I agree; Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi are suffering Stockholm syndrome "vicariously", in that the GOP terrorizes the nation's well being and holds us hostage and then the others appear to have fallen into kinship or some sort of bond with our captors. AKA, Negotiating With Terrorists.

Cliff: You so quickly have forgotten abou the 16trillion in retirement funds lost in the wallstreet melt down of 2008! That is all they have left is social security!

^Bingo! That 150k I had turned into 70 in my 401k, instantly and no, I'm no baby boomer. It's easy to forget that though, sure...

(; - )

The Dow got down to 6500 at the bottom. Now it's over 13,000.

That means nothing. Whether the stock market is up or down is not an accurate gage of any economy. Learn how the stock market works. Just because the market gains points does not mean that the losses are made up for. The losses are still the losses.

To retire responsibily takes a lot of money, more than most people actually plan to save. For those who had sizable chunks of investment on these stock accounts had that money accumulate over time, over the years of their working careers. So with the market crash a lot if not that entire account reduced in value to a level that can not be made up for in a couple of years.

For example: I save 5k a year in a retirment account for my future. That account is now worth 50k because I have been adding to it for 10 years. My retirement goal is 75k so that account put me almost there all on it's own. Now lets say the market tanks and my account now is only 15k not 50k, that's a loss of 35k. It took me 10 years to get to that and 7 of those 10 years have been basically wiped out. Thus it would take me atleast another 7 years to build that account up to where it was before not to mention the fact that investment leaves me 25k short of my goal. Then there's the massive job loss and subsequent fall of skilled, well paying labor. Sadly alot of our job growth has been in the tertiary sector, Texas is a great example of that.

Now can you fathom why people who happen to be coincidently on the edge of retirement might be in some trouble?

These people lost tons through no fault of their own. Now you can argue they just should have been better at investing...better apparently than the wallstreet traders who have the job of doing that and they caused the damn problem.....but the bankers broke the law. Many laws. They intentionally lied about the value of their investment activities to their clients. It happened, it has been proven, those are facts.

Middle class families have lost over a trillion in retirement savings, those too are FACTS. If the down turn was no big deal why did it crash the economy? Really?

The only thing he ran on was tax increases. Any other reason for voting for him was your hope and change wish list

And in other news from delusional land tax cuts pay for themselves and wealthy trickles down. Well good for you, why any day now the wealthy are going to tinkle down on you and give you what Ronnie, I was out of my mind Reagan promised you.

Tom

He also ran on getting us out of two wars and keeping us out of any more unlike the neocons running the Romney campaign.

He also ran on keeping Medicare and Social Security instead of replacing Medicare with vouchers and privatizing Social Security like the Republican budget does.

He also ran on a record that reduced budget deficits 21% and made health care insurance available to all Americans instead of funneling more money to the 1%.

I will take that program over anything the Republicans have offered any time and so will the majority of Americans.

botts

youz a geneyous honey. whatcha runnin for cuz I'll vote for ya anyday honest to..... not god. (just tired of all the seriousness w/o results)

Oh lord 3.3 shows just how delusional the Reagan history reformers really are. The only people to do well in Reagans nightmare were the top 1% and it is a fact none of them post on blogs nor did anyone else benefit from the 80's that worked for a living. In fact Reagan was so tax happy he put taxes on children selling lemonade in front of moms house, after all those 10 year olds were raking in millions of tax free profits every summer at 10 cents a glass. Why taxing 10 year olds taught them what it meant to be a real American by paying taxes, The real Reagan, 10 year olds paying taxes was their duty, while the wealthy enjoyed tax cuts because it was unfair to make them pay their share of taxes. Fools and their money are soon parted as the non wealthy republicans prove daily, which is why they will never be wealthy, they believe giving their government handouts to the wealthy will entitle them to some reward, yeah the poor house.

Here we go again Reagan delusions. Not one thing to back your 10% claim up yet you believe we should except the word of a Reagan worshiper. The only ones to get rich under Reagan were the rich everyone else got a lay off notice and a unemployment check.

The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy. As the financial sector displaced industrial manufacturing as the dominant economic force in American society, the gains from growth came to accrue almost entirely to those with major investments in the market, while individuals dependent solely upon wages and salaries found it harder and harder to get ahead. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households (those who naturally owned the most stock) saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth (who presumably owned no stock) endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat. This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.

http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

Reagan's policies worked for those that took advantage of them.

You mean like the mentally ill? Who did Iran Contra or Soviet Afghan intervention? Who gained from that? How is it that wages still stalled under Reagan? Who ramping up the failed drug war help? Who was helped by Reagan doing nothing about HIV/AIDS for years knowing full well the threat and problem it posed? Who?

He also ran on getting us out of two wars and keeping us out of any more unlike the neocons running the Romney campaign.

He also ran on keeping Medicare and Social Security instead of replacing Medicare with vouchers and privatizing Social Security like the Republican budget does.

He also ran on a record that reduced budget deficits 21% and made health care insurance available to all Americans instead of funneling more money to the 1%.

I will take that program over anything the Republicans have offered any time and so will the majority of Americans.

He ran on immigration reform. He also ran on allowing women to keep the rights they have now to control their bodies. He ran on restoring our alliances world wide after the world was laughing at us for GW. Obama ran on the recognization of the simple fact that when you benefit from a system, a gov't thing, and you become successful you have no right the slam the door of prosperity behind you. You help hold it open so others can have the same gifts of our american system you have. This was, and is, in stark contrast to the GOP who can receive government loans then say the gov't or our american system gave you no advantages or help. He ran against an Ayn Rand worshipping group who follow their prophetess of selfishness

He ran on not taking the safety net away from those who could use it to give it to those who do not need it. He ran on the fact it is the middle class that grows an economy from the middle out because they are the job creators

Once again we get the conservative world view based on their delusions and not reality. Here is a clue the vast majority of people are fed up with GOP failures that only produce for the already wealthy. What is with you conservatives and your delusions that you are great masters of Wall street, at best you are a 401k investor who gets fleeced every time the market crashes but because of over inflated egos you refuse to except that you are losing even though everyone who isn't delusional knows the stock market is rigged against small investors, the house always win the gambler loses. Pretty much like the lotto sucker who spends $50 a week on the lotto believing he won $25 when fact is he loses more then he gains, why, because he is always spending more then he wins. The only winner is the guy who buys 3 lotto tickets for $3 and gets $25 back then stops buying tickets.

Oh and before you try repeating that old myth with great risks comes great rewards try getting with the fact that a fool and his money are soon parted. If you can't afford the risk you don't take the risk unless your one of those PT was talking about...............suckers.

Yep typical righty took a ride to the poor house and saw a mansion. Delusional to the core. Here is a clue your 401k does not give you the sweet deals or the "tips" needed to keep you out of losing on the stock market, those are reserved for the wealthy, which we know you are not a member of. This just shows how deluded righties are about their Wall street skills.

You have delusions you mean. We already know that no wealthy person posts on blogs how do we know this rather simple the wealthy will neither take the time nor do they have the willingness to brag about wealth, the only ones who feel that need to brag are the righties one pay check away from being homeless, they believe that by lying they are proving they are superior then others reality is if you have to brag about something then more then likely you are making it up to boost your ego as while as self esteem. Secure people do not feel the need to brag on blogs. Here is a clue, your managers will only screw you out of every dime they can because you are not wealthy enough to do anything more then whine about being screwed. Funny how everyone took a bad hit in 2008 except the righties.

Obama ran on a policy of confiscation. "If you're too stupid or lazy to make it on your own, don't worry. I'll steal it from someone else and give it to you."

Name one instance of people receiving things they don't deserve from gov't other than the international extraction industry.

SNAP has been part of the social safety net for a very long time and was never controversial in the past.

Welfare reform still requires you to work.

Women must receive equal pay for equal work, FYI Paul Ruan and many of the republicans voted against the lily ledbetter act. Female americans shouldn't be charged more for the same category of drugs that men receive for the same price. Women should get what they pay for at the same rates for all services that men do when the purchase the same plan.

Social security and medicare are still not entitlements unless you would say people aren't entitled to what they've earned.

Medicaid for the poor has never controversial. Nothing's changed there either.

The Romney/Ryan/GOP plan doesn't work unless you take more from the middle class to give to those who do not need it. Justify why hugely profitable industries which we don't get any special perks out of should be subsidized by my money.

Redistribution. Take from those with least, from education and infrastructure, in these hard times to ensure that corporate money changers all along with a bunch of trust fund lawabouts can get a tax cut they don't need. Obviously that's more important than feeding the children or educating them for the future. Clearly more important. I mean it's not like we're a nation that supposed to work for the good of the majority not 1% or 2% of the population.

It's funny how you apes rant about the poverty level, caused largely by your policies that you will never accept responsibility for, while trying to say Obama is taking everything from poor defenseless multi-millionaires with more allegiance to their money than their country to give to these evil, lazy, working poor. If there still so much poverty I guess Obama can't be stealing very much by your own non-logic/reality optional worldview. Epic fail.

Reagan ran on self reliance. Reagan ran on the profit motive.

Who should pay more in taxes the millionaire or the bus driver?-Evil Socialist Dictator, Ronald Reagan

The real Ronald Reagan ran on that, can't be sure about the bull@!$%# mountain counterpart though.....Reagan did not fight for those who put money over country first. He'd never complain about his civic duty, in traditonal american paying taxes is a responsibility of citizenship, and in the end Reagan would not have fought for 2% over the interests of the 98%. Ronny raised taxes numerous times, get over it it's a fact.

Profit motive? Corporate profits under Obama are at their highest in most of if not all of american history. Another fail for you.

The election is over, your subterfuge failed miserably to the tune of 100+ electoral votes and the popular vote which newer adjusted numbers show Romney winning closer to 45-47% not 49%. 47%, how ironic.......poetic justice....lol....

More votes in total for house dems than republicans, GOP maintains house majority but by a smaller margin.

Senate dems make gains in that chamber after it was widely assumed the senate would go republican in part because of the 20 or so seats they had to defend. They lost none of them, no incumbents or states defeated by GOP. The senate minority shrank even more.

That's not a nation who's happy with your beloved republicans.

I don't need Wall Street skills. I have a dozen portfolio managers that do have skills. The more I make, the more they make...............it doesn't get better than that, buddy.

And I pray they lie to you and crash your account like the financial industry did to millions of americans. Then when it's proven they knew they were lying intentionally knowing full well it would unethical and illegal so you will see how it feels. Keep an eye on your little investors millions made the mistake of trusting them like you do. At this rate I'm sure you'll find that out soon enough......you obviously aren't aware of the modern financial/wall street sector. If you did you'd know they can make just as much money, if not more, screwing you over than making money for anyone. Their motive has nothing to do with you, they want cash for themselves and it's been shown they will do whatever they have to whether that means genuine investing for you or lying to your face while they gamble all your money away.

You will see soon enough. Luckily the election of a sort of democrat president 'cuz if it was Romney it'd happen all over again much sooner........

Yea, the fact that he can't deliver on what he promises! Even if he keeps his job as Speaker, it doesn't mean that he has "control" of the nut jobs in his party. He can say he agrees to anything he wants, but it doesn't mean a whit if he can't get the votes from his party!

The quiet almost reminds me of the "conservative" buzz about Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.

Oh look he is projecting the conservative history again. Why next week he believes Lee will take Washington.

The report concluded that they were inadequately funded to provide security so they had to rely more heavily on local militias which lead to them being understaffed and unable to respond to requests for more security in Tripoli. The report did not address the issue of the video or protests. You are inaccurately stating that the report denounced that there were protests and that they were held in account to the video: this isn't reality. The report specifically focused on whether or not the State Department adequately responded to the attack itself; the report did not focus on what caused the attack.

If you wanted to bring up the Benghazi issue then you should've strictly focused on what the facts state which is that given the independent review concluded that more could have likely been done to secure the consulate that was not done before the attacks.

I should also point out that this is the postulation of a hypothetical. It appears that if we had, had better security the attack might have been thwarted, but it isn't a definitive (it never will be because none of us have a time machine). There is no understanding of just how much security present could have prevented the attack from happening; all we know is that the security that was present obviously wasn't enough to stop the attack. What a revelation! We learned what we've known since the Sept. 11th event!

Every ambassador in the region was requesting more security for the same reasons so which embassy do you take security funds from to bolster Benghazi?

The report concluded that they were inadequately funded to provide security so they had to rely more heavily on local militias which lead to them being understaffed and unable to respond to requests for more security in Tripoli.

You forget to mention teh CIA connection to the security issues as well. The agency had a black ops intelligence hub a mile from Benghazi which, as you would expect from spies, they wanted to keep that secret. Having a heavy security pressence at what was not even a consulate, Benghazi was a mission making even lower on the priorities totem poll could have drawn unwanted attention.

So add that to budget cuts and the fact that according to the report the people at Benghazi really didn't rattle the cage for more funding all that much. They did not effectively or persistently pursue the resources, they rquested it at times. This is true but that's all they really did, the report seems to point out they never went up the chain of command with their requests.

Unless Boehner has a majority of his caucus backing him, he won't remain the leader of the majority caucus. If Boehner's not the leader of the majority caucus, he won't be Speaker.

Theoretically, the Democrats in the House could support Boehner as Speaker, but then his remaining in that position would be dependent on Democrats - and that ain't ever gonna happen!

I think "need welfare check" is a reincarnation of "i want food stamps"

Persistent bugger I say.

Yeah has been banned more times in one month then the vine got new posters in the same month. He believes he is all that because he knows how to get around an IPS ban, not that he figured it out for himself but rather someone did the figuring out for him and typical conservative tries to take credit for anothers work.

Oh please PPP if anyone is running scared in this it's Boehner. It's Norquist and his TP cohorts that have have Boehner by the balls. Not Boner as you say having President Obama by the balls. Otherwise Boehner would not have proposed something so as he did preposterous yesterday. Geez you guys blow hot and cold over President Obama don't you.

One minute he's Lincoln and the next Buchanan. Be patient and let things play out. If you can't see this is a chest match then I think you need a time out. And that goes for all of you.

Please take a chill pill.

That should be a chess match not a chest match. A chest match would be both Obama and Beohner thumping chests at each other. Well I guess that could still happen. ;-)

I match chests too, my sil's chest is way bigger then my SO's chest, shhhhhhhhhhh don't tell SO I'm not supposed to match chests.