I like your retort, Zora. I'm going to borrow that.

I never fail to go on the offensive here, and tell anyone who wants to complain about the stagnated recovery since mid-2011 that it is Boehner's economy. It's like this:

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 scandal of the Boehner/GOTea economy of 2012 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. It is 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 governments. 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, according to independent analyses of the AJA. Boehner's GOTea House will not bring the legislation up for a vote.

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.

Links available upon request.

and Reids obstruction to pass Congressional job bills? do tell professor

Actually his policies were passed. He got an $862 billion dollar stimulus passed almost as soon as he came into office. He then started putting the screws to business (Dodd Frank), got Obamacare passed, put the EPA on task of shutting down the coal industry, shut down the drilling in the gulf even after a judge issued an injunction to stop him, stopped many of the drilling permits sold during the Bush administration, increased the number of regulations on business, vetoed the Keystone pipeline, and invested in a lot of green energy projects which is a waste of taxpayer money.

Obama keeps telling us we shouldn't go back to failed policies of the past, but we should support the failed policies of the present (of course he doesn't use those exact words).

Ummm......why didn't Obama pass this wonderful plan of his WHEN HE HAD THE HOUSE AND SENATE UNDER DEMOCRAT CONTROL? Same goes with the Dream Act.

All this stuff was supposed to be so important to him. Yet, he doesn't pass it, while his party is running Congress. He waits until the Dems get beat up then he tries to pass it, all so he can blame it on the Republicans.

Let me put it another way. Can you imagine what Bush would have done with a supermajority in the Senate and House?

goodspkr -

The stimulus saved at least a million jobs that otherwise would have been lost - it was designed to stop the bleeding, not fix the entire economy in an instant. Dodd Frank provides important protections to investors and consumers. Most of those who are against Obamacare don't understand the benefits it currently provides and will improve upon over time. Domestic coal and oil production are higher now that they were under Bush. The EPA and electric industry have been working on reducing carbon emissions for more than 20 years now. Business regulations are needed, especially where Wall Street is concerned, AND responses to surveys indicate that "increased regulation" is the reason given for less than 1% of layoffs ("low demand" is the number one reason). Obama denied the Keystone project because the plan submitted would have threatened an aquafer that provides water for over a million people; he recommended they revise the plan and resubmit it. Green energy projects, such as wind power, now employ tens of thousands of people in good paying jobs. More than 7,000 just here in Iowa.

I don't call those failed policies. I call those common sense polices that are good for America.

He had them "under Dem control" for all of 7 weeks-FACT. I don't have to imagine what Bush would have done, just read his multitude of presidential signing statements, the overreach in Iraq, etc. etc. ad nauseam-FACT. Torture made legal - FACT. You are entitled to an opinion but at least try to make it an educated one and I don't mean Faux News!

Obama's far larger initiative -- the 2009 stimulus -- was enacted, and -- unless we believe it saved us from financial disaster -- the spin Obama took AFTER it became clear it wasn't going to produce the results he previously said (he thought he would be able to take credit for the upswing of normal recovery) -- that measure did fail. And he has enacted Dodd-Frank and Obamacare. And on cap and trade, he has circumvented Congress through administrative regulations. And in the UAW (aka GM) bailout, he subverted bankruptcy law to pay off unions, and to steal from bondholders. While this clown is president, there are safer countries to invest in.

But now you want to lay things at the feet of the Republicans because -- at that time about $14 in debt -- Republicans refused to go along with another so-called stimulus. Unbelievable.

You expect us to vote for a second failed stimulus, it was not a jobs bill, have Hairy break out some of the 30 bills he is hiding in his desk and jobs will be created.

I doubt any dims would have voted for a bill with the name jobs in it that was in effect just another stimulus

Jatazus: Remember? The house was too busy voting to repeal the ACA and restrict abortion rights to think about jobs bills, so the Majority Leader had no jobs bills to place on the floor for vote by the Senate. And a bill to reduce taxes on the top 2% and increase taxes on the middle class and poor is NOT a jobs bill.

Government does not create jobs. This, the GOP and supporting democrats realize. This is why the jobs act went nowhere. This you do not get. You do not take money from taxpayers and create a job with it. there is no value in this. It becomes another entitlement. Private business creates jobs. And to correct you there was never a bill to reduce taxes for the top 2 percent . the bill was to keep the present tax rates as they are where the top earners already pay 45% of the taxes

The President's job plan was heavily invested in government jobs. When the funding ends, the cost is passed to the local taxpayers. Worse, it just creates higher liability with the rich benefit and retirement programs that are burying our cities and States.

Obama proposed adding more teachers as an investment in education -- that's a laugh. At one time we had an outstanding public education system. Classes were designed to place children of the same level together. Our liberal educators decided that this was bad and we now teach to the lowest denominator. They discourage grades as it is bad for the child. Life is a competition. Kids are not allowed to play tag as it is a violent game. They are taught that "eating meat is bad". As one teacher said in a political debate, that's okay we control what your child is learning. Just wait and in 20 years this will turn around.

Yes, lets invest in jobs that increases the union's power. Don't invest so private industry can create jobs and wealth. Government does not create wealth -- private industry does. Democrats just don't get it.

If the public school system is so good, why do so many politicans send their children to private school? Why do the democrats oppose vouchers?

Lies, Lies and more lies - the bill was so bad it never was even presented in the Senate.

FERD PHD is correct. The President flew all over the country shouting shrilly "Pass This Bill Now!!!".... Remember? So the republicans called his vote, and brought it to a vote in the Senate. Because the President is so arrogant, he never even bothered to talk to his allies in the Senate about it. They would not vote for it. Harry Reid had to squash it.....

Obama and Reid with the help of the willing media then concocted a story about how the mean republicans blocked his bill.

Sadly, low information Obama supporters just eat that crap up.

Really MSN, How long will you keep covering up for this fool?

I do NOT believe it is the job of the Whitehouse to create jobs for the American people. I believe it is the job of the Whitehouse to do the best they can to stop working against the American people.

Stop closing our oil production. Stop allowing American companies to go overseas so they can hire people at 1/2 the minimum wage. Stop hiring people you call Czars and paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars that they don't work for. Finally stop earning your yearly salaries for the rest of your life.

Actually, you are right.

And Ryan's pie-in-the-sky dreamy deal for already-rich Americans is touted by another totally different set of economists who make all kinds of loving predictions about HIS plan too, but in the end predictions actually HELP NOTHING.

So that would make your point what?

There's no way the AJA would have produced 2 million jobs. In fact if you follow the link to the previous article Benin cited, it's full of economic forcecasts that say exactly that.

Fine. If that's true, then the best outcome for the republicans would have been to vote for it, then say, "hey, we compromised but the President's plan failed".

Or maybe vote against it and debate the reasons why it wouldn't work.

Or what they actually did, which was to cowardly ignore it, claim it didn't exist, and go back on vacation.

and ADP who these loons were looking at and gloating about too... I told them yesterday that those numbers were absurd, but I was called sour grapes, I think I have proven that they are full of something else

Sort of the same way everyone ignored Obama's budget? Or the way Obama ignores the $62 Trillion in unfunded obligations we've promised?

What most of you fail to realize, is that by funding projects - which the jobs act was - doesn't solve the problem. It's another kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with later. Passing the jobs act would only temporarily boost the economy, just like the stimulus bill did - and it would only save the public sector and those already unemployed - again temporarily. While saving the jobs of teachers, firefighters, and a whole slew of other public employees is a an admirable venture, again, it's only TEMPORARY. We need to deal with the underlying problem. That's the debate we need to have, not how to prop up the public sector. Here's a list of what the Jobs Act would have done (from Wikipedia):

1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
   1. $49 billion - Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
   2. $8 billion - Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
   3. $5 billion - Pathways back to work fund.
3. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
4. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
5. Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
6. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
7. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
8. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
9. Creating additional regulations on businesses who discriminate against hiring those who are long-term unemployed.
10. Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.

Number 8 and 10 may have some effect, but with the kicking the can down the road of the other eight, I don't blame the Republicans for not voting for it.

Jesus wouldn't get elected. He'd be accused of being a socialist for wanting to give free healing and for feeding the poor.

Jesus should be able to pull down 3% of the vote..

You've got to be kidding. You don't really think there's a snowball's chance of electing some Hispanic dude who can't produce a birth certificate, do you?

Trollop - in Jesus' defense - he never mentioned the age or shape of the earth and I know he wouldn't appreciate any of the fundies calling themselves "Christians." Plus Mittens believes Jesus is busy on his own planet somewhere - so Jesus might think Mitt needs to be re-educated.

DC - you're right - he wouldn't win but it's because he's of Arab descent so he'd be labelled a terrorist or Muslim just because of how he looks - and be deported under the GOP immigration laws because he couldn't produce his papers.

Great comment, if you have no objections I would like to use your comment.

how about using mine.....Jesus would also never have approved of the killing of unborn (and even born babies like this President) Jesus also made a comment about the separation of state. That which is Caesars, etc (you might want to look it up). and PS, Jesus would be pretty displeased with the remarks this dummy made about criticizing those who believe in him, regardless in what manner they do. Jesus was a Jew, I suspect he wouldnt have cheered with those who disapproved Jerusalem as its capital, and finally you unfortunate little person, Jesus CERTAINLY would not have approved the Democrats totally incapable of acknowledging that he exists. Amen

Actually folks he would render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

He could never get the nomination with the Democrats. You saw how the convention voted down having God or Jerusalem in their party platform. They had to cheat to put them back in.

Jatazus and goodspkr - the United States is not and never has been a theocracy. If you want spiritual guidance, go to church. If you want good roads, bridges, education, a strong military, alliances with foreign countries, and a level playing field for your sons and daughters to complete on, vote Democratic.

KJ,

both jackoff and gobstopper are newly minted trolls. Which means that these right wing idiots are really desperate and scared @!$%#less about robme losing this November!

LOL!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

The mis and disinformation abounds. To see so many comments steeped in factually unsupported absolutes, intractable dogma, accompanied by personal insults and void of a willingness to rationally collaborate, it's no wonder that our national dialog has deteriorated and our political process is broken....But when it comes to job creation, to tell government to get out of the way, is a gross oversimplification. The Constitution was drafted out of necessity, to deal with host of problems created by the Articles of Confederation, many of them economic. Government has an even more important role to play today. Not just to maintain and grow all aspects of the common infrastructure, but to provide incentives, establish and enforce rule and law, provide sensible, intelligent oversight and provide a forum where diverse interests, can equitably balance the needs of competing, often complex interests. With business keeping record amounts of capital (> $2 trillion) on the sidelines (due to lack of demand, far more than "uncertainty"), a coherent plan of proper incentives from our elected (and polarized) government, will contribute greatly to strengthen the economy. There are up to 6 million jobs going unfilled in our economy, because worker skills don't match job requirements. This structural unemployment, is a direct result of thirty years of Supply Side driven outsourcing and downsizing, without a cogent, broad based plan from firms and/or government to train/retrain workers for the new jobs created. The key is a cooperative partnership or, loose affiliation, whatever WORKS the best to find the function balance for the future. For politicians or, citizens to hold on to any oversimplified dogma as the ONLY way to skin a cat, is absolute poppycock. Americans have usually found the best solutions, when we put aside dogma and work together practically, sensibly, to find what WORKS, no matter whose idea it may be.

Their job plan is called "Government: get out of the way already!"

It's a different philosophy - micromanaging new jobs is not the primary role of the federal government. Creating favorable environments (and rules!) that unleash "animal spirits" is the role.

Douglas - does that help you understand?

here's mine ahead of time. Get rid of Obama, and ye shall prosper...this to those who conservatism to be religious nuts.

dfabs4, I don't think you really want to know, but here it is.

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

You're welcome.

So, to summarize Mitt's plan as per his website...

...massive tax cuts

...repeal "Obamacare", Dodd-Frank and any other "Obama era" regulation

...create incentives to off-shore labor for corporations, start a trade war with China

...eliminate labor unions

...block grants to states for retraining workers

...cap spending to 20% of GDP

All ideas (except for the retraining) that would explode the deficit and eliminate millions of jobs.

"All ideas (except for the retraining) that would explode the deficit and eliminate millions of jobs."

Sort of like the performance of our current President?

None of you make any sense. How is it that the government takes money from us and gives it to someone to create a job. This is zero value. We must reduce government involvement in all aspects of our lives, let them do the basics. reduce taxes for all and you will see the economy move in the positive direction.

Why is it that socialists doo not see the outcome ahead of them

Well said d7238. It is unfortunate that Big Government/Big Labor groupies do not understand this. They want to take away from those who earn so they can decide who should benefit.

They are not interested in facts or listening to conversations. I read liberal newspapers and blogs to try to understand their point view. I see a lot of finger pointing and name calling.

I am a conservative but I am not religious. I believe that America is great and can continue to be create if we allow individuals to succeed. I find it interesting that after listening to Michelle Obama talk about how poor they were, they do not celebrate the individual success. They are now millionaires. See what happens under an open and free society as opposed to a government controlled society.

I hate to burst anybody's conservative bubble, but the only ways any President could create jobs is by A) directly or indirectly hiring people, as in government hiring that Republicans denounce, or B) penalize technological developments through taxation, or licensing, or else subsidize employers so that it is cheaper to hire employees than invest in capital. Business people don't hire because they have money to spare, so the idea of putting more money in the hands of the fabled "job creators" is without any merit that I can discern. Businesses hire when A) demand increases, and B) the cheapest way to meet that demand is to increase the amount of labour that they use. Neither of those is under the control of the President.

What, was this post featured on freep this morning? Pasta, the number of bots is incredible.

It's not a maybe. It's what he said. Multiple times on multiple topics.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/22/mitt-romney-wont-reveal-energy-plan-where-reporters-might-hear-it/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/mitt-romney-tax-deductions_n_1824410.html

All of Mitt's plans for the country are on his Etch-a-Sketch.

Dear Ohio Art - Don't those start to wear-out after being shaken too much? Mittens might be ready for a new one. He'll probably claim it as a tax deduction because he uses it for his work.

Check out Romney's website he has a plan. To simplify it calls for reducing taxes for all, reducing tax loopholes, lowering capital gains taxes. lowering corporate taxes to compete globally and keep jobs here. Review and eliminate unnecessary requirements placed on business.

Nonsense. Obama is current spending 20% more than Bush did and his only solution to unemployment is to spend another 20%. But that is fool hardy when you have a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

Obama is an ideologue which pretty much explains why he only has one arrow in his quiver. But for god's sake, even Lenin tried something new (NEP) when the socialist solutions weren't working.

Hey C. Government does not make jobs . You have been fooled. They take your money instead of spending it on things we really need and create a job.. Meaningless. So Congress stopped him from spending more on fake jobs,

If you cannot understand this you should not comment on here,

That idea -- for a private bank with the sole task of creating jobs, and ringfenced by the government for investment security -- is a good one, and is essentially the same as the "infrastructure bank" that was already proposed by Obama and blocked by the House Republicans.

One word to a limey, mind your own damn business. Your own government voted for a conservative. It would appear that most of your peers do not feel the same, and I do believe that your government refused the euro too is that not correct? Could it be because they had the sense to realize it was a folly, and now Greece, Italy Spain, Portugal and the lot are near bankruptcy?

tell you what ole chap, you keep out of the affairs of the United States, and I wont mention the folly that is England who still has allegiance to ancient nonsensical royalty and pays billions to support them

xenophobic troll

jatazu, or maybe you should change it to Jack A$$ since you are so rude....you don't have a clue about anything outside alerbammer do you? A conservative party member from the England would be considered a flaming liberal in the US.

Yes so we can become Socialist like Britian, No thanks

A modest rewrite of your contribution:

Right I will try for the third time to give a comment I seem each time to get deleted in the Cloud. I will put my position clear I am a Labour member in the UK but feel that I can assist Obama to win the Presidential election, as an aside 99.9% of Labour supporters want an Obama win. In looking at the problem of Jobs creation both the UK and USA have similar problems. In opposing the American Jobs Act did the media call out the Republican Party to account for what was their alternative? I imagine their alternative, but the usual tax cuts and trickle down alternative that appears to be the doctrine. I wonder, could there be an alternative to Government spending money and the trickle down doctrine. Bernake appears to be keen on quantitative easing to stimulate jobs and this would appear to be a sensible option. However, what if you could create a bank that was independent of Government and Congress but yet could loan the money to stimulate job creation? I am sure there are qualified people who could take up this responsibility. Simply create a bank that is simply there to create jobs. I believe Obama may be looking this way, by his idea of a 'NewDeal' philosophy. Create a bank that takes the quantitative easing but is focused on infrastructure and job creation. It could be "ringfenced" from government or political involvement but surely it would stimulate the USA economy without labelled as socialist. I do not know if this thought may be useful but it is an alternative to what appears from the outside a speaking of the deaf to the deaf in this election. There is an alternative aspect in that if major banks could rehabilitate their appearance as being only interested in profit. It is an argument for the greater good, if you want to advance these ideas the Obama campaign should employ Will Hutton from these shores the one man who could save the American and I would also say the British economy but sadly largely ignored in his own country. It is right a prophet is always ignored in his own place. I ask humbly that these observation may be helpful sometimes standing outside gives a better perspective. One word to all American voters vote for Obama.

Thanks for your contribution, a couple of points about the status of the current finance system here, and what is being done. Then transliterating your suggestion to see why this not done with existing powers. My personal painful explanations of risk free banking; a non-sequitur, for which a make a counter argument). And a reference to another 'new' version of the same http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/03/michel-woodford-may-have-written-the-years-most-important-academic-paper-heres-why/ Michael Woodford.

Reconciling three versions into one highly emphatic ironic and destined to be misunderstood. The conclusion I am trying to get you to come to using your own powers of reasoning is that RISK free banking, is not a theoretical sensible concept, but has been made an artificial reality. The point is that Risk free banking, or investment, or appreciation, or income or whatever is unnatural. If Risk free banking happens it is the definition of a problem since it implies that the system has been seriously distracted from seeing reality. The same reality that should have been visible from the known causes, by the very people who were charged with monitoring the system, is invisible. Consider the cause as trading empty bags of mortgage papers to bundlers who erased risk to the mystical La, La land of swaps and derivatives.

The working day consisted is shoveling mortgages risk and all on to the unsuspecting pension funds, that risk spilled over to the financial institute of last resort the full fail and credit department of the United States. The biggest risk bubble created by the mortgage fiasco was erased by the Federal Reserve, in one broad swoop; gathering up the debt held outstanding in mortgages, transferring future liability to the National Debt. (Over time, bank losses and individual mortgage losses are transfer to the Nation Debt (tax losses), or removed from personal savings that would have otherwise been invested produced returns.) Those subtitles are lost in the political dialogue, ignored by the communications media, but are real for the next generation. The banks did not fail, after taking irrational risk; they survived, but only by passing miss-begotten risk to the government. This was a big risk transfer but fully represents the current and ongoing policies. The "correction" worked for the big banks, so why it would not also work for "correcting" the economy?

The credit crisis has continued as banks internalize the effects of the debacle, and apparently difficult process of retraining themselves to recognize "risk" the essential but abandon skill from before deregulation, and to "proforma" re-separate regular banking from speculative finance. The Federal Reserve is using quantitative easing to lower interest rate to what is thought to be attractive new investments. In effect the loan rate is zero, but some are mystified as why this capital is not being invested in normal investments, normal in the sense that that have an assessable risk. At the same time The Treasury is selling securities to cover the rising debt, resulting from low tax policies, this rate is higher than zero. Now there is chance to make money if I ever saw one. Banks and financial houses get monies from the Fed at a zero interest rate and as the investment winds its way through the labyrinth it is sold to the Treasury at above zero interest. This is my definition of zero risk, risk free banking, and risk free investment. Clear enough money from the system is using used to provide returns from the system, in an endless paper chase, money being paper. To belabor the point those moneys are not used as capital to finance enterprise, business expansion, development of products, corporate improvements. Indeed given the risk free money aspect of the Federal Reserve policies, every corporation capable of making money would logically be cutting cost, reducing outlays, killing incomplete investment projects. The corporate cash accumulation would be invested in Treasuries or on finding unnecessary acquisitions to garner losses against future profits (again another tax reduction strategy).

The sum total effect is always to minimize risk, profits, taxes are just simple arithmetic but when the minimum risk is in treasuries, real risk outside the mother milk of government are not an acceptable business risk. Again free money from government, the write off on any loss to the government, and the endless ways to reduce taxes of and still make a profit is good business. But would it really be good business to have the only way to make profit and to have a one person corporation to do so, since no one needs to be doing anything at all, we could clear out Wall Street, having mister big live in single floor of high rise with good view.

If you can see what I am getting at, then risk is needed to be injected into the system. If the banks were again separated from the financial house responsible for speculative risk and put back into the business assessing risks making loans, the local nature of this work can again become the standard, with limits and expediencies for state or regional banks dedicated back up local banks all to gain investment that again make one by being productive. Those would be needed regulations from a responsible government. The use of tax policy opposite to the deduction, write off, exclusion and stick the government with the debt, is to tax money made from non-productive investment high enough to drive excess capital out of those investments and back onto investment for productive purposes. The third leg to boost the economy is to put pressure on assets, specifically idle assets. The cost of holding assets or to remove or to keep them out production or for speculation needs also to be taxed. A local tax on idle assets, abandon or empty unused property that puts a huge negative effect on the viability of the community. The local government would be compensated for idle assets, or the owner would force to either put it into some production or to force it sole to a business that will put it to productive use.

Theses measure are needed to break the cycle of government handout to businesses, by using the proper role of government, to regulate, to tax and to license. It would replace the proper role of risk back to where is can be measured, assessed and uses to test competing ideas of the marketplace.

The current role of government and politicians in blocking these reforms bears little resemblance to capitalism or free enterprise.

(Most of the time, composing is assisted using Word single spaced, followed by select copy/paste to Notepad, then select copy again /past to Newsvine blogs etc.)

(Banks as used here include banks, finance and venture capital and any blend of finance oriented instructions and the unfortunate conglomeration of banks and financial houses.

(Government, Federal Reserve, Treasury are included in a reference to other institution.)

My apologies Andrew Bonner and to myself, as I have to live in a nation of anonymous idiots.

Their model never seems to account for how the failure to restore full employment in four years didn't doom Roosevelt in '36.

kaneblues, very well said.

People today want instant gratification and because Obama cannot turn the economy around fast enough, some voters will blame him rather than the Republicans in the House and Senate for obstructing legislation. That is why comparisons to Roosevelt are meaningless. But Obama could run against the Congress and their failure to enact any meaningful jobs legislation. That point has not been pressed hard enough by Dems who can point to all the social issue legislation and well publicized hearings by Issa on abortion and contraception. Then there is the debt crisis that was provoked by Republicans wasting a lot of time. That is where Republicans are weak. There is also the jobs legislation that the Senate passed and the House rejected. Tie these facts with the women's health issues and the Dems have a potent argument to paint the Republicans as obstructionists which the public already knows. Obama can then renew his jobs plans that were passed in the Senate.This is how Obama can sell voters to give him a Dem Congress or put pressure on the House to pass the jobs bill during the elections. Make the House and Senate vote on a jobs bill while they are running their reelection campaigns.

oh no, you are seriously comparing Obama to FDR? if you read, FDR reduced unemployment SIGNIFICANTLY in his first term, so he gave the people hope, this fool gave us lots of hope but no change, and increased in fact in unemployment with no reduction in sight. If women's health issues are the centerpiece of this campaign (regardless of that champion of women s rights Bill Clinton) then you are correct, Obama will win, Fluke will get her free condoms, a few more babies will be killed if they come out of the womb alive, and you still wont have a fkking job

Kane, you are in for a shock in November. Obama doesn't have a chance. If you follow history at all you would know the economy determines whether a president gets a second term. Obama has spent the last four months demonizing Romney. The best he could get out of this was a statistic tie with him in the polls and most of those polls have a 6-8 percent plurality of Democrats which is not going to happen in the election. Romney wins in November by at least the same amount that Obama won the election in 2008.

MikeP, the same message for you. Obama will not be able to run against the Republican congress or George Bush. Americans aren't very forgiving when it comes to their own well being. We may suffer fools, but we don't suffer economic idiots.

This economic downturn is the worst since the Depression and public opinion reflects that the voters still blame Bush. Public opinion also reflects a 76% disapproval rating for Congressional Republicans. I don't believe that only the economy is going to dictate the election results. Voter anger goes further and deeper than just the economy. All bets are off with this election because I think the polls are underestimating voter anger. Historical voting patterns mean nothing for this election.

You do know that Congress is the Senate AND the House, right? I guess they didn't spoon feed you that fact. Last time I check Democrats were in charge of the Senate and there hasn't been a budget for 4 years.
When the Dems have leaders that declare that Unemployment helps BOOST the economy we all suffer especially when we are stupid enough to put those brainiacs in charge.

Tax cuts for rich people!

Right. and THEN.....................Chirp..............................Chirp.......................!

Eliminate Nixon's EPA!

Mitch McConnel said that we needed to extend the Bush tax cuts again because they didn't work the last time.

Wait, that can't be right. who would say that?

Mitch would: "The Obama Economy is even slower now than when we extended the rates in 2010—raising taxes on job creators in this slow economy is simply not the elixir for his failed policies."

I have had my bucket outside for years waiting for that trickle down, but it is still empty. Before our Republican friends start screaming, I have worked since I was 16 years old and was forced out of the workforce at 58. I was a loyal, hard working employee and at 58 it was the first time I was released from a position.

So again Republicans where is the Trickle Down - the buckets still empty.

To suggest that Obama did what they (Republicans) wanted is so outrageous it is sickening. Reid and Pelosi passed all of this crap that didnt work, and then decided to pass a health care bill in lieu of jobs.....REMEMBER THAT!!!!! To blame a totally inoperable Republican opposition between 2008-2010 and now blame it for Obama's follies is beyond the absurd....

why here is a reply to the supposed lies Bush told about WMD, which is not the discussion except for the so called human right nut above. It was deserving of this response

http://blog.usni.org/2012/07/20/iraq-chemical-weapons-moved-to-syria-before-2003-invasion/

Obama's own security advisor thought this to be a fact in 2003, and now, well lets just say, if they find IRAQ labels on these weapon, a certain former President will be vindicated, and this chump will be tongue tied. I concede maybe thats not the case but if it is, I pray that it comes out before the election

Actually economy worked out very well under Repiblicans. Remember Reagan years? The reason it was so good under Clinton was that he got and was smart enough to go along with the Republican Congress. Even under the hated Bush-43 economy took off quite well after Clinton-Gore DotCom bubble burst and recession that came as a result + 9/11, thatnks to his economic policies, until the rage of American people over the Iraq war gave the Congress to Pelosi-Reid and the economic collapse that followed. Bush was a weak president who did not stand up to Pelosi-Reid and shares the blame but to say that Repubs economic policies did not work well for everyone is a lie.

ISATen is that your age? You clearly don't remember the Clinton years. The Omnibus Speding Act of 93 was passed without one single GOP vote and that is the keystone fiscal policy of the CLinton years. The republicans only worked with Obama after he crushed Dole in 96 and they had no choice.

The GOP has zero responsibility for the Clinton era growth, zero!!!!!!!!!!

The trickle down has been tampered with by government overreach. Too much taxes, too much regulation and too much uncertainty . Get the government out of the way and the trickle down will work as it did for Reagan

do tell? how did that first go round of that Democratic controlled Congress go? We need jobs, you got Obama care, you got cronyism and billions wasted on green energy because the owners are Pelosi Reid Obama butt boys. You got GM saved to protect the union thugs that cost billions, and GM is going bankrupt anyway. With all of the talk about Bin Laden, you got a far weaker country that will not confront Iran, will not confront Egypt, will not confront Syria, forced the ouster of Mubarek in favor of a terrorist group, will not support Israel, does not believe in God, plans a whole convention about womens rights, not jobs, and you would seriously suggest that we go back to that? You are pathetic

You had two years of complete control when GOP had no power whatsoever to obstruct anything and what can you show for the results? And you ask American people to give you ability to get them more of that?

The Dems had a filibuster proof majority for 12 days of that first congress....12 days, not 2 years. The GOP have filibustered more in Obama's fist 3.5 years than any President in history.

Just say no to the party of no..............and I voted for 3 GOP presidents in my lifetime

they dont report that on MSNBC, the "Reverend" Al would be unhappy

Why don't you post all of those jobs bills the repubs passed in the house.

How true! And at $185,000 per job, it was certainly money well invested...or not...

AJA was rightly dubbed Stimulus II, and was just another Keynesian stimuli to be paid for with more borrowed money. Another example of Big Government trying to create jobs, much as CETA was in the 1970s, resurrected so we can move "Forward" with new ideas from our treasure chest of old failed ideas...

Such wonderful right wing drivel!

Wow! the trolls are really out on this thread!!!

If you cannot make sens of what these people are saying then you really need to check your brain at the door . you are not using it anyway. This was simply explained to you indicating the point that the government does not create jobs. Get it. i repeat GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS, except for the post office and look where that is. Business creates jobs. We need no more money from government to create fake jobs, employ teachers or more government workers which is all obama has done.

To make sure they back up their public claims with what might appear to be "fact", they've built a page on the House of Representatives site with a list of their so-called jobs bills , which number 27 and not 30 as the Speaker claims. What follows is a list and a brief explanation of why they are not jobs bills. Feel free to share it widely with your friends who might be inclined to believe Mr. Tobacco Lobbyist Check Distributor without questioning it.

HR 3630 - The Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011 - This bill does indeed extend the "docfix" and unemployment insurance for a year, but with a hefty price .

• In addition to freezing federal workers' pay for three years, it requires issuance of a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in advance of the proposed routing by Nebraska, suspends the newly-issued mercury regulations and extends 100% expensing of business equipment (including private jets). Another so-called "jobs bill", HR 1938 , was passed giving a November 1, 2011 deadline for the Keystone pipeline.
• With regard to unemployment insurance benefits, it cuts the 99-week maximum down to a 59-week maximum by mid-2012, allow states to drug-test UI recipients, and allow states to reduce state unemployment benefits and substitute federal funds. It also cuts funding for key provisions of the Affordable Care Act coming online, and adds the requirement to welfare payments that EBT cards cannot work in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos.
• Provisions were included to auction more broadband spectrum and reclassify the 700mhz D Block as public safety broadband use only, which would be a huge payoff to Verizon Wireless lobbyists, whowon that block with requirements that it remain open, after Google challenged the auction process.
• It would force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pay increased guarantee fees similar in scope to those due from large banks as a part of the Dodd-Frank Act, means-tests unemployment insurance benefits and food stamp programs and increases Federal employees' contributions to their retirement system by 1.5% while freezing pay, so their pensions take a double-whammy.
• Finally, it repeals the new timing rules for estimated corporate tax payments for companies with assets of $1 billion or more so that they can use payments of estimated taxes as a timing tool for fourth quarter profit declarations.

None of the provisions outlined above create jobs. They called it a jobs act, but it was really just an act.

HR 1633 - Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011

This bill prevents the EPA from issuing or finalizing regulations revising air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, and excepts farm dust from all references to "particulate matter."

No jobs there, but if anyone has ever suffered from Valley Fever , they might object to exempting dust, particularly farm dust, from the definition of particulate matter.

HR 10 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2011

Guts the regulation process by mandating that every regulation promulgated by approved by Congress after an onerous submission process, while exempting any Congressional finding from judicial review. Call this one theCarte Blanche For Congress To Kill All Regulatory Authority Bill.

What it is not: A jobs bill.

HR 3010 - Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011

HR 3010 is a modified, somewhat less onerous version of HR 10, setting guidelines for whether any regulations are warranted at all even if called for under a statute. Calling an anti-regulatory statute a jobs bill is a little like calling a half-built bridge infrastructure. So again, not a jobs bill.

HR 527 - Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011

Ostensibly, HR 527 would reduce regulatory requirements on small businesses by forcing an impact study with specific focus on small business before regulation is adopted. It would limit EPA, OSHA and CFPB regulations while presumably protecting "small" closely-held Subchapter S corporations like Koch Industries. Not a jobs bill.

HR 3012 - Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011

HR 3012 would expand job immigration beyond current limits by eliminating employment-based immigrant visa caps and raising the percentage of total visas granted to 15% from 7%. For this one, I'll say it IS a jobs bill, but not a jobs bill for American workers. It is the "Elite Immigration Jobs Bill of 2011".

HR 3094 - Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act

HR 3094 redefines collective bargaining units and makes significant changes to election procedures , including one intended to intimidate employees: an employer-supplied list of eligible voters with contact information provided by the employee.

Not a jobs bill. A union-buster bill.

HR 2930 - Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act

HR 2930 exempts startups raising less than $1 million in venture capital from small investors from SEC registraiton and oversight.

Not a jobs bill. An anti-regulatory bill.

HR 2940 - Access to Capital for Job Creators Act

HR 2940 repeals prohibitions on solicitation or advertising of a securities offering. It's a companion to HR 2930, and is intended to allow people with no relationship to a startup company to invest in it without any oversight by the SEC. Let's call this and its evil twins HR 2930 and HR 1965 the "Ponzi Scheme Coverup Acts of 2011"

HR 1965 - Securities Laws Amendment

HR 1965 changes the shareholder threshhold for SEC registration from 500 to 2000 shareholders. It's not a jobs bill. It's a "hide from the SEC" bill. Its companion, HR 1970 , would exempt SEC registration of public offerings under $50 million rather than the current $5 million threshold.

Many More EPA Acts

So many they don't deserve to be broken down individually. HR 2273 removes coal ash regulation from the EPA and hands it to the states. HR 2681 would put a legislative stay on cement manufacturing emission standards. HR 2250 would put a legislative stay on EPA boiler MACT rules. HR 2401 would require analysis of all EPA regulations relating to air, waste, water and climate change. HR 2018 would restrict EPA from issuing any revisions to existing water standards or issuing a new standard for a pollutant if the state has already adopted one or there is an existing standard in place. In other words, ignore any new scientific research after an initial standard has been set. HR 2021 amends the Clean Air Act to open oil and gas exploration off the Alaska coast. HR 910 strips the EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, a direct assault on efforts to limit man-made contributions to climate change. HR 872 expands the use of pesticides, fungicides and rodent without EPA approval.

Many More Oil and Gas Drilling Acts

There is HR 1231 , which would require the Administration to allow offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration in order to meet set domestic production goals, effectively forcing the moratorium on offshore drilling to be lifted to meet goals. HR 1229 requires the Energy Secretary to consider any offshore drilling permits within 30 days of receiving it and provide application denials in writing within 60 days of the application. Another "forced moratorium lift" bill. HR 1230 forces sales of oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental Shelf of Virginia. It also lifts requirements for environmental impact statements and grandfathers in a 2007 document as authority for environmental impact.

Special Interest Legislation, or Pandering to Corporate Interests

• HR 1904 proposes an exchange of land so that Resolution Copper, LLC can mine copper on what is now part of the Tonto National Forest.
• HJ Res 37 is a resolution of disapproval on net neutrality.
• HR 2587 prohibits the NLRB from restricting where an employer can locate. This is in response to the NLRB's objection to the Boeing plant relocation to South Carolina , a right-to-work state.

These would fall under the anti-labor, anti-environment categories, but not particularly effective job creators. In fact, in Boeing's case, the jobs lost would hurt the economy more than jobs created in a right-to-work state where employers are not obligated to adhere to industry standards on contracts, safety or other issues.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/gops-claim-house-passed-30-jobs-bills-bogus

Government cannot creat jobs, they take your money and make a fake job,,, No job there....Get it.

thats where you are mistaken, temporary jobs are temporary, yes. but giving a person a job, if only for a short time, gives them disposable income. they spend that money at a business, that business has more revenue to create even more jobs. it has a ripple effect---much more so than the trillion dollar bush tax cuts that did absolutely nothing except make rich people even wealthier.

Another bull@!$%# poster by a right wing troll. If you think that ANYONE here thinks you are an "independent" you are out of what little mind you have left.

The trolls that are crawling all over this thread like cockroaches only shows just how desperate the robme camp is.

And I say: keep on crawling, trolls!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Not sure where you go to buy a brain Donna but you surely need one. Why not take a break and do some thinking. Perhaps some reading about socialism and its roots. Where it initiated and where it led those countries. Unenlightened and ignorant people like you are truly dangerous.

fact check, jackass. we've had private sector job growth for 30 straight months, while government has hemorraged jobs. Private sector jobs can be created through government spending via tax cuts, infrastructure, and so on. Government creates a job, that person spends money on goods, and the econmy creates even more jobs. we have a consumer economy, when you pump money into the economy, it will grow. obama has created about 4 million new jobs. contrast that to the years when bush dumped trillions into tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, record deficits, two trillion dollar wars, an economy losing 800k jobs per month to today...I'd say we are a lot better off and you'd be crazy to vote for anyone else. obama stabilized the economy and put us back on track. no, he didnt work any miracles, but we are better off than we were four years ago. take a course in macroeconomics, you might learn something....