Republicans finally realize why nothing was done, then we can move 'forward' with what needs to be done for American citizens without a political agenda that was agreed to by a few dumb asses in Congress.
This country was losing 700,000 jobs every month - starting with June of 2008 because of Bush's polices. President Obama changed that and more without the help of Congress. Get your facts straight and manage to support the only Party willing to rescue this country from certain disaster!
Let me get this straight
More people out of a job right now than 4 years ago
More people than ever under employed
More people than ever on food stamps, welfare, and in poverty
The American Taxpayer still on the hook for speculative investment banking
US debt higher than ever before and still rising
Printing money at unprecedented levels
Borrowing money at unprecedented levels
The Government spending more than a trillion dollars each year than it brings in
Local businesses still closing and those that are open many are hanging on by their fingernails
Stagnant and declining middle income payrolls
Families still being pushed out of their homes
Gad if I didn't know it you'd think we were living on Easy Street!
So you didn't do your reading assignment. Can't take you seriously till you do your reading assignment and know more than before you started the class. Off you go. You've got homework.
Disgusted . . . You're right on. This argument should be a slam dunk win for Dems.
Obama did such a good job of stopping the bleeding and putting things back on the right track that many people seem to have forgotten how worried everyone was about the possibility of an actual depression.
This is another example of the media's lack of interest in truth and its unwillingness to add context to the current debate. Networks should be hauling out footage of their newscasts from late 2008 and early 2009. Here's a link to a summary of the PBS news hour for November 20, 2008:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/news_summaries/2008/11/summary_20.html
Note that the Dow dropped over 400 points that day and a Republican senator is making a pitch for an auto industry bailout.
Obama and the Democrats need to refresh the public's memory about how fast this locomotive was speeding downhill.
If you don't understand WHY Hussein is getting kicked to the curb...Owing 124 B-I-L-L-I-O-N because of Fannie/Freddie is ONE of the reasons..And his Anti-business and Anti-American aversion to Government programs is the other. So After he get's the gate You will have time for YOUR "Homework".Hussein started his Presidency implementing Socialist medicine that 70% of Americans disapproved of with NO INPUT from the minority party on the BIGGEST LEGISLATION in history. So please...do not ask Republicans why THEY "don't want to work with this failure".3
West Virginia which is a very Democratic State voted for a incarcerated,convicted felon in the primary rather than the current Failure in chief...any ideas on WHY?
Cause they've been breathing too much coal dust?
Looks like shhit for brains is back again with his Fox-educated ignorance. SFB still needs to do his homework.
Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it. Read all about it:
Fannie and Freddie Fantasies | The Big Picture
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post
Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture
Cause and Effect Economist's View: Fannie and Freddie Didn't Do It: One More Time with Gusto
The Big Lie of the Crisis, Called Out By the Press : CJR
Fannie Freddie Further - NYTimes.com
Looks like I'm going to have to add to SFB's assignment, though since he's proving to be one of the slowest learners we've had around here. So, ...
1) Make sure you turn in a definition of Socialist so everybody will know you aren't using that word randomly because you heard it on your favorite cartoon news channel.
2) Before giving you any credibility, you'll need to state the argument in GetMe ReWrite about why Freddie/Fannie are not the cause. And then you need to state why that is wrong.
3) You will need to look up the definition of socialized medicine and prove you know it. State it clearly and accurately.
We won't be able to take you seriously here until you complete these assignments.
Off you go, SFBs. You've got a lot of work to do.
"Hussein started his Presidency implementing Socialist medicine that 70% of Americans disapproved of with NO INPUT from the minority party on the BIGGEST LEGISLATION in history."
No input? Where were you when this legislation was being developed. First, he took a plan the Republicans had been pushing. The basic framework came from the Heritage Foundation and was modeled after "Romneycare."
Second, there were three Dems and three Republicans on the Senate conference subcommittee that hashed out much of the bill. Republicans got much of what they wanted--then refused to vote for it so that they could claim to be against anything Obama did.
Third, the "Hussein" thing is a sign of not-exactly-thinly-veiled racism.
Your comments make good arguments about why Romney will be "kicked to the curb" in a couple of months.
His Allah given name...and now you accuse me of the term "Racist" Ever meet the good rev. Wright? No.... THERE is a racist. and this guy trampling America's immigration laws and suing HOW MANY of the States?You are straight out of a comic book.
And I am so touched by your concern for your fellow Democrats in west Virginia and Hussein declaring war on the only export of that state and the means of providing for their families and insuring higher electric generation costs....dems are just downright disgusting.
Sorry, SFBs. You have not completed your assignment, and can not be taken seriously till you show you belong in the class.
I don't know any liberals..."with class"
SFBs is still attempting to prove his relevance without showing he has any grasp of the fundamental on which he speaks. He will need to demonstrate at least basic competency before he can be taken seriously.
Newt will tell you that he and the rest of Congress—but mostly him, of course—were responsible for the 90's boom. It had nothing to do with President Clinton or his budget, even though his stimulus package, which included tax increases, passed without a single Republican vote. Clinton left office with a surplus, you may recall.
Karl Rove will tell you that Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of Congress were responsible for the 2000's Great Recession. It had nothing to do with President Bush or his tax cuts, which wiped out the surplus with the reasoning that “It's your money, and I'm gonna give it back to ya.” (Keynes is still rolling over.) Then there's the wars, the prescription drug giveaway to pharma companies, all those other much-maligned “Democratic talking points,” also known as facts. Bush left office with a huge deficit, you may recall.
According to Republicans, the 90's Congress was responsible for the boom, not the President. According to Republicans, the 2000's Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, not the President. According to Republicans, who's responsible for our problems since 2009? Not Congress! No, Sir! This time, the President is responsible!!!
Also note Steve B's chart above that has been shown all over the net, the one that shows the monthly loss of jobs increasing every month during the final years of the Bush Presidency. Then the losses decreased and actually turned into gains virtually every month since the start of the Obama presidency and his hard-fought stimulus. Bush: job slope down; Obama:job slope up.
Any economist who hasn't drunk gallons of the KoolAid will tell you that unemployment is a lagging indicator, weighted mostly toward what the economy was like; the stock market is a leading indicator, surprisingly reliable, and weighted mostly toward what the economy will be like. Please review the numbers, above.
So, no name-calling here, no opinions, just facts. Oh, and one question: whose “failed economic policies?” I know, “My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.”
To all the black people who read this blog I want to apologize for this comment. No I have no association with scott, I am not a representative of him, nor do I know him personally, but the level of vitriol included in this one statement just caused me to vomit a little in my mouth.
For the people like scott who don't understand why the above quote is one of the most racist things I've ever read on Maddowblog (and I'm sure competes for the all-time racist in Maddowblog history): you are implying that the appropriate application of racism is for it to be used against blacks.
Thanks for the apology...but keep it to yourself next time. Hussein IS the Guy's name like it or not. Wonder if his mother thought it offensive when she called him by it?And after being called obscenities repeatedly..yes, I yank their chain a little. Have you HEARD the good "Rev". Wright Eulogize? It would blister the paint from the wall.Why is it fine and dandy to call all republicans racists when this President has basically pitted Rich vs poor Illegals vs Americans and THAT is not considered racism. spare me your judgements but thank you anyway.
....okay a. you are the one who are pitting illegals versus Americans. No one else is doing this but you. Secondly it is considered racism which is why you whine when people call you a racist for insisting that them brownies don't come here
B. You are being racist for assuming that there is some racial divide existent when pitting rich versus poor. It is only in your mind that when you hear the term "poor" you think "black people." No one else besides you is making this connotation
C. My comment was on your point about Reverend Wright which is why I highlighted that part of your post (derp!). You are insinuating by using that statement that racism is OK when it's used for blacks, but not when it's used for whites. By doubling down on this statement I'm going to assume that this means you're agreeing with me- good to know, although I didn't need your affirmation to know that this was true (I just had to read what you wrote). Therefore you're openly admitting that you are racist towards black people and brown people.
D. His middle name is Hussein. His first name is Barack. You continue to use the term Hussein because you perceive it to have Muslim connotations and that, therefore, makes him negative. If that's not racism then it's at least bigotry towards a different religion than yours
E. The apology wasn't to you it was on you behalf because what you said was terribly offensive. I do not condone racism against blacks and I think it's absolutely disgusting whenever a person does. Why not go full monty here and just say that your problem with Obama is that he's a black guy? I mean honestly why the song and dance routine?
You want to see blatant racism? Start at the inception of "The great society" and see what "Government assistance" has done to the black community. THAT my friend is blatant racism. Drop out rate,one parent households, Incarceration rates ALL through the roof and worse by the decade with these failed social programs...I guess we all define racism differently.
No, no, no, shhit-for-brains. Now I know the assignments you've been given have been too difficult for your itty bitty wingnut brain so I'm going to hold off on trying to get you up-to-speed on the inequality and immobility outcomes that have resulted from the 30+ years of failed conservative economic policies that have put us in the mess we're in today and that you're trying to say is the result of racism from society trying to help poor people. So I'll put that assignment off as long as I can.
So try to get back to those earlier assignments and get them done because you're getting way, way, way behind and I'd hate to have to put you even further behind.
Good lord! You are the one who is pitting illegals versus Americans. That's what I should've said.
I suppose we should start calling Clinton "Jefferson," or Bush "Walker," (in honor of his failed stewardship of the baseball team that shared a name with the Chuck Norris TV show.) Truly, Scott, your blatant motive is showing.
I think the argument should be...We would be even better off if the republican congress and senate stopped hurting the United States with their obstruction of any and all of President O's offerings.
The "Obstruction" of making America the next Greece?
You're not getting it. It's Obama's offerings that are hurting.
apologies. been taking hits from all sides..lol a little trigger happy.
Except that evidence-free assertions are rewarded with no points.
Wingnuts FAIL, again.
yeah...sure.Put a Liberal in office he will do the work to kick himself out of office.
Irrelevant, nonsensical, AND evidence-free assertion are rewarded with no points and will result in deductions from any previous work.
Was just having a conversation about this a few days ago. Rachel is so right. As simplistic as it might seem, the dems need to remind people of how "cataclysmically terrible things were before," and exactly WHO was responsible for the mess Obama HAS been cleaning up (despite being handicapped by our do-nothing Congress). Why this is such a difficult concept for dems to grasp is beyond me. This should be hammered into peoples' skulls!
IMO it is because of the biased corporate media , they complain to dems every time we TRY and point out what bush and the gop team did to destroy americas economy , but sit in silence when romney and ryan are telling a mountain of lies about america
Sure...biased media...*Sigh* Perhaps because the first 2 years this guy had a super majority and used it to ram a wildly unpopular piece of legislation down americans throats and completely ignore input from the minority party on a piece of legislation that affects EVERY American. Don't you think this guy has done enough damage to America to allow him to "F" up any more?
Scott . Never let facts interfere with a good story . 7 months not 2 years
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html
That legislation we "rammed down your throat"- I hope that you don't have preexisting conditions , or lose your job , because if your buddies have their way you will be at the mercy of an insurance company. Oh and unfortunately it is identical to the Republican put forth in the 90's
Please stop watching Fox News , It is rendering you incapable of critical thinking.
No, seven weeks.
President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit
Budget items in the the Senate need only a simple majority. Would the factually challenged care to try again?
President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit
1. All bills (with the exception of things like constitutional amendments) pass by a majority in the Senate. There is no "simple majority"
2. Filibustered bills always require 60+ votes in order to move for cloture which then allows for the majority vote. All votes besides cloture and reconciliation votes can be filibustered
3. You've been corrected on this issue before- please start learning
4. A budget was passed in 2009 under our current president and congress. It has sense been reconciled every year to continue (this is what that whole debt ceiling crisis was). A reconciliation vote- like a cloture vote- is a vote that can be put into effect that cannot be filibustered, but requires an up or down vote immediately to pass or fail. The problem with acknowledging this reality is that Shooter must then recant his statement that no budget has been passed since 2009 and must, instead, admit that a budget has been passed, it just isn't a new budget since that of 2009. This would also mean acknowledging that if people filibuster everything but the reconciliation process that means we can't get bills done (including a new budget). Of course that would mean Shooter would have to a. admit he's been wrong about many things and b. admit he's been hypocritical about many things. Answer? Don't admit, seems legit!!
5. Shooter is confusing reconciliation with initial budget votes. The former can be voted up or down with a majority and cannot be filibustered. The latter can be filibustered thereby forcing the 60 vote threshold. If Republicans filibuster all new bills- including new budget bills- then this means no new budget can be passed without meeting the 60 vote threshold. Budget related items can only meet reconciliation if they relate to the current budget. If our budget is from 2009 it makes it impossible to put forward a filibuster-proof budget related bill. Again you've been corrected on this before- please start learning.
Fillibuster proof budget? This guy has introduced ONE budget and NEITHER SIDE voted for it...ZERO votes for it.You absolutely can disagree with the guy's POLICIES and not be racist (gasp)
Er scott no. A budget was introduced in 2009 that has since been re-passed every year that Obama has been in the White House. A budget following Obama's budget council was produced before the Senate, but it did not muster any votes. That is why we have the impending budgetary problems (including our credit downgrade and potential additional downgrade) we face now. All new budget proposals are being filibustered and the initial proposal is only being passed by the majority to keep the lights on at the federal level. The federal government cannot run unless a budget is passed. Seriously did you and Shooter fall asleep during civics class? For the record yeah you can disagree with someone's policies and not be racist. YOU, however, scott have proven that you are racist by making the comments that you have. There's a difference between the two.
Oh, shhit-for-brains. :-(
I hate to have to do it, but I can't avoid giving you another assignment here. And it's going to have to be on the budget.
Policy Basics: Introduction to the Federal Budget Process — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
What It Means that the President's Budget Went Down to 99-0 in the Senate
Every Budget Goes Down
Senate Unanimously Rejects a Budget Offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Romney Says Obama failed to pass a budget
Now go to your room, hopefully you have one by yourself, and get to work on understanding the budget process.
Cartoon, Obamacare was passed with less than 60 votes. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how that happened?
....Shooter PPACA was initially filibustered. There was a vote to end the filibuster and go to cloture (which requires 60+ votes). That threshold was passed. At that point the majority vote goes back into place. For the record PPACA passed with 59 votes, but the cloture vote was 63. These are two unrelated incidents. Once a filibuster is enacted then the only way to break the filibuster is to vote for cloture. In order to vote for cloture you need 60 votes. Had no filibuster been put into place PPACA would've only required 50 votes from the Senate+the VP for passage (or 51 votes in the Senate). You're confusing two segregate issues here.
Oy vey... You mean we have to hear yet again one billion times how an Obama surrogate made a supposed major gaffe... How about some bundler names instead, or better yet how about a detailed outline on what the Republican ticket wants to do to Medicare, a clear and consise outline without discrepencies to hide behind? The Obama campaign could easily make the Convention theme about Romney surrogates who say stupid things, Trump, Sunnunu, and Furnhstrom are professional liars. This campaign has morphed into a bizzare combination of re-tread game shows, it's part The Liars Club and Make Me Laugh...
Data:
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
www.bls.gov search for "CES0500000001"
G.W.Bush
January 2000 = 110,210,000
January 2001 = 111,631,000 - Note: jobs were added in 2000 1,421,000
Low point was July 2003 = 108,232,000 - loss of 3,399,000
June 2005 = 111, 844,000 - back to where we were January 2001 4yrs 6 mos
Jobs were added - to January 2008, then were flushed down the toilet.
Obama
Great Recession started December 2007
January 2008 = 115,647,000
January 2009 = 110,985,000 - NOTE: loss of 4,662,000 in 2008
Low point was February 2010 = 106,773,000 - additional loss of 4,212
April 2012 = 110,956,000 - back to where we were in January 2009 - 3 yrs 4 mos
Preliminary July 2012 = 111,317,000
-----------------------------------
We were half-way down the "Jobs hole" when President Obama took office and we kept falling.
We are halfway out of the hole but the distance we have climbed is farther than we climbed when led by G.W.Bush and it didn't take us as long.
All that just means is romney needs another tax cut ,so he can stash it in the caymans to create jobs , maphi ;)
Sorry maphi but this chart says it all...
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Job-creation-history-of-present-and-past-recessions.png
That is incorrect. It is a chart without context. Here is the information that provides the context: Republican obstruction.
Here is more information that provides even more context, and I have a heck of a lot more where that comes from:
As for the stagnant economy and unemployment, that's owned by Boehner/McConnell's and GOPee obstruction. Pay attention:
Boehner's GOP House obstruction => Boehner's GOP economy and unemployment of 2012.
WHAT HAPPENED:
The economy was on the upswing after the first two years of the Obama Presidency with the rescue of the auto industry, the stimulus package, etc. Then hate, Boehner, and the GOTea happened and there was to be no more consideration of ideas to solve problems because that was considered by the GOTea handing political victories of a political opponent.
GOP OBSTRUCTION:
What we have is the Boehner/GOTea economy of 2012 which is a scandal and is what the country gets with a GOTea House obstructing every attempt to solve the problems 30+ years of failed conservative ideas and policies have caused. Just like Boehner and McConnell wanted it.
GOP PUBLIC SECTOR OBSTRUCTION:
Republican obstruction at funding the public sector is costing 0.9 to 1.3 percentage points in employment. This is the opposite of what happened in other recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2000 when the federal government helped local and state government but Republicans in the House obstruct against.
GOP JOB OBSTRUCTION:
Republican obstruction on President Obama's American Jobs Act (AJA) is a scandal that costs another 1 to 1.3 percentage points.
This whole Republican scandal is too huge to fathom in terms of human misery, but Republicans believe it can fool an irresponsibly inattentive and ignorant public.
GOPers continue sabotaging the economy! - and blaming Obama for unemployment...
GOP House votes to repeal Obamacare - 37
GOP House votes to name Post Offices - 60
GOP House votes for American Jobs Act - 0
GOP House "jobs bills" analyzed by independent sources to provide actual jobs – 0
Boehner's GOTea obstruction => Boehner's GOTea economy and unemployment of 2012.
YOU WANT LINKS? I GOT YOUR LINKS?
PUBLIC SECTOR AUSTERITY AND OBSTRUCTION BY BOEHNER'S HOUSE AND MCCONNELL'S FILIBUSTERS:
- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/the-secret-of-our-un-success
- http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/31/government-cutbacks-separate-this-expansion-from-others/?mod=WSJBlog
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html?_r=4&hp
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html
- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/american-austerity/
AMERICAN JOBS ACT (AJA) AUSTERITY AND OBSTRUCTION BY BOEHNER'S HOUSE AND MCCONNELL'S FILIBUSTERS:
- http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/american_jobs_act.html
- http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-american-jobs-act-greater-than.html
Shooter,
That is an amazing website. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Too bad you didn't look at the other things on there like:
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2012/07/its-only-jobs-two-examples-why-bipartisanship-is-needed/
or
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2012/08/u-s-economy-has-lost-about-one-third-of-its-capacity-to-generate-good-jobs/
or
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2012/08/more-evidence-supply-side-trickle-down-economics-doesnt-work/
or
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2012/08/one-graph-that-captures-the-depth-of-the-great-recession/
or
http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2012/08/sector-recovery/
Glad you liked it. I'm in it for the chart.
Does it have a chart for the difference between potential output and real output as compared to other slumps, for debt obligations in this slump and other slumps, for the wealth destruction from the housing bubble bursting and the demand slump that resulted in and other slumps, for the zero lower bound phenomenon in this slump as compared to recent slumps, ..., etc.
I'll bet not. Don't fear. I'll do it. And that stupid little context-less chart from our brainless libertarian dickweed village idiot Mr. Mitty aka Blank aka Airball will look puny, petty, and petulant in comparison. Add in the GOTea obstruction I've actually detailed only somewhat and I think anybody with a brain would get the picture of what is going on here. Then when you think of these asswholes coming here to defend the dickweeds that caused the mess you have to realize what shhitty characters these people walk the Earth with.
so... The American people that think this guy has hurt America with his policies are wrong and you are right? It's a YOU problem pal...And everything this guy has done will be wiped away in as quick a fashion as is possible. His Economy and he will wear it.
Demonstrating again that you are ignorant of what the American people think is not the way to gain respectability around here shhit-for-brains.
Now get back to studying those reading assignments because you have demonstrated no competence with even the basics. It'd be best if you just locked yourself away in your room, if you have your own room by now, until you get through them. Then if you need to ask questions, maybe somebody around here can help you with your misunderstandings.
@Shooter
You do realize that this chart proves that jobs have been added? You do also realize that this is the worst recession we've faced since the great depression? Comparing it to other recessions is complete insanity. You also do realize that this proves the point of how many jobs Bush was losing during his presidency, yes? You just cited a graph that proves Democrats correct and Republicans wrong. This is what happens when you are so incensed with the idea of winning an argument that you don't stop to think about what it is that you're doing.
GOP voters like shooter are not that bright Cartoon
Sorry Cartoon, but that chart reflects a financial crisis not Bush's policies. A crisis nurtured by Democrats, Robert Rubin in particular.
As you can see in this chart, employment rose steadily after the '03 tax cuts kicked in up until the system locked up.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TUw6hMzI7OI/AAAAAAAAKdo/Lv53LLi50Cs/s1600/nonfarm-payroll-2011-01A.png
As for Obama's jobs, the real unemployment number is closer to 11%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html
How typical for dumbocrat politicians to 'salvage defeat from the jaws of victory'.
Four years ago:
- the economy was hemmoraging jobs
- the stock market was tanking
- the banks were failing
Are we where we want to be? NO
Are we where we need to be? NO
Are we better off than we were (as a country) exactly 4 years ago? HELL YES
Tell me again why the republicans are marketing 'going back to the economics of the Little George administration'?
Tell me again why the dumbocrats cannot make a 'real and substantial' case for not returning to where we were 4 years ago?
Well, for the Democrats, it's because they're politically stupid and incompetent. They've gone out of their way to convince of this easily observable fact year after year after year..... There's absolutely no other answer.
Fannie/Freddie was the cause of the collapsed economy and as you recall...BAWNEY FWANK wanted more and more and more put into that catastrophe even as it was collapsing. get real.
Wrong again, shhit for brains. Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it. Read all about it:
Fannie and Freddie Fantasies | The Big Picture
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post
Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture
Cause and Effect Economist's View: Fannie and Freddie Didn't Do It: One More Time with Gusto
The Big Lie of the Crisis, Called Out By the Press : CJR
Fannie Freddie Further - NYTimes.com
post every liberal op/ed you want...we are STILL paying for fannie/freddie and it is far more expensive than the bank bailouts. Get your head out.
1) Hey shhit for brains! Fact-based arguments as op-eds are better than literal stenography acts acting as journalism.
2) You must have missed that day in class (presuming you had classes) where they told you that you can't refute an argument because you don't like the person you're arguing with.
So, you got work to do. I suggest you attempt to take on the Get Me ReWrite one, first. Come back when you've got your argument for that. Then you might be useful. Till then, you're not.
I suggest you think on your idiotic assessment of this failures administration after he is back in Chicago. Americans inherently cringe from Socialistic policies like EVERY program Hussein has instituted.The longest run of 8%+ unemployment to dated in American history...Business has already said they will not work with this tax and spend Liberal...Highest gas prices in American history, a Secretary of energy that has said he "has no interest" in seeing lower gas prices, put THOUSANDS of Americans out of work in the coal industry..WHAT REASON could one possibly think of...to bring himself to vote for this complete failure?
Your assignment wasn't to make unsubstantiated evidence-free assertions and provide context-free numbers that convinces noone of anything.
So before we can take you seriously, you will need to complete the assignments already given you. See above for those assignments.
Nobody cares what you think...these are the facts the everyday Americans equate with this failure-in-chief.
You have not completed your assignment and have displayed no competency on the matters you speak on. Please complete the assignment or we can not take such a wingnut seriously.
No. Barney Frank wanted more public housing loans. He did not want loans for private ownership. This has also been debunked: the idea of blaming people who bought homes too big for them to own has it's roots in- wait for it- racism! There was a program put into place by the 90's congress for low income persons (which to people on the right automatically means black people) to help them purchase homes. Barney Frank advocated that we put this into public housing projects to lower the cost of rents in major cities. The right wing conveniently edits this out of every single one of his statements. What caused the economic collapse was gambling by Wall Street in which Wall Street bundled mortgages, business loans, and other loans/investments and sold them internationally. Companies like Goldman Sachs failed because investments in every major industry took a hit when one or 2 of those investments failed. This problem was solely and singularly created by the private sector. The response? To blame black people for the failure of the market.
And people say this election has nothing to do with race *eyeroll*
No. This is the longest run of 8% unemployment since the Great Depression. Since this is the Great Recession these numbers are to be expected. It took us over a decade to heal from the Great Depression and we had huge and often fluctuating levels of unemployment. This isn't the largest in history, it's the largest since the 30's. You're confusing one with the other when the two are NOTHING alike.
Taxes for businesses have gone down under President Obama
No. What we are experiencing now is one of the lowest increase of gas prices in US history. The increase we're seeing now does not compare with the increase we saw under President Bush (over 6$ a gallon) or the increases we saw in the 70's and 80's.
Actually employment in the coal industry has gone up, not down. It has not gone up enough to keep up with the rate of population growth- now you could complain about that. But saying that the coal industry has laid off thousands isn't remotely accurate.
Well...move here and see why the UMW is supporting Romney. You can spout what you want...look out the window.
What exactly in my post are you responding to? You need to provide the context in which you are arguing back. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
If you're talking about my comment on coal then you DO realize that those workers were forced to attend that rally or they would be fired, yes? If you are insinuating that UMWA is backing Romney then you're wrong. They are focusing on local Democratic candidates and aren't endorsing or at least haven't endorsed either candidate.
Well, now we have some information. shhit-for-brains is in WV. That's interesting. I was thinking he'd have to be from some red state, and there it is. Still no assignments from shhit-for-brains to show he can keep up with the details. All the poor boy has is substance-less assertions. Even when somebody takes the time to show him his evidence-free assertions are wrong, he can't bring himself to acknowledge it. Ohhhhhh, the embarrassment.
And we will soon see who is wrong. Stay busy defending him though...that way you won't think it your fault when he's headed back to Chi-town.
What are you talking about? There isn't any seeing who is wrong. The UMWA came out and said that it wasn't supporting either candidate at the national level. At another instance coal workers were forced by their employer (not a union) to attend a Romney rally or they'd be fired. Neither of those instances proves your assertion to be correct.
Sigh OK disgusted you are right I give up. I TRIED to have a conversation with this person but you're right. Scott either start producing evidence for your statements from actual news sources (not right wing blogs) or it's here-to-for known that a. you've been thoroughly debunked and b. that you have no factual basis for the things you claim to be true.
Stupidity is relentless, isn't it? It's like a weapon of a sort. You can only deal with it as you would a very slow learning child.
I give...Hussein is NOT a Socialist and is on his way to a landslide...LOL
No, no, no shhit-for-brains. You still haven't used Socialist in a sentence to let us know you adequately understand the meaning of the word. It's pretty clear you don't know what it means, and that makes us very sad here because it would seem a 70 year old man has completely wasted his life by not learning even that. We wish you the best in your futile attempts at self-education, but you should probably try to use our guidance. Because we care about you, shhit-for-brains.
Things could always be better, but in general the creation of jobs has been positive, maybe not enough to reduce the unemployment number to satisfiy critics, but what do you expect when Bush left Obama in a 20ft hole with a 10ft ladder!
Here's the difference between Democrats and Republicans who go on TV or radio or anywhere they might have to answer questions, from the college party organization level all the way up to the Senate/Cabinet/Governor level:
Republicans come on with a page full of talking points provided by the Party which cover one or two top questions and otherwise just consist of the usual blather and Luntzwords. And then, no matter what they're asked, no matter whether their answers even make sense, they will hammer and hammer and hammer and hammer away at those talking points come hell or high water. Democrats come on, innocent as babes, genuinely believing that the interview forum is an opportunity to have an interesting conversation and engage in high-minded debate about the details of policy issues.
You drop a Democrat into a Sunday show and it's like its their first time there and they never even heard of a Sunday show before. Because that's how Democrats roll. The idea that they've been given an opportunity to concisely communicate the Party's message--or even that their personal fortunes are in some way connected to those of the party--just doesn't even enter their frikkin heads. And it's been this way for decades and they still either just don't get it or else are just too frikkin high minded to brazenly spew prepackaged pap the way Republicans do.
Would love to be able to quibble, but all I can say is, Amen, Steve.
This is one (only one) of the reasons I have claimed Democrats are politically incompetent and impotent. Republicans know to present a united front. And they do it. Democrats are just an unorganized incompetent mess that confuses people.
Just criminally incompetent.
When asking, "Is the US better off today than 4 years ago" no one is
mentioning that we are no longer at war in Iraq which was breaking the back of
our economy to the tune of $XXX million a day and killing and maiming
Americans.. Thousands of soldiers have returned home. Who doesn't think that
ending a war is far better than continuing an unnecessary, unfunded war ? Yes,
thanks to Pres. Obama, we are better off than 4 years ago if you ask me
When asking, "Is the US better off today than 4 years ago" no one is
mentioning that we are no longer at war in Iraq which was breaking the back of
our economy to the tune of $XXX million a day and killing and maiming
Americans.. Thousands of soldiers have returned home. Who doesn't think that
ending a war is far better than continuing an unnecessary, unfunded war ? Yes,
thanks to Pres. Obama, we are better off than 4 years ago if you ask me
Is the country better off? I would say yes.
But when you ask individuals, are they better off? I'm guessing that's what the election is going to come down to, and isn't there an old saying "people vote their pocketbooks" (or something like that).
The country may be better off in a macro-economic sense, but at the individual level, things have not improved very much. Down here at the human level, we are dealing with 8% unemployment (nation avg), rising gas and energy, tuition, and food prices. There isn't a lot of sense of "national recovery" at the individual level.
The broad economy is no longer in free fall, great, I'm happy about that and slow improvement is better than none. My sense of it is that we are better off "staying the course" with the current policies that electing someone new and implementing a huge radical shift is government policy. The economy and markets are volatile enough as it is.
The Republicans made it clear from the outset that they would do everything in their power to make President Obama fail... so, the economy didn't improve ...in spite of him and what he's done." as Romney says, but it is getting better in spite of the Congressional obstructionist policies. Imagine how it would have improved with bipartisan problem-solving efforts.
Peg, superb post! We have spent a decade without having a serious public conversation on the place of government in our lives. The GOP has taken a total negative position and they simply cannot justify their position because it is not reflective of reality in a society of 310+ million people, and they know it. The GOP would prefer to lie, exhadurate, and bait & switch, rather than yield, while the Democratic response is that they feel that their position is so obvious that it needs little clarification. Result is pathetic the condition of our political process and our reality.
The reality is that this loser is granting a backdoor amnesty trampling American immigration law in the hope of pandering for a few more votes to try desperately to hang on to a job he has failed miserably at.
Look at the diaper wearer. Sorry buddy, but very few people are going to look at it that when it's young people who have no guilt because they had no choice in the matter. Most of us have more humanity and understanding than you.
Illegal MEANS illegal. unless you happen to be a Kenyan...then all bets are off...right?
Spouting tautologies gets you no points.
Challenge all of Scott's "Polly want a cracker" regurgitations of rightwingnut nonsense and what do you get? Oh, the Kenyan thing!!
Now the TRUE Scott is showing up!!
oh...So NOW I'm a racist...that was in the Bio jacket in his book...so blame him not me. His name is Hussein..call him by his name.... and I'm a racist? The same old tactics by the left..throw out the term racist like a club.
This is so sad. If SFBs wasn't so obnoxiously stupid and nauseatingly immodest about his ignorance, I'd almost feel sorry for the sorry dumb basturd.
Here's one of your assignments again, shhit-for-brains. Run along and get to work, little shhity:
Fannie and Freddie Fantasies | The Big Picture
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post
Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture
Cause and Effect Economist's View: Fannie and Freddie Didn't Do It: One More Time with Gusto
The Big Lie of the Crisis, Called Out By the Press : CJR
Fannie Freddie Further - NYTimes.com
Post your op/eds till you fall over...the bill rises daily and were it NOT to be so THEN...perhaps your argument may make a little more sense than the crazed lunacy it most OBVIOUSLY is with Fannies debt being 124 BILLION and rising. Now you just sound like a sad pathetic Liberal trying yet AGAIN to deflect.
No, no, no shhit-for-brains. You seem to forget the mighty responsibility to attributed to F&F. Now what you need to do is understand that your unsubstantiated assertions are completely and utterly demolished by the arguments in those links. Now your assignment was to explain to us what those arguments were and why they're wrong. I understand that's much, much over your pointy head, but do try to at least understand what the arguments were. You'll need to report back to us at least what those arguments are just so we can give you some sort of credit. Or, see below for an easier assignment.
Now off you go. You've got work to do.
A. This has nothing to do with what was being discussed by this thread or with the person whose post you decided to piggy back off of. What the hell are you even talking about?
B. Deportation of non-documented immigrants is at an all time high. This doesn't change that
C. Deporting people who were kids when they were brought here doesn't fit into your punishment and blame ideology. Children have no say in the matter so why are you now punishing them for an act they didn't commit?
D. Actually the term "illegal immigrant" was coined in what was it? the 80's? Before that we had always historically used the term "undocumented" or "non-documented." This is because immigrating here isn't considered a crime per say, it is considered improper since we don't have your information and aren't then able to tax you. Going from the basis of why we have immigration laws in the first place (taxation) it's actually better to grant amnesty and charge people for owed taxes than it is to deport them.
Actually...ICE is suing the President for his backdoor amnesty...want to argue with them?And what about the LEGAL immigrants that obeyed the law? They are firmly against line jumping as well. You Lie a lot....Defending this guy is a 40 hour job.
More evidence-free assertions. No points for shhit-for-brains. (The ICE is not worth any credit in this course since it does not support shhit-for-brains assignment tasks here, and it is irrelevant and unimportant.)
No- ICE is not suing anyone. The state of Kansas at the direction of Kris Kobach is suing the administration for supposedly violating the rights of the state. A lawsuit entailing doesn't mean anything. That lawsuit will be thrown out since the state doesn't get to complain about rules implemented by the federal government. That's a lawsuit being put into place for political pandering. Secondly again it's not about legal or illegal. That term never was in existence until modern history. What you mean to say is that they got their documents so that they could be taxed. Again amnesty would rectify this problem. Nothing in your counter argument denies this or proves otherwise. You are also generalizing here. Immigrants- whether documented or not- aren't monolithic groups who all think just like you do. This is an element of your clear prejudism against anyone who doesn't, apparently, recognize how awesome you perceive yourself to be. Lastly I'm not defending Obama. I am fact checking you. You cannot make statements and assert them to be true when they aren't true. That is wrong and to most people would constitute a lie. Fact checking you does NOT equal a counter argument OR a defense. It's simply a fact check. There's also the option of you exercising personal responsibility and not lying. But, ya know, then you'd have to become humble like Jesus commanded and admit you're not Jesus himself.
Plouffe and Ax let Romney get in their heads and overthought the question. They were afrid to say "yes" for fear of another "business is doing fine" attack. (God only knows what that idiot O'Malley was thinking with an answer that was both political stupid and factually wrong.)
This is a softball, and every Democrat with a chance to be near a microphone should be ready to handle it confidently. The answer has four parts, and needs to be short enough the media person can't interrupt it.
"[1] Compared to 4 years ago? Well, 4 years ago Republican policies under the Bush Administration has us in an economic collapse, job losses were skyrocketing, banks were failing, so [2] absolutely, while we know people are still hurting and things need to continue to get better, [3] there is no doubt we are better off than we were 4 years ago -- [4] we've cut peoples taxes, we've had over 30 months in a row of private sector job growth, 2 full years of positive GDP growth, unemployment is down nearly 2% from its high just before the stimulus kicked in, and we stabilized the financial markets, and we have a law in place to get health care costs under control. We are moving in the right direction, and looking forward to the opportunity to keep the country moving Forward."
[1] Remind them how bad it was and whose fault it was;
[2] Recognize that individuals may not have seen much improvement;
[3] Firmly and unambiguously answer the question that yes we are better off;
[4] Give of list of reasons why that highlights Obama's accomplishments (work in the campaign theme ' "Forward" - for good measure.
This isn't rocket science. I can't believe how many Dems couldn't muster this simply 30-second "elevator speech" (I just timed it) yesterday.
Fannie/Freddie which of course was a Liberal baby sunk the economy...and the jobs numbers report as well as The Health care bill this guy shoved down americans throats will send this failure packing.
Oops, you didn't do your homework the first time, wingnut:
Wrong again, shhit for brains. Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it. Read all about it:
Fannie and Freddie Fantasies | The Big Picture
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post
Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture
Cause and Effect Economist's View: Fannie and Freddie Didn't Do It: One More Time with Gusto
The Big Lie of the Crisis, Called Out By the Press : CJR
Fannie Freddie Further - NYTimes.com
124 BILLION owed to keep that hog afloat through 2014. Don't be stupid.
Spewing numbers floating in free space tied to no context gives you a FAIL for a grade. Again, tackle "Get Me ReWrite" and come back when you know something about the housing bubble.
And quote every liberal op/ed and every stupid Huff post blogger and it doesn't change the truth...and the money STILL owed and will be owed far into the future. you don't w ant the truth...but there it is.
Oops, you did it again. So you get the same lesson for your personal improvement:
1) Hey shhit for brains! Fact-based arguments as op-eds are better than literal stenography acts acting as journalism.
2) You must have missed that day in class (presuming you had classes) where they told you that you can't refute an argument because you don't like the person you're arguing with.
So, you got work to do. I suggest you attempt to take on the Get Me ReWrite one, first. Come back when you've got your argument for that. Then you might be useful. Till then, you're not.
And I guess those numbers as well as the "numbers floating in free space" like the jobs and welfare numbers "don't get me no points"? What a dumba**....
Those jobs and welfare numbers are not tied to context. Tie them to context and you might have something to say. But I doubt it. Because anything you're going to say on jobs is going to be trumped by the graph in just this article. And you're not going to be able to argue out the mess-context you and your Team left the nation and world in and apply that mess as Obama's responsibility when your Team obstructed efforts to do something about the mess you and your team caused.
Now off you go. You've got homework to do.
Your comical.
You will need to complete your assignments to demonstrate your competency on policy matters you have, until now, shown complete ignorance. Otherwise you will not be taken seriously.
Scott 124 billion of what? What the hell are you talking about?
Of bad loans and keeping Fannie afloat. Read ANY?
Your here late, Cartoonthenews! shhit-for-brains is giving F&F a LOT of responsibility for the problems caused by the Republican mess we're in, but he gives not argument whatsoever. He just states it. His assignment is to understand the argument that demolishes his unsubstantiated assertion. But he can't make it through it. It is not a surprise he is not mentally capable of the task.
But scott you did not provide the context of this in your statement. You just said what about the 124 billion. You can't say that. No one knows what it is that you're thinking but you. You cannot insult other people when they don't know what you're thinking- none of us here have telepathic powers. And additionally you are insulting here when you JUST finished saying that liberals throw out insults when they have nothing. Am I to presume that this means you have nothing by following they same logic? How hypocritical.
Additionally how does this argument even make sense? If Fannie and Freddie are government owned (which they are not) then that means they can't be given a loan by the government. By arguing that they were given a loan you've now debunked your earlier claims. So were you lying then or are you lying now? Secondly this was passed as part of HARP which is an extension of TARP which was started under Bush. Were you complaining then? Odds are no. This also was done to save tax payers money. By helping people get their mortgages together you help a. prevent future failures and b. ensure that people will pay their mortgages back at a rate they can actually pay. HARP and TARP both have been paid off in full and have given the American taxpayer money, not taken it away. Lastly you do realize that 124 billion compared to the 7 trillion we gave Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and the rest isn't even comparable? Why aren't you whining about that? I'd actually join you in that outrage.
@Disgusted
Yeah it looks like you have things under control. I just don't understand how people can lack such situational awareness.
124 billion!!!!
...what??
124 billion you stupid liberal!!!!
.....what??
124 billion to bailout Fannie and Freddie!!! Stupid liberals don't know anything!
....because you just said 124 billion and didn't say anything else
Again unless someone is mentally ill there is no excuse for thinking that this is coherent
Yes, that's all you'll get. It's a waste of time to go through his evidence-free assertions and debunk them; he'll just change the subject and forget he's been debunked.
Suppose you were in a big row boat, that sprung some leaks and is sinking.
The captain is trying to 1) plug the holes and 2) get all of the rowers rowing together in the right direction.
There is quite large group of rowers - call them group R - [the previous captain on whose watch the boat started to sink was part of this group] - who are 1) drilling more holes and 2) not pulling their weight and are even trying to row in the wrong direction.
Now suppose it is time to pick a captain. The choice is between keeping the current captain or picking the candidate of Group R. The Group R argument is that the boat still has holes and is still not going in the right direction.
Which candidate for captain would you choose?
Four years ago is a bit disingenuous--the collapse of the economy hadn't hit yet.
The bubble was there. Bush had hollowed out government, and industries were now overseeing government (think oil wells and Gulf of Mexico, not to mention partying with the company reps). Debt was out the whazoo (or up the wahzoo?). Productivity was up, income down, and polarization of America was at a high...but still no collapse. That didn't happen until a little bit later.
yOU MEAN "the housing bubble"?
Go read "The Big Short." Note how many times Fannie and Freddie are mentioned. Hint: almost never.
Why? Because Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the financial collapse. Bear Sterns and Lehman were the ones who collapsed and their exposire was primarily to each other (plus AIG, Goldman) -- not to Fannie and Freddie. This is totally a lame attempt by wingnuts to rewrite history to blame government backing. The real issue was the completely private investment banking sector whose greed led it to wish away risk -- to bundle poorly underwritten subprime loans and tell themselves that rather than aggregating risk that somehow mitigated it. And then they sold the securitized portfolios (or, even better, derivatives on the inverse of the securitized portfolios -- credit default swaps) to each other until they were so interlinked that one domino could take out all the others.
Those RedState talking points were worth exactly what you paid for 'em.
So it REALLY wasn't the prevert Anthony Weiner and BAWNEY FWANK threatening to sue the banks for "Redlining" ? Liberals are so full of crap. They demand bad loans be issued and knowing full well the Government was on the line for the loans. Say it's not the cause of the crisis? Say it till your blue in the face Liberals...we are still dealing with the effects of it and the cost just keeps going higher.
Scott,
While you are doing the rest of your reading "homework", here's a couple of articles for you to read too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/business/2-big-mortgage-agencies-pressed-to-buy-more-low-income-loans.html?scp=57&sq=freddie%20mac%20bush%20housing&st=cse
Just in case you don't know how to click on a link, here is the first few paragraphs. NOTE THE DATE!! So even if your premise is true, it was BUSH not Obama who caused the problems at Freddie and Fannie (ooops for you, huh?)
And here is another article:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-22/wall_street/30025317_1_fannie-and-freddie-freddie-mac-fannie-mae
Now, REALLY, are you going to try to tell me that Business Insider is a "liberal op-ed"???
So...The housing was driving the market and housing collapsed...and that pricetag KEEPS getting higher....Common sense..anybody? And I could lay story after story for my side of the argument...Common sense is a requirement for this issue.
and Scott, we ALL wish you had some!!!
You have still not demonstrated a basic understanding of the fundamentals on which you are attempting, without success, to discuss. You must complete your assignments before you can continue.
The lead for this whole thread SHOULD have been "The oblivious answer"...
Still no demonstration of basic competence from SFBs.
No? Redlining has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. The loans to lower income individuals weren't pushed by liberals they were pushed by conservatives. Specifically they were pushed by compassionate conservatives: the chief advocate of which was Newt Gingrich. You are blaming liberals for something that conservatives came up with. I suppose you could blame liberals to the extent that liberals weren't balking at the idea. There was some noise especially from SEC regulators who stated that they thought this was a bad idea, but other than that not a lot. I suppose what you're saying here, then, is that liberals are wrong when they don't stand up and fight against dumbass policies passed by the right. And if that's your argument scott you'll find lots of people on this blog agree with you.
Read about the term "Redlining" where Banks were going to go by CREDIT history alone and that is where they ran into trouble with WEiner and Frank. And in 2005 republicans TRIED to strengthen regulations for Fannie and originally Barney Frank voted with them, and after being pressured by his party, voted against the bill in the final vote where it died.
No, no, no, shhit-for-brains. That's been demolished in your reading assignments. Now you need to get back to your studies and prove to us you're capable of keeping up here by explaining why you're initial unsubstantiated remarks are so wrong.
Please read up on what you're actually talking about with redlining. I would repeat myself here but I just realized Disgusted already linked to the article I was going to share. Lol great minds I guess. Also shows how much I pay attention =P
Great minds lie alike?The truth will set you free....
Oh shhit-for-brains. Again, I just have to tell you of my great disappointment at your lack of progress in our lessons. To many FAILs are making their way into the gradebook. You know what that means...
:-(
I think you're about (4) lesson assignments behind and we're going to have to start seeing some progress, or everybody's really not going to have any alternative other than to understand you're retarded.
Hopefully you can step up to the plate and knock one out of here, but I have to say, I just don't have any confidence anymore.
"If they want to say conditions would be even better if we'd tried a different course, we can at least have the debate."
I would hope that the Dems start using the fact that there is no doubt that everything could, would and can be better for the economy, families and individuals if Rep. obstruction is thwarted. The answer should be: "As a nation we are FAR better off than we were four years ago. We would be MUCH better off if the Reps. cared about you and what you need by passing legislation to put people back to work."
It is getting tiring hearing only one side point the finger of blame when they are, in fact, to blame. And making the case is not difficult.
Repubs. tend to exist in self reinforcing quasi reality, and they really don't care. Their fundamentally leaning religiosity enforces the notion that reality is an abstract notion, subject to interpretation or dismissal. They create false realities to live in.
Indeed. And the reason is that it's all about the Team. Team Republican that is. For Republicans, there is no Team America.
Certainly...false realities like 42 months of 8%+ unemployment (longest stretch in American history and still counting) False realities like more Americans on Welfare, more food stamp recipients than EVER in American history...those kind of "false realities"? *SHEESH*
Longest stretch in American history... wonder what the unemployment rate was right after the Revolutionary War? Or after the fall of Atlanta? How long were those stretches?
population and per capita...not even close. Besides people MADE THEIR OWN WAY back then...something entirely foreign to todays Liberal.
SFBs has failed to provide the proper context to make the numbers he uses relevant to the conclusion he wishes to make. He needs to complete his assignments before he can be taken to be a good-faith commenter in this course.
You make me laugh. Your rude awakening is on the horizon.....
Vacuous, vapid, and impotent threats do not help to show your competency.
And your rejection of the realities this president has brought about only makes all Liberals look stupid.
You have not stated any realities; only FoxFacts which are valid only in an alternate universe and not this one. You must demonstrate you know the fundamentals of which you speak. Please go back and complete your assignments before expecting anybody to take you seriously.
Please remove your head from your third point of contact...LOL...
Shoo Scott!!!
You have not posted any valid facts nor supported IN ANY WAY your rightwingnut utterances. When caught on ANY ISSUE you t throw in red herrings and obsfucate the issues.
When you finish your reading assignments and prove to us that you can discuss issues in a coherent manner, maybe THEN we will give you the respect you so desperately seek.
Otherwise, yawn, another waste of space!!
As if I could possibly care what you think....The normal schlep just don't think like the Madcow crowd obviously ...and you just have a little trouble communicating. You talk about "Media Bias"? Every host on MSDNC has 60 second spots slobbering over the current failure-in-chief and yet somehow you contrive the other media to be biased? This is like bizzaro world as compared to how normal people think.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, shhitty-for-brains. Still need to get to your studies. It's going to take a while to catch up after living in the rabbit hole for so long.
Well...In the REAL world incumbents are re-elected easily....NOT this one and there are REAL WORLD reasons why. YOU are gripping over a truth you can't embrace...The Liberal agenda is just not the mainstream Americans cup of tea. The American Public thought they were doing something great electing this Chicago hustler of a Politician and got snookered. These problems are in the process of getting fixed...And to quote a famous woman "How's that Hopey,Changey thing workin out for 'ya"?
Yet more lameass vacuous evidence-free assertions. Your serious policy chops are in need of a great deal of work. No points for you, again. Up your game there, shhit-for-brains.
Name one of the MSNBC advertisements that promotes Barack Obama. I have never even heard his name mentioned in any of their ads
as funny as the day is long.
There you go again, shhit-for-brains. Wasting time making dumba$$ statements when you could be doing your homework. Now off you go.
This argument neither refutes my statement or affirms your position. Again I will ask you: provide any evidence of an advertisement (the MSNBC ones you're talking about here, let's not forget context!) in which MSNBC is advocating for President Obama. There's the ad of Maddow discussing the complicated issue with Pakistan and Afghanistan (Obama is never mentioned), there's another in which Maddow is discussing taxation policy (Obama is never mentioned), there's the one with her at the dam in which she discusses that America can still engage in big projects if they invest in themselves (Obama is never mentioned), there's the one with O'Donnell saying that social security and Medicare were initially called welfare and now a new one in which the VA was called welfare (Obama is never mentioned), there is the one with Al Sharpton talking about how Republicans want you to think that lowering taxes will spur growth and he can sell you a bridge if you believe that (Obama is never mentioned), and then there's the one with Ed Schultz in which he talks about how education helped him become the man he is today oh and another one about the need of listening to people and the difficulties working folk are going through (Obama is never mentioned). So again- WHAT advertisement are you talking about?
And you wonder why people just blatantly lie to defend what they know to be wrong....You deflect and defend and that gains this unmitigated disaster not one more vote. The proof is in the pudding and You have 2 months to be knocking on the doors so I suggest not wasting time lying to me and getting busy...LOL
I think we just heard shhit-for-brains explain why he's lying. But you can never be sure because he's speaking in retard.
Please stop wasting time, shhit-for-brains, and get to your lessons.
Are you better off in the life raft or on the ship when it hit the iceberg?
Question is not “Are you better off...”
Question should be “Why aren’t you better off...”
Answer is here....
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” ...Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, National Journal, November 4, 2010
McConnell’s statement, that the “single most important thing” is not jobs, or even tax cuts, but defeating President Obama, indicates that no such realization is forthcoming. As they have demonstrated these past years, the Republicans are even willing to obstruct their own ideas in order to deny the President any political victory,
McConnell’s primary motivation is prioritizing the defeat of Obama over everything else and denying Obama bipartisan support for his policies...
There’s simply no longer any doubt — Senate Republicans are denying Obama support for his policies to damage him politically. This is actually revealing in another way...
Republicans benefit politically in the long run from blocking Obama jobs policies — because voters may not know or care why his policies aren’t getting through. They may simply see Obama’s inability to get anything past GOP opposition as a sign of weakness and a failure to change Washington.
What McConnell seems to be saying is that he thinks Americans will dismiss the idea that Republicans could want Obama to fail as preposterous.
As McConnell said on CNN, who could possibly believe something so outlandish?
Voters may not be able to bring themselves to believe that Republicans block his policies in order to make Obama look ineffective in order to deny him a second term, even though McConnell admits it on the record. Believe it.
Americans have already suffered through his Socialist medicine bill that will pile debt on to future generations of Americans to provide for illegals and deadbeats that wait on the government to provide..how much more spending and ignoring the electorates wishes should be allowed?
Scott,
WHO has "suffered"? Actually, ACA has already paid off for me!!!
SFBs must define Socialism and socialized medicine and use them in sentences to show he knows the definitions adequately to be taken seriously. He has not done that.
The wiping away of Liberal policy started with the 2010 election cycle...this year will complete it. You have the K-I-C to thank for the big turnaround....
Truly...I had no hope of a Republican resurgence so soon after the Liberal sweep post bush. This guy has heralded in a new age of Conservatism with his Socialistic agenda.I applaud him
Still shows no command of basic definitions. We will not take shhit for brains (SFBs) seriously until he can use Socialism in a sentence that indicates he knows the definition.
Really...do you somehow think name calling changes the reality this country finds itself faced with?Americans sense a crossroads, an incumbent SHOULD have a clear path...especially with a weak candidate. But this guy's negatives are far exceeding his "like-ability". Doesn't that tell you something on the extent of this guy's failure?
It is difficult to believe a grown man can't demonstrate his command of the word "Socialism." But that is what we have here with SFBs. Nor can he build any case because he does not understand the context in which he tries to make it.
Shhit-for-brains must do the assignment to demonstrate he can participate in a discussion that is clearly above his intellectual capacity. Otherwise, he won't be taken seriously.
The answer to the question of this blog post is: Yes, the country is much better off now than what the 30+ years of failed conservative economic ideas and policies left it in with the help of Reagan, W, complicit Republicans congresses, and Republican voters. Shame on Republicans for their ant-America, anti-middle-class and fake patriotism. Shame on Republicans.
Obviously you are the one with a questionable grasp of whose policies have accomplished what...4 years in, Americans don't buy the it was the previous administrations fault. You know...that whole "Personal responsibility" thing.
And class warfare ends up back firing because only small minded individuals hold jealousies over those who have more than themselves. Americans are all for people succeeding and hope to improve their own lot...and NOT by taking it from the other guy.
Demonstrating yet again what watching cartoon news for so long does to one's grasp of reality. Yes, Americans do accept that it was W's fault. Easy to find the polls that tell you that. As for class warfare, the only class warfare has been the 30+ years of war against the middle and lower incomes classes by the GOTea to redistribute wealth from lower to upper. Shame, shame, shame.
I understand your dilemma, shhit-for-brains. It's got to be a terrible guilt you carry for cheering your team on and voting for them to do so much damage to your country. But you're going to have to grow up and accept your culpability. Now you're wasting time because you've got a lot of catching up with reality to make up for watching that cartoon news your gullible self has been dining on all these years. Good luck on your studies, dumba$$.
Then again, I'm probably giving you too much credit. You probably are incapable of guilt.
Guilt over seeing a guy come in and put thousands of americans out of work at a whim? A guy that enjoys seeing 4.00 a gallon gas that brings American families and business to it's knees? A guy that has filed how many lawsuits against The states so they are unable to enforce immigration laws, and THEN trounces on American immigration law to garner a few extra votes? A guy that has allowed Iran to continue with it's nuclear program and distances itself from it's allies?Or a guy that goes against 70% of the electorate to force a socialistic health care bill on the Public in the name of covering Illegals and welfare cases on the Taxpayers dime while the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy? This will be a lasting reminder of what Liberal policy is and the depths these losers will go to pervert the American way of Life to a socialist European system. Your right chief,not a bit of guilt. There is Little chance of a Liberal majority in the near future as this guy and his policies will be held up as an example....
No points again for shhit-for-brains repeating irrelevant, untrue, and out-of-context assertions. I understand that it's all you have and that your are desperate to rationalize your and your Teams ruinous ideas, policies, and unpatriotic behaviors. And I sort of feel sorry for you and the guilt that you should feel. If your congenital stupidity didn't get realized in your inability to articulate your position then you'd probably have to come out of the alternate universe you live in. But the innate stupidity keeps you mired on another planet.
I'm beginning to think the earlier assignments were much too hard for you. That implies you really shouldn't be in this class. So let's see just what level you have attained. I'll make this one easy:
Give the Obama policies that are the direct cause of the $5+ trillion additional debt beginning with the first fiscal year that Obama signed legislation for.
Off you go, shhit-for-brains. Good luck on this one. It's really a lot easier than the earlier ones. They were just too hard for someone like you.
It appears the Mental breakdown is complete. The reason MSNDC is always stomped by Fox is the same reason the Liberal agenda is doomed to repeated failure...No morality, and the Cradle to Grave Nanny State they wish to create that Americans have something inside them that Abhors the thought of a nanny state "Big Brother" Government. Live with it.
You mean you can't even do THAT latest easier assignment? What CAN you do, shhit-for-brains? You can't support your dumb Fannie-Freddie assertion. You can't even name the Obama policies that are the reason for the $5+ trillion additional debt. You are completely hopeless. All you have is substance-free assertions? You're much dumber than I thought shhit-for-brains. And that's saying something because I've always known you were one of the dumbest wingnut trolls (and that again is saying something).
PPACA cuts the debt and deficit and will likely be the largest debt reducer ever passed by a modern US Congress. PPACA doesn't provide for illegals- I have no idea where that came from- and you can't get assistance if you're a "deadbeat" with PPACA. You are required to purchase PRIVATE insurance. You have to be working in order to afford private insurance. This therefore takes out the deadbeat equation. Unless you're like the last guy I talked to who was literally convinced that a person whom he employed who asked for health insurance was a "deadbeat." In which case you have no understanding of market competition.
What the hell are you talking about? Morality is a subjective term. What you consider to be moral may not be what someone else considers moral. You are not the moral center of the universe therefore you are not in a position to be dictating morality. That's called common sense.
You're right- I am very upset with Obama for laying off all those federal employees. Glad to see someone stand up for government workers.
Gas prices are set by OPEC. The President of the United States has no control over gas prices because that is a privately owned industry. You DO realize that what you're advocating here is that the US government takes over a private industry. And that would be communism.
What are you talking about? President Obama did not himself file a lawsuit against Arizona. The DOJ did although granted President Obama is the head of the federal government. That's sort've like playing 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon, though. Anyways how did he trounce on immigration law to garner a few votes? My understanding is that he issued an executive order as to how current laws would be enforced- which is the prerogative of the Enforcement Branch. Do I need to explain to you the 3 branches of government? And you're acting like it was hundreds of lawsuits. We're talking about 1 major and a handful of minors and all of these are available for public record.
What are you talking about? Our relationship with Israel is closer than it's ever been and Iran's nuclear program is still under sanction and strict surveillance. In fact something happened under President Obama that has never happened before: UN inspectors were allowed into Iran to check on the plants they have aimed at developing nuclear power. The inspectors confirmed that no weaponized nuclear arms were present, but that they did suspect that Iran was almost there in capability. President Obama then gave a speech addressing this in which he said no option (read military intervention) was off the table.
First of all the 70% is an outdated figure from last year. More people now support PPACA than did not support it. This also is misleading: when you say do you support Obamacare then the numbers go south (saying no I don't). But when you say do you support the Patient Protection and Affordability and Care Act the numbers go north (saying yes I do). Messaging is the biggest problem. When Americans are told about what's in PPACA we see approval ratings upwards in the 80% range. Secondly illegals and welfare cases aren't being covered by PPACA. Again I'm not sure how you extrapolate this. PPACA is a private health care solution. NO public healthcare solution was offered.
Okay first class warfare is when the wealthy are pitted against the poor. You seem to have went into a coma and forgotten the entirety of US history in which the term was used in this context and have only awakened just now to hear the Republican spin factory try to reverse the direction of what we're talking about. Class warfare is when the wealthy are given one set of rules and everyone else is given another set of rules. The majority of Americans don't support this. The majority of Americans want one set of rules for all of us to stand by and want the wealthy to pay more. Most Americans don't see taxing the rich more as punishment for success because most Americans don't see taxes as punishment. Most see taxes as an obligation that you owe albeit begrudgingly. Even if we taxed the wealthy at 90% this would not stop Americans from wanting to get wealthier. People want to be wealthier because they realize that if they make more money then the amount they pay in taxes will be offset by the amount they have left over. Again, as you said, it's common sense. You are arrogantly assuming that it's jealousy. This is your assumption. It isn't fact. When people make this argument they aren't jealous of people being wealthy. They are angry that a rich person can pay 13.9% in total income tax whereas they pay anywhere from 20-25% in total income tax. Why? Because it's unfair. Everyone should be paying the same or as much as they can- especially when we have all this debt you keep talking about.
I also find it funny. Scott is asked for specifics or to explain what he means and that's name calling. But scott calling liberals every name until he's blue in the face? Well that's just morality!
Here's the thing slick...You can hit all the DNC talking points you want. Israel has shown their lack of respect for a guy that has shown a lack of respect for them. And you are absolutely right...I don't speak for everyday Americans ....I'll let them do it.till then, no sleep for you...keep defending the indefensible and were I you I would start going door to door AND HURRY...Election is right around the corner and you have a huge probability of finding nobody other than your diehard Liberal friends believe the tripe you are putting out. Good luck with that.
Still not able to articulate the arguments that demolish your F&F unsubstantiated assertions are you shhit-for-brains? And it's just shoulder-slumping sad to watch you tell us you can't name the $5+ trillion in Obama policies that caused all that extra debt.
Sad, shhit-for-brains. But I think if you do your homework you'll get something out of it. You might not understand most of it, but it'll help get you away from your Fox-education and provide a glimpse into the real world you live in.
So when Netenyahu stated that relations between America and Israel were stronger than ever he was lying? Isn't insinuating that the leader of Israel is a liar violating that notion of international unity? How is this not a paradox? When did Israel show their lack of respect? Name an instance
What DNC talking points am I repeating? I am telling you what has been reported in the news as fact. Again fact checking you is NOT a counter argument or a defensive argument. It's correcting a statement that is false with a statement that is true. That's it. Any further connotation that you're taking away is YOUR subjective interpretation.
What the hell are you talking about here? What I am telling you are FACTs. First and foremost it doesn't matter whether or not you believe something to be true, it matters whether or not something is EMPIRICALLY true. In fact the problem here is that YOU are confusing your belief WITH fact. What you believe and perceive to be true aren't, apparently, the same thing as what is actually true as has been demonstrated to you. You whined because Disgusted was being flippant with you so I attempted to engage you in a conversation, but in order to do that we have to get through the LIES and THEN we can discuss where to go. If all you are going to do is LIE or use logical fallacies then there is NO way for you and I to have a conversation because then I have NO IDEA where it is you're coming from. Lastly you don't even know what political party I belong to or even if I am or am not a liberal. I have NOT presented a counter argument here. All I have done is FACT CHECKED you. How do you know that I don't want Romney to win, but I just think you shouldn't lie in order to get him there? How do you know that I like Obama? Maybe I think he's a douchenozzle- that still wouldn't change your statements being false.
Get ready for it..., and you know what it is.
Just like UMW workers standing behind Romney while you spout that "Hey,they are neutral" No jobs lost here. I refrain from the obscenities...but am tempted to though. Lie all day long,that's fine. Both of you will face the sad truth on this failure in November. Now tell me West Virginians did NOT Vote for a incarcerated felon instead of BHO in the primary...lie to me just a little more...lol
And why "articulate" to the inarticulate....Maybe have 'Ol Joe go out and tell a few more people how "Those republicans are goin to put y'all back in chains"....Racist...indeed...
And there you have it. Now let's see if shhit-for-brains has learned anything from the nice set of lessons he's been given today.
OK, shhit-for-brains, tell all the people what you learned about the arguments why Fannie and Freddie are not responsible for the housing bubble?
When you're done there, tell all the good people that you learned about the budget process.
That should be enough for now.
The two people who can dif say that they are better off and will be even better off if they win the election are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.... Why do they talk up that issue and not take it head-on?
Someone should ask them how they are doing.
Yesterday I wrote this message to the Obama campaign: We are losing the argument set by the Romney campaign asking the questions, "Are you better off than you
were 4 years ago?" Those defending the President's record are stuttering
to respond."
The UNISON response must be said, "YES. The country is better off today than 4 years ago. Without the decisiveness of the Obama administration at that moment he took office, "you would not have had an auto industry.... [and list everything that "would not have been" had not for this administration] Hence, we are better off (I know i am) than we would have been. Will the republicans refute that the country is worse off today than it was 4 years ago? You can't separate the country from the people. In addition, we can let the republicans frame the debate and dictate to rules. It is true, they have been obstructionist from day one, and they have been getting away with it.
The President DOES have a positive record to run on and he must not shy away from. YES WE ARE better off today than we were 4 years ago. This is a gift for the democrats! Turn the question on them. "Are we better of as a country today than we were 4 years ago?" I dare them to say no.
Laughable. Maybe if you were one of the ones to hit the welfare jackpot,I suppose.
No, no, no shhit-for-brains. "Laughable" is not a rebuttal. Now you're already overloaded with assignments. Am I going to have to give you one in introductory logic, too? Let's hope not.
Obama should reframe the question: Is America's Middle Class better off after the last 3 1/2 years compared to the prior 8 years under GOP leadership? Then the data from the recent Pew Research report should be cited about how the middle class was hit hard than kicked in the face by the Great Recession that Obama was handed in 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-08-22/lost-decade-middle-class-pew-study/57206476/1
Obama can cite and show his and the Dems leadership in acting to lower taxes, save jobs, and many other actions to help the middle class. And he can point to all the GOP in Congress have done to impede progress in putting people back to work in schools, police stations, fire departments, etc.
Dems should reframe the question: Is middle class America better off since Obama took office compared to the prior 8 years of GOP rule under George W? They can lay claim to many positive actions taken by Obama and Dems to save jobs, create more jobs, improve educational opportunities and funding, lower taxes, etc., etc. And they can point to hurdles the GOP used to block progress (Senate filibusters/ 2/3 majority) and push their radical conservative agenda (right to life/anti-abortion legislation).
This election is about restoring and helping the middle class to get back on its feet like the Greatest Generation did after WWII.
And the Dems can point to the recent Pew Research study that objectively lays out how the Middle Class situation has gone south since 2000....which left Obama with the worst mess any president was handed since FDR and the Great Recession.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-08-22/lost-decade-middle-class-pew-study/57206476/1
DWIA, what else can you expect from people who vote with their "gut" rather than their brains? Although, come to think of it, wouldn't surprise me to discover there are bacteria smarter than these SFBs.
(I Really like the term SFBs [sshhit for brains], fits 'em to a T.)
I know. This is all they got to offer. If you go to the trouble to answer their dumba$$ assertions they just brush it off, change the subject, and forget they've been debunked. So best to just give them assignments and see how they do.
That's fine..You guys keep jock hanging. You seen what happened in 2010...more coming your way in November.
Now shhit-for-brains, you really shouldn't say that when your audition next week as a pair of underwear for Mitt Romney will give you the job you've always wanted and will make you more comfortable and feel more at home than you've ever been at any job. And that includes that porn star fluffer job you had.