We, the 99% are a big part of our $15 trillion dollar economy. The economic worth of the poor, supporting the economy by paying their bills; the economic worth of the middle-class as consumers, supporting the economy by buying what they want and need and making sure their kids have a good life; the economic worth of our seniors, who sometimes, with lifetime savings and investments, are businesses biggest customers and clients.

Businesses could not do it alone, without us. We build this economy, together!

I trust the Democratic Party more to sustain everyone’s level of income, and I think it is important to our economy to do that. I also trust the Democratic Party to only give tax cuts to businesses if it encourages more business or jobs, unlike the Republican Party who will give businesses a tax break whether they invest it in business or jobs or not. Democrats can make the money in our economy work better for us.

I saw a few shots with funny hats tonight. Thank you. I like to think those were put in just for me. A political convention is not a political convention without funny hats. It's as important as the interactive chanting portion. And the roll call. #justsayin

Is it an error? I haven't checked it out but I read it as meaning they are still posting the highlights from last week.

Lets see if a reply or two gets Steve's attention.

If you're talking business decisions, one can argue Romney did. As an investment, you're down 26 billion, given the current stock price of GM. That's a pretty poor investment.

But the investment isn't finished yet. AND, we are up several million jobs in this industry alone!

Tom,

If you saw a man dying on the street, would you loot his pockets and run? That would be a "good business decision" if the only thing that concerns you is money!

People like you who worship the "green god" don't get it that it is the job of government to make decisions that are good for "We the People" and to help those industries that may be having a hard time now but will be good for this country in the long run.

If you're talking business decisions, one can argue Romney did. As an investment, you're down 26 billion, given the current stock price of GM. That's a pretty poor investment.

Tom likes to live in an alternate universe

http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/spark/resilient-auto-industry-reports-robust-august-sales.html

The Obama Administration only wants to give corporations with overseas money tax cuts that ‘use’ their money they bring back to America to create ‘business and jobs’, as opposed to Mitt Romney, who wants to levy zero tax on ‘money’ corporations bring back, whether it is used for business and jobs, or not.

President Obama is going to give business owners the Bush tax cut rate on their first earned 250K of personal income. Our President wants to give small businesses tax cuts that ‘do’ use their tax cut money to hire jobs, to financially encourage more hiring, as opposed to the GOP who will give business owners tax cuts whether they create jobs or not.

Democratic leadership is smarter economics.

Actually, Tom, the "bailout" loans have been repaid. the investment paid off big-time as those workers are still working. the stock price has nothing at all to do with the value of the company or the economy as a whole, it just reflects the last price someone was willing to pay for the stock. now if the "bailout" had been accomplished by buying up all the stock then you might have a point, but it wasn't. even so, a paper loss is not a loss at all. the loss only occurs when the stock is sold and the Feds could afford to hold onto it indefinitely.

I was merely responding to the point of whether it was a good business decision. I recognize government is not a business and has a greater social objective in implementing policies. But, the govt also has to be careful in how it decides to salvage failing companies. In my opinion, the number of competitors in an industry should be a factor in deciding whether the govt should intervene. In the auto industry, there are many competitors who would be able to pick up the slack if GM went down. Many of those are non-US, but have huge operations in the US. They would have picked up the slack and hired many of the displaced workers. I wonder what would have happened if the auto industry's problems was not coincident with the financial meltdown.

Which leads to the bank bailout. To me, the main difference between the two was the impact on the economy. Banks fuel the economy by financing. Had they gone down, we would truly have been in a recession. Had GM gone down, the effect would have been bad, but localized.

yes, localized....

the damage would be localized to the entire economy. do you have any idea how many people work in industries that support the auto makers? also, how many jobs depend on those folks spending their salaries.

if the american automakers closed up shop how long before all those foreign-owned auto companies did the same because there would be no incentive to put the "made in america" sticker on their products? they claim that it's cheaper to build their cars here (with non-union) labor but it is cheaper to build them overseas (with essentially slave labor) and ship them here.

a few more failed banks would have been cheaper. there's always someone out there willing to go into the banking business. they don't "fuel the economy," they take advantage of lax regulation and their ability to "stay one-step-ahead" of the few regulators we do have. the big banks ruined the economy when they were deregulated and should have been punished, not rewarded.

Tom, I think if GM had gone down, the effect would have been devastating across America. Not only would it have brought direct local business down and a few national, auto-related companies, but it could've seriously been the psychological equivalent of a national nervous breakdown. It was an industry that would've made a treatable depression to a suicidal case.

What mattered a lot in saving the auto industry has a more psychological impact than you think. Simply stated, if the auto industry failed, people would've completely lost hope. It might not have mattered if nothing else had been given a boost, but the point is, stimulating the auto industry was the flashy aspect. Stimulating other industries came later, albeit more quietly, but the Big Prize was the auto industry and the PR, I admit, was necessary.

Tom, Ford only got through without a bailout because they beat GM to the private financing before it dried up. They are massively in debt. If GM failed their suppliers would have failed. A company with 10% margins can't survive losing 20% of their business. Without those suppliers Honda of America and BMW of America and Daimler of America and Toyota of America and Hyundai of America would have been left spinning in the wind without a generator attached. When you are eviscerated, you are going to either bleed to death or starve.

In your recital of self-congratulatory right-wing propaganda you forgot to mention the women-who-have-abortions-so-they-can-go-to-Europe type of canard.

Lisa you really have a low opinion of people who do not earn what you do and can not afford birth control because they are using their funds to buy food for their family. How about seniors who have to choose between eating and their medication. How about a 58 year old who lost health care coverage when they lost their job and have a serious illness. Trying to find Health Care coverage for when Cobra ran out, was almost impossible - pre-exiting you know. Finally health care coverage was obtained $1,208 a month, income $1,500 a month. Can you do that math Lisa.

Wow. I didn't realize that the Affordable Care Act was written entirely for women who want to take birth control and people who weigh 400 pounds. Thanks for the information. I feel woefully uninformed.

Given your Big 10 education (Boiler Up, maybe?), I suspect you are an educated woman, perhaps having learned a little more than how to work a beer bong. I don't know what world you live in, but I suspect that you are not familiar with the world of women who don't know the price of J. Crew or Dooney who? Why? Because with their minimum wage jobs, they have to make a choice between paying the rent and eating and don't have time to worry about fancy handbags and business suits. I suspect that you've never been unfortunate enough to have been diagnosed with an inflammatory disorder, hormonal or gastrointestinal disorder that totally F-s up your metabolism and before you know it, you are obese. I'm even willing to bet that besides BC (have you heard of generics? Okay, that was cheap, but it is a classic response I've received by the anti-ACA side), you have not had to take medication for an extended period of time, either to treat a disease or manage a condition.

Does this sound presumptuous of me? If so, turn it around and look at your own words. You presume quite a bit about other women. Not everyone walks in your shoes. I daresay, given your knowledge of handbag and suit prices, they probably couldn't afford to.

I choose to spend my money on insurance. Other women don't. Their decision to not spend their $$ on insurance or BC is their choice, not to be supplanted with free product and services from the government.

....you do realize that Obamacare isn't giving anything free to anybody, yes? You still have to pay for private insurance. Once you do you then can get contraception as a part of your pre-paid insurance plan. See the difference? Obamacare implements the very thing you're whining you don't want to exist. Also very presumptuous for you to say that women choose to or not to have coverage. Last time I checked income wasn't necessarily a choice. Thanks for your arrogant assumptions about other people's livelihood though.

Ditto on people who weigh 400 pounds and need to take $300 of prescription drugs a month. Perhaps different choices to change their lives, lose 300 pounds, and get off all their drugs is a choice, but if Obamacare says they don't have to make that choice and can keep getting their pills, I don't get where the personal responsibility is.

Losing weight isn't actually that simplistic. At 400 pounds a person attempting to exorcise is in danger of having a heart attack just by walking. At that weight you have to be monitored closely by several specialists which costs money. Additionally if what you were saying true then by your logic fat people shouldn't have existed pre-Obamacare. Last time I checked we were the fattest nation in the world pre-Obamacare. It turns out there isn't an incentive- by your logic, anywho- regardless. But I also love the judgmental "personal responsibility" line. Apparently a person who works and pays for their own health insurance plan is irresponsible to you. And last time I checked you weren't getting into the industry to help people lose weight. When was the last time you helped an obese person lose weight? Oh you don't do that? No, no of course not. Because personal responsibility doesn't mean being a steward of your society- no personal responsibility just means pointing fingers and whining about other people not living up to your entitled standards. It's not the government that's making people entitled children- it's your "personal responsibility" attitude.

And they have to live with the consequences of their poor choices

Wait a minute you just complained that if people have health insurance plans to cover them that then causes price increases to other people. Wait you mean choices affect people outside of the individual??? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!

Also you do realize Obamacare is a privatized system, not a governmental one, yes?

Does this sound presumptuous of me? If so, turn it around and look at your own words. You presume quite a bit about other women. Not everyone walks in your shoes. I daresay, given your knowledge of handbag and suit prices, they probably couldn't afford to.

Dude Microgeek you are officially my hero ;-) can you say "ba-ziiing?"

Lisa- Obamacare is NOT making birth control 'free'....it simply puts bc into the basic preventative care that is 'fully covered' by the insurance premiums that women PAY- meaning we no longer have to PAY EXTRA for it

Did they do that with the GOP show? I imagine it's a "feed-pool" setup where ALL broadcast channels have to use the same restricted camera locations. That way the outgoing images can be controlled to be sure that only the loudest, fullest and most enthusiastic areas of the center are broadcasts.

I thought the segment was very effective at showing Mitt Romney's habit of not wanting to show voters his plans and skipping around the details.

Plus, as a loyal Dem, myself, it was pretty awesome seeing good ole Teddy smack down Mr. Romney. #clockcleaningperfected

Uh, you do realize that it's traditional for both parties to honor prominent members who've passed away since the last convention.

Your party even did it for Andrew Breitbart. I say your party because I've never heard a Democrat piss on about Chappaquiddick since Teddy ran in 1980. Undermine, sow doubt, divide and conquer, it's the modern republican way! TTTH

right there with you til the last sentence. How will it build the infrastructure if you are collecting LESS tax from the companies who do it. Would you not be collecting LESS money for infrastructure????

This is a good idea

It is a bad idea. Companies don't need tax incentives to offer work at home programs. Work at home programs require the type of work that can be done from home. Tech jobs come to mind. But, a balance must be struck. In my experience, as a manager in a tech department, employees who worked at home felt excluded after awhile. The most often expressed feeling was not being able to interact with fellow workers, whether it being socially or professionally.

The incentive for work at home programs is the worker friendly atmosphere of the employer

Tom, you are voting for a person who is going to end your medicare program as you know it, so I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. Just sayin.

First, I have no idea how you know who I'm voting for. Second, I'm over 55, so I'm not affected. Third, medicare will change once the can runs out of road.

What the hell Tom? The employer would still be the person making the choice. You're acting like if you give a tax incentive suddenly that changes the work dynamic. A lot of people prefer work from home jobs than they do the daily grind jobs. For a lot of people it makes things more viable. So you offer tax incentives so that if an employer wants to offer those opportunities they can. Nobody was saying that every industry would be able to take advantage of that specific tax credit- a. most tax credits when given out are targeted towards specific industries and b. that's not how tax credits usually work. What he was suggesting is that for businesses where this is possible it would provide an advantage for the American worker and I for one think businesses should take advantage of it. Tax credits merely incentivize this to happen- the employer is the one who makes the choice. That never changes. You're acting like if you give a tax credit suddenly that takes choice away from an employer. Lastly I don't know what industry you work in but I work in animation and editing and I've never heard a person who works from home complain about it. In fact they love it. They often brag about the fact that they get to wear PJs and they don't have to spend money on gas. The only time I would imagine a work at home employee feels ostracized is if his company makes him feel like he's telecommuting simply because no one at the office can stand being around him. And if that's the case that's the business being a piece of crap in how it treats it's employees- not the work itself. But even so an employee has to elect to work from home in most cases so I'm not even sure where it would matter if the employee feels one way or another. You've taken a suggestion about a possible tax credit and blown it out of proportion. Sheesh.

Tom with all do respect I am 62 and I don't trust that it will not affect me, because Romney lies and flip flops and Ryan lies. No trust here.

Talk about a great leap on your part. I was merely saying the govt should not forego revenue to the benefit of companies. If a company decides it is to their benefit to be a more worker friendly environment, they will do it without any tax incentive.

I worked in the financial industry, and the tech area was a natural for work at home. I was merely relating my experience with people who worked from home. They were not ostracized. They just felt they couldn't keep up with a changing technology without the personal interaction with colleagues.

Well I do apologize for making a great leap, but if that had been your point I don't understand why you couldn't have just said that.

"I'm not affected."

Translation: "I'm alright, Jack..."

Tom, you have revealed yourself as a person who thinks meadicare is a good thing and feigned concern about the future of a program that you use.

And being 55 doesn't exclude you from revealing this fact on this site.

You have been exposed as a right wing troll and an ignorant one at that.

Which is another reason why I don't take anything you say seriously.

David, do you mean the economy that the republicans have done everything they can to keep in the tank so that they can come out now and tout as an Obama failure?? Lets talk about the many attempts to pass Republican supported legislation that was held back because it may look like the President did something good. Or lets talk about more filibusters in the last 3 1/2 years than in the rest of the history of US government. It is fine if you want to hold back growth but you can't then blame it on your opposition.

What did Democrats whine about? What are they mooching? What lies have they told? What is a dishonest lie and what dishonest lies have they told? What hateful things have been said? What handouts have been asked for? What is a handout? Ugh virtually every speaker has talked about the economy- at least from what I've seen. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?

"Dishonest lies" translated from Teabag-speak would be "not Ideologically Sound". Which logically means that "honest lies" would be the Ideological Soundness that those on the right spout.

Being Pro-choice, I am still not an advocate of women continuing to use abortion as a means of birth control; however, I do stand by women in desiring the government to stay out of our womb.

Keep the government out of our womb and trying to create the scene of a crime.

David, There is a new invention called a remote. If you push the right button it will change the channel. Try pointing it at yourself and see if you can perhaps change the reception to ideas that you seem to be lacking.

How are they moochers? What have they lied about? What handouts are they asking for? What is a handout? How are they sowing division and what lies sowed this division? What is a hateful lie? Again virtually every speaker has mentioned the economy- in fact Lilly Ledbetter made the economy her entire speech. The guy who is speaking now- Chavez- is talking about the economy as I am typing this to you (7:24pm PST). Umm no Obama did not get everything he wanted in the first 2 years, but even so you do realize that you're saying that for the last 2 years the policies passed have been that of Republicans, yes? Which means, by your logic, that we can't blame Obama anymore for the economy we have to blame Boehner and the Republicans in charge since they are the ones denying Obama's policies. And if that's the case that means that 2 of the 3 years Republicans are railing against are years in which Republicans have been in control. Congratulations David! You were so overzealous in your desire to attack Democrats that you've just made the Democratic argument as to why Republicans can't be in charge.

Not Chicago...Hawaii Baby!!! Already got Granny Robinson's rocker strapped to the top of the minivan!!!

Well, David:

If you thought that Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair WASN'T a freak show, then you are really and truly a right wing idiot.

Your Michelle Obama ancient right wing talking point is also proof positive that you are truly a right wing idiot.

Your hate for this First Lady and for Obama IS a freak show.

So you come on here to let your freak flag fly. And I say fly it. Let everyone here see EXACTLY why Obama needs to be re elected. So that horrible excuses for human beings like you can crawl back under the rocks where you came from.

Yeah, I said it.

And I will say something else: FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!

Obama/Biden 2012

"Being president reveals who you are" ... wow how profound. Well said First Lady! Well said.

It was amazing- I think he upstaged Chavez even

By which I meant Castro. Apparently I was channeling Venezuela last night. No idea.

Well, each State has it own flat State Sales Tax. However, Republican leaders gave an unfair tax rate to the wealthiest that was not proportional with other peoples tax rates, and now, we need to roll it back. (It’s almost like the GOP told their constituents that they could tell a cashier that since they earn more money than the people standing in line behind them do, they should be able to pay less Sales Tax. This is not going over well with most people.)

President Obama’s proposed tax plan raises the taxes pf people ‘earning’ $1 million dollars of income up to 30%. When you think about it, if a business owner makes over a million, he could afford to hire more employees if he wants to, Bush tax cut rate or not.

Most of a millionaire earners income might be in his or her savings account, not invested in business, not spent in our economy and not used to hire people.

The bulk of most millionaire earners income, in combination with the Bush tax cuts, is not doing the economy much good, anyway. Therefore, why should not we roll it back and let them help pay down the deficit instead of it being at the expense of the poor and our seniors?

"Being president reveals who you are" ... wow how profound. Well said First Lady! Well said.

Well said Jeff!

I noticed that too. The theme of the DNC has been "let's build something magical together" whereas the them of the RNC is "Obama bad; me good."

CSPAN simulcasts online too if you don't have cable.

I just flip to CSPAN during commercials. They are running the coverage uninterrupted. You miss out on the commentators, but maybe that's what you are looking for.