Democrats & Liberals Archives

Hope Has Been More Than a Word

How droll, Mr. Romney. How utterly clever. Except for one problem: if your policies are anything like the previous Republican President’s, and they’re shaping up to be little different, then hope will ironically be all YOU offer, even as Obama has gone out and done actual things to get people jobs, to get people off unemployment.

That's the whole problem with the promises Republicans make, with their talk, once again, of cutting taxes, cutting regulation, backing the energy company's play, etc. It's talk we've all heard before. We've just had enough of a break from it, and enough of Republicans screaming socialist, stinking up a dark cloud of contempt and disdain for policies that aren't supply-side approved, to somehow make it seem like something new.

But for all Bush and other Republicans did, the economic miracles they predicted never materialized. Tax cuts in the trillions of dollars did not change Bush into a job creator on par with Bill Clinton. He wasn't even a Jimmy Carter, for crying out loud. Republicans have built a mythology about tax cuts and Ronald Reagan's supposed success with them that conveniently leaves out his massive tax increases in the wake of that.

Getting people back to work for Mitt Romney doesn't involve creating actual programs that do that. It involves the same talk about reducing regulations on big corporations, reducing taxes on those who can accumulating the most money, and simply hoping they do the right thing and employ more Americans.

That, even as the Chainsaw Als and Sam Waltons encouraged folks to cut jobs here to increase their profits, and make their products where they could pay people slave labor wages with fewer of those troublesome rules. See, that's the farce of it. For these people, there is no floor to the depths they would take our society, looking for that extra dollar for their bottom line, before they would ship jobs back.

Romney's version of hope is vain hope. It's the hope that job creating strategies that failed to create jobs will work. It's the hope that people who deliberately lowball wages and ship jobs overseas will somehow find it in their hearts to create jobs here, and in vast numbers.

Our policies in the Democratic party are not built on such elaborate castles of air. Jobs don't create themselves. They come when you invest in domestic industries. They come when people on the street have money in their pockets to spend, not a yawning hole in their finances consuming every dollar they make.

We haven't solved everything. With the Republicans standing in the way of anything and everything we try to do, it's been an epic effort to get anything done. But if you want the truth, it's this: The Obama Administration, following job losses brought on by an out of control recession that was taking several hundred thousands jobs a month when he took office, has managed to keep consistent job growth.

Considering that Bush's version of a so-called "jobless recovery" had us actually losing jobs in the month after the recession ended by the tens of thousands, Obama's efforts have yielded better real world results than those who would now challenge what he promised as mere bumper-sticker fantasy.

In short, this is because we recognize that there's nothing magic about good policy, and that hope alone is not enough. We cannot simply hope that jobs will appear out of the goodness of the hearts of the corporations and the rich. They're comfortable socking back record amounts of cash, and not having to take actual risks in the market. They don't have to suffer like the unemployed do, even if they get fired. After all, they have their golden parachutes. Funny how all the talk of the need for consequences, for punishments as well as rewards fades out when we talk about those on top.

It's Romney and Republicans like him who would have you believe in faded bumper stickers, not us. It's Romney and the Republicans who operate from a fundamentally naive, truly failed policy of hope unchecked by reality. We Democrats don't just seek after hope, we seek after the means to realize those hopes, and that is what makes the difference.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2012 9:47 PM
Comments
Comment #335471

“even as Obama has gone out and done actual things to get people jobs, to get people off unemployment.”

What jobs has Obama created? The latest CBO numbers show unemployment still at 10%. Of course real unemployment is closer to 20%. If we take away Federal jobs, how many jobs has Obama actually created. We are going to end this year with the national debt above $16 trillion; how much has Obama cut from the debt. These are the things that are bothering Americans and these are the things that will drive this years elections.

By the way, I have read all the latest talking points from the left about who conservatives should or should not support. The exit polls from Florida’s primary showed only 14% of Floridians considered conservatism as a major reason for voting for Romney.

Posted by: Frank at February 1, 2012 9:13 AM
Comment #335472

Frank:

At it again with the phony employment numbers that you use to cast doubt on the real numbers? Unemployment still at 10%? Who says that at the CBO and how do they figure? Real unemployment at 20%? What is real about that?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 1, 2012 9:23 AM
Comment #335473

Romney: “Together, we will build an America where ‘hope’ is a new job with a paycheck — not a faded word on an old bumper-
sticker.”

I wonder if he read that off a teleprompter?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 1, 2012 9:24 AM
Comment #335476

And so, one of the funniest catch lines ever, now changes from “We are the Knights who say NI!” to “We are the Newts who say NO!”

Cue the coconuts, Patsy.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at February 1, 2012 9:48 AM
Comment #335477

Romney recently said, “I am not concerned with the very poor.”
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-im-not-concerned-very-poor-142659270.html

That is stunning. How more out of touch can someone get. Even if he was trying to say that he was more concerned with the middle class. To say that he’s not concerned with the very poor because they have a sufficient safety net is insane. Even if you do not agree with the safety net we have, I don’t think anyone on either side would say it was sufficient and working well. Once again he has demonstrated that he was born into privilege and has no concept of material need because he has been given everything he wants. He has left his children each a $100 million dollar trust fund to ensure the next generation of Romneys will be just as out of touch as he is.

Plus, he keeps running on being a job creator and uses some cherry picked numbers from several companies that actually produced new jobs (thanks only to his money not any strategic management decisions he has made) but he refuses to give the total balance of jobs created minus jobs lost under his leadership. The data should be easy to get. I’m thinking there’s a good reason, because his balance sheet looks pretty bad.

I also heard Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC manager say that even though there have been no less than 28 years of GOP presidents since LBJ to address the issue of continuing racial inequality that he was complaining that we haven’t tried the conservative means of addressing it. Then was evasive about what that actually meant. Finally, he said that the conservative plan to address the lingering inequality in this country was to deregulate and let the free market fix things.

All I have to say to that is “yikes!”

Posted by: tcsned at February 1, 2012 10:42 AM
Comment #335478

Frank:

You are again citing sources calling BLS numbers bogus based on the fact that workforce has changed dramatically due to the downturn? The unemployment rate is 8.5% and is measured a very specific way that does not change based on economic conditions or politics. Alternative measurements of unemployment cannot change that fact. Alternative measurements do not render U3 values “bogus” at all. They simply give different perspectives on the labor force than U3.

It’s undeniable that the labor force has been and still is hurting due to the recession. But why do critics like yourself latch on to any idea that lets you add percentage points to U3 so you can pretend things are worse now than when Obama took office? It’s simply not true.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 1, 2012 10:56 AM
Comment #335479

Stephen
What you fail to understand is that those “means to realize those hopes” have limits that must be adhered to or else people get really upset.
I know you on the left get tired of hearing this, but the most fundamental flaw of liberal thinking is that emotion and the need of money for government to satisfy those emotions, trump the individual rights of all, and that just does not fly with everybody.
No matter how much you hate it, the desires of society do not trump the rights of the individual.

Yes, under Bush, government spent more than it took in. What Bush should have done and what Obama should do now is cut taxes and slash spending as much as it takes to get us back to being a nation of limited government that made us special and very successful.

Posted by: kctim at February 1, 2012 11:07 AM
Comment #335480

kctim -

i think you have half of that right. We do indeed need to spend less but the cut taxes thing would mean we never pay off our debts and that we can never provide the services that this country needs to be a safe, stable place to live.

Posted by: tcsned at February 1, 2012 11:11 AM
Comment #335482

tcsned,
Romney said “I am not concerned with the very poor.”
It’s amazing. Apparently he doesn’t get the concept that a President is President of all the people, not just the rich ones, or not just one party. Incredible that he said that.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2012 11:34 AM
Comment #335483

Tcsned
Yes, the debt has to be addressed, but the only way to address it is in the same way it came to be: over time. It will have to be added to the price we are Constitutionally required to pay for a limited government.
It’s not really fair, but it would be a hell of a lot better than wasting money on living peoples lives for them, other countries or ridiculous studies.

Posted by: kctim at February 1, 2012 11:37 AM
Comment #335484

I will have to check on the liberal web sites; but I bet the talking point of the day is, Romney said “I am not concerned with the very poor.”

Posted by: TomT at February 1, 2012 11:49 AM
Comment #335485

TomT

Surely you don’t think they will intentionally leave out the “We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it” part of the quote, do you?

LOL!!!

Posted by: kctim at February 1, 2012 12:29 PM
Comment #335486

Frank-
The budget deficit has gone down every year Obama’s been in office, and this year is no different. You couldn’t say the same for the President that came before. they will continue to go down, especially since we ended That expensive elective war your people started

The latest CBO numbers do not peg U3 unemployment at 10.0%. They say that the workforce (from which the unemployment rate is drawn) has contracted for reasons other than Baby boomers retiring, and the economic downturn.

“Tyler Durden” never tells us what exactly that means. He never explains that anomaly in such a way as to cast doubt on the Bureau of Labor Statistics U3 unemployment measurment. Is it women exiting the workforce to be housewives? Is it folks medically retiring, like some of my relatives have?

The U3 numbers have never been figured from anything else but the workforce numbers. You can’t turn an anomalous downturn in the workforce as a whole, and make another unemployment number out of it.

As for federal jobs? Well, he has increased them significantly. That gets you 139,000 jobs, as of Summer 2011.

We lost about 4.243 million jobs, according to Bureau of labor statistics numbers the first year Obama was in office. Eighty percent of these job losses happened within the first six months of his administration (February through July) Even if you only measure until the Stimulus actually came into effect, a little over fifty percent of the job losses for Obama in 2009 came before his stimulus even had a chance to take effect.

Since January 2010, Obama’s added roughly two and a half million jobs. That means you have two and a third million jobs to account for.

As for Government jobs as a whole, those declined by a half a million, nationwide, putting a dent into a million job private sector increase (those two figures are as of July 2011)

You talk of the trillions in debt as if you had nothing to do with it. We were actually paying down our debt before your people introduced your tax cuts. You imbalanced the budget. We protested at the time, you said, in those much better economic times that it was necessary to run the deficits in order to stimulate the economy.

Yes, you said that. In fact, that’s what many of the tax breaks your people passed, and the President signed into law were called: stimulus bills. They were supply-side stimulus bills, so I guess the fact that they too came from deficits was okay. Stimulus only became a bad word when Obama did it, after the country had tipped over into one of the worst economic disasters of our time.

I guess we can’t afford to repair the economy, if it’s a Democrat in office, and it’s really necessary, rather than an effort to avoid a politically inconvenient slowdown or recession in a period of otherwise strong growth.

I swear, there hasn’t been one thing you folks have remained consistent in, apart from opposing anything Democrats do when they’re in charge of something.

If we maintain the average pace of job creation over the next twelve months that I figured for the last year, which is about 137,000 jobs a month, Obama will have completely made up for any and all jobs lost on his watch. He keeps that up for the next four years after that, and he will have added more jobs on his watch than George Bush ever created, about six and a half million.

And that’s if he only does average every month.

This, despite the GOP clamping itself around the Democrat’s ankles like a a ball and chain. If Democrats got back power, and did what they really wanted to do, I think we could get much, much better result than Republicans who obsess over debt, yet forsake the ability to pay it back through tax increases and increased economic activity.

I think America deserves better than Republican wishful thinking and empty hopes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2012 12:37 PM
Comment #335488

TomT-
Can you offer any rational reason why Democrats should not pick that low hanging fruit of political goodness?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2012 12:45 PM
Comment #335489

“Obama has gone out and done actual things to get people jobs, to get people off unemployment.”

You are getting hopes and dreams mixed up with reality.

Like spending my money to help companies go bankrupt.

When is the presidents ontourage going to use the VOLT when going to his campaign sites using taxpayer money.

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2012 12:47 PM
Comment #335490

Stephen “rhetorical” Daugherty

“They come when you invest in domestic industries.”

Like the several companies that have gone thru massive layoffs or bankruptcy.

The government has no business investing in private enterprise.

Obama should use the “BINDER & BINDER” TV add. It says “Don’t worry about the government. We will take of that ourself. You have enough to worry about.”

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2012 12:59 PM
Comment #335491

SD: I can’t think of one credible idea that would limit the future growth of government and government debt as a tradeoff for increased taxes now except for a Constitutional amendment. Don’t recall the Democratic party being much on board for that one. Since only an amendment can limit the actions of future governments, why should any plan that promises future budget savings for increased spending now be believed? (This cuts both ways. Remember the temporary Bush tax cuts?)

As much as you like to complain about Republican obstructionism, I don’t see you advocate for elimination of the 60 vote cloture rule. I guess this means that you really are in favor of it, because it has served both parties well in the past and will in the future.

You might get more folks on board with Medicare for all if there was a real debate about how we will ration certain types of health care to control cost. Otherwise, it is a endless hole to throw money down, to the detriment of our chlidren and grandchildren.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at February 1, 2012 1:07 PM
Comment #335492

If Romney is not very concerned about the poor because they have a safety net that can be fixed, then it begs the obvious question:

Who is he very concerned about?

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2012 1:56 PM
Comment #335493


So I guess the parties will be switching slogans this election cycle. Republicans will adopt a message of hope.

Obama will use, don’t worry, be happy, go shopping.

The social safety net is a liberal plot to keep people dependent on liberal government. This is what I have been hearing from some conservative talking heads and their echos.

The conservatives have made similar statements about programs that help workers, such as unemployment benefits, workman’s compensation, social security, medicare, etc. Calling for privatization or elimination of these programs. All of these programs are important and popular with the people and every negative statement made by conservatives about them will be a super pac add.

Romney’s statement about protecting the safety net for the poor will be compared to the statements made by conservatives about eliminating or weakening that net.

Romney’s statement to senior citizens that Republicans will not privatize social security and medicare will be juxtaposed to the conservative statements to the contrary.

It won’t be that hard to put these notions in the heads of voters because of the ongoing assault on working class people by Republican governors and state legislatures.

The Republican women in Florida really did a number on Newt. Their nullification of their husbands votes was like having a fifth column in the ranks. If Paul and Santorum had not been in the mix, it would have come down to Republican women Vs Republican men. That should have the patriachial and hierarchical sons of God chewing their cud.

Obama sings Al Green songs to his wife, all the time.

Posted by: jlw at February 1, 2012 2:04 PM
Comment #335494

tom humes-
Your logic is as clumsy as your nicknames. Bush you’re not, on that count.

I’ve provided the reality: steady job growth as Obama’s hold on policy has gotten stronger, as time has gone on. Things have not gotten worse. As for spending money to help company’s go bankrupt? A 97+% success rate is not that, by any stretch of the imagination. The American solar industry has grown, not shrunk.

If you’re going to claim failure, demonstrate that it actually exists.

Mike in Tampa-

SD: I can’t think of one credible idea that would limit the future growth of government and government debt as a tradeoff for increased taxes now except for a Constitutional amendment.

That’s credible? It takes much more Congressional or state support in order to get a constitutional amendment than it does to just pass a budget that reduces the deficit.

Which we’ve already done!

Your inability to think of other credible ideas is your problem. The door swings both ways on projections. If we got higher taxes on those who make more, on corporations and capital gains, we might actually do better, like we were doing, tax-wise, before Republicans monkeyed with the tax code.

As much as you like to complain about Republican obstructionism, I don’t see you advocate for elimination of the 60 vote cloture rule.

I have said precisely that. You’ve just failed to research my points over time thoroughly enough. Your guess is incorrect.

By the way, there could have been real debate on how we were going to fix medicare’s problems, but for some reason, folks in the GOP told them we were going to take their Medicare from them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2012 2:21 PM
Comment #335497

SD

Anything you disagree with is clumsy. I understand that.

jlw

Now we understand what he means about Green projects. Bring bid Al in and we will all be ok.

When he is alone I think he sings Pink Floyd.

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2012 3:35 PM
Comment #335499

Romney is whining about the sentence being taken out of context but he’s wrong. He did say that the safety net was more than sufficient and if not he would fix it. That’s almost as glib as the phrase out of context. First, does anyone really think that poverty in the US is ok? Sure, it’s better than in developing countries but still not anywhere close to ok. Second, if his fix is cutting these programs a he says that is going to make it worse. So, no, it was not blown out of proportion. He obviously doesn’t have a clue of what it’s like to be in poverty but he’s done a darn good job increasing the number of poor in this country and if elected would do exponentially more.

He’s also done a lot for the middle class by debt loading companies, selling off what he could then folding up shop - or shipping jobs off to other countries so these former employees can go to Walmart and earn minimum wage selling what they used to make. This guy is a shallow money grubber whose self worth derives solely from the money he makes. He’s never had to work for anything and never really had to try that hard or faced a situation where he could find himself not being able to make ends meet. Makes me happy that he will not be our next president. Heck, even his own party doesn’t like him,

tom humes - what’s wrong with Pink Floyd?

Posted by: tcsned at February 1, 2012 4:30 PM
Comment #335500

SD: One would have to be credulous to believe that congress will ever control the ever burgoning debt without some type of hard control on the amount of spending versus revenue.

I’m glad to see you will be willing to have a future Democratic minority “go along” and not use cloture as a club. I’ll look for your comments when that happens.

Are you trying to tell me that the GOP, not Democrats, have been the party that has used “they will take your Medicare” more? Sorry, that is not how I remeber it.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at February 1, 2012 5:00 PM
Comment #335501

tom humes-
Your arguments rely on perceptions, not the facts. The solar industry is growing in America, as is wind generation. Most of the recipients of the loans in the program Solyndra was in are, by over 97%, are current on their loans. GM is raking in the dough, despite your hatred for the intervention that saved it.

As for the Chevy Volt issue? I’m afraid naysayers like yourself have overhyped the problem. Simply put, the fire risk concerned happened quite some time after the actual crash. As in three weeks later. This might be caused by a coolant leak from the battery.

Republicans are hyping this, like they hype any setback with anything green as proof that the technology is unreliable and dangerous, but as the author of my source points out, there’s a real question as to whether purely gasoline driven vehicles, which after all carry around at least several gallons of a fairly volatile, flammable liquid around with them at all times are any less fire prone than a comparable hybrid.

As for Pink Floyd? I got nothing much against them. In fact, you might want to sing “Comfortably Numb” while Obama cruises to re-election. But seriously, it’s sad you feel the need to try and stuff me in that kind of pigeonhole. Can you really argue with somebody as an equal? Or do I have to fit into some category you consider beneath your contempt before you will dare venture a response?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #335502


Tom Humes, “the men don’t know, but the little girls understand.” They know who you mean when you talk individual liberty. They have children, so they know the consequences of your views on social programs. Do you conservative men really want the Democrats to switch to Hillary?

Mike in Tampa, if you need to refresh your memory, read the Ryan budget.

Obamacare is saving medicare money? That’s impossible isn’t it?

Posted by: jlw at February 1, 2012 5:29 PM
Comment #335503


“Comfortably Numb” Now that’s funny.

“Is there anybody in there”

Posted by: jlw at February 1, 2012 5:41 PM
Comment #335505

Mike in Tampa-
You need to remember things more clearly.

The attacks on Medicare Advantage cuts were pretty consistently there.

In fact, the Death Panel Controversy was pretty much a conflation of end of life counselling regarding living wills and things like that, and A medicare advisory panel (note the advisory part of that), which would have made suggestions to the medicare system about what treatments and drugs were most effective, reducing costs incurred by substandard and unnecessary treatments.

So, really, some of the Republican Party’s most prominent attacks were focused on cost-cutting measures and reforms.

The irony in all this is that the Medicare Advantage system was a boondoggle from the get-go, the private providers less efficient than the Medicare system itself, and the whole system itself stuffed by an unnecessary subsidy, of which much of the Obama Administration’s savings were derived. We also derived cost savings to pay for the new healthcare reform by making a better deal for the taxpayers with the pharmaceutical companies.

So, your failure to remember all this doesn’t just make your line of argument uncertain, but truly problematic, since your party’s own waste was the source of much of the money to pay for our reforms.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2012 5:47 PM
Comment #335506

jlw-
No, it is not impossible, apparently.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2012 5:51 PM
Comment #335508

Stephen “softskin” Daugherty

The VOLT is a flop. I did not mention the fire hazard. But I know of one owner of the car. He needs to go 30 miles to work. The VOLT does not get him there. I guess it is good to use if you are going 2 miles to the grocery store or church or whatever. But when you get back home don’t forget to plug it in or you will be up a creek without a paddle, well you could be there anyhow going anyplace in that VOLT. GM will probably change the name to induce more sales. They probably will name it VOLTSWAGEN ir something unorginal like that. I suggest a name like OBAMAWHEELS. Slogan for advertising would be:
“Do your neighborhood organizing in a trully liberal leftwing sedan. Get the work done in your very own ORGANIZER”.

Only weak people would consider a second round for someone with the baggage of Obama. He could hire enough people to carry his baggage to bring the unemployment rate down another tenth of a percent.

The utopia of Obamaites is heading for a freefall very soon. Stay tuned.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2012 6:40 PM
Comment #335509

“Are you trying to tell me that the GOP, not Democrats, have been the party that has used “they will take your Medicare” more? Sorry, that is not how I remeber it.”

Mike in Tampa,

This has already been said by jlw, but it needs to be re-stated: read the GOP Ryan Budget. It guts Medicare. You can argue that his long term budget is a realistic option in the face of unrelenting health cost inflation but you certainly can’t argue that the GOP has not threatened Medicare as we know it.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2012 7:15 PM
Comment #335511

Tom Humes: “The utopia of Obamaites is heading for a freefall very soon. Stay tuned.”

Somehow I don’t think liberals have as much invested in Obama winning as conservatives do in Obama losing. If you wake up the day after the election looking forward to a 2nd Obama term and a Democratic Party controlled House, what then?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 1, 2012 8:44 PM
Comment #335514

phx8:

If Romney is not very concerned about the poor because they have a safety net that can be fixed, then it begs the obvious question:

Who is he very concerned about?

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2012 1:40 AM
Comment #335515

IMO I wouldn.t worry about the poor or rich. The rich have all they need and the poor have their government entitlements such as fully paid medical, food stamps, subsidized housing, their government paid cell phones and whatever other entitrlements they have. The middle class however are the ones who are really getting the shaft. they have to pay for medical, housing, utilities, food and the like. If the system for the poor gets broken fix it, but right now it isn’t the poor are taken care of for the most part with the necessities of life. Even givin the opportunity for education so they do not have to remain poor. So who should a president worry more about, CHA CHIONG, THE MIDDLE CLASS WORKING STIFF WHO IS REALLY GETTING SCREWED.

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2012 8:39 AM
Comment #335516

In context Romney wanted to sound concerned about the middle class but ended up just looking like a rich jerk again. Surprised? Even the right threw up in their mouth a little when they saw Romney had said that.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 2, 2012 8:58 AM
Comment #335517

KAP: “So who should a president worry more about, CHA CHIONG, THE MIDDLE CLASS WORKING STIFF WHO IS REALLY GETTING SCREWED.”

This is why Obama’s campaign will be focuses on reaching middle class Americans. Romney tried but he failed. He’ll try again.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 2, 2012 8:59 AM
Comment #335518

He ain’t done to good of a job so far, so we should give him another 4 years to try?????????????? Adam

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2012 9:31 AM
Comment #335519

KAP: First of all I would argue he’s done a great job across the board given what he started with. Second it comes down to who will be better: Obama or Romney/Gingrich?

I’d say give Obama four more years to continue what he’s been doing: Reducing unemployment, reducing the deficit, letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, encouraging growth of alternative energy, ending the Bush wars, killing terrorists and pirates, and so on. I’d take Obama’s real record over what Romney and Gingrich pretend they will do. I know how the last Republican president turned out and I don’t want to go back.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 2, 2012 10:12 AM
Comment #335520

KAP - the poor also have almost no chance for social mobility. Endemic poverty is bad for social stability. If a conservative takes the presidency the social safety net will shrink increasing stability.

The middle class working stiff is getting screwed - not by Obama but by folks like Romney who enrich themselves by shipping jobs overseas, corporate mergers and takeovers, not paying their fair share in taxes, hiring undocumented workers, taking huge bonuses while decreasing worker wages, …

Thankfully, Romney is an awful candidate and keeps putting his foot in his mouth giving the Dems ample ammunition for the general election.

As to how Obama’s done so far - he ended the Iraq quagmire, is ending Afghanistan too, helped take out Qadaffy with no loss of life and minimal expense, stopped a depression, saved the US auto industry, passed healthcare reform all in the face of vitriolic hatred and a congress trying to prevent recovery for political gain. Might not be your agenda but it is for at least half of the country.

Posted by: tcsned at February 2, 2012 10:19 AM
Comment #335521

Adam, The last good Democrat we had was Clinton, I’ll agree with you on Bush but firmly disagree with you on Obama. Clinton was good because he knew how to work with opposite party controled congress this guy don’t. Giving Obama 4 more years would be like giving Carter 4 more.

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2012 10:24 AM
Comment #335522

KAP - I think you have that backwards - the GOP has utterly refused to work with Obama he has tried reaching out, compromising, giving in, bending over backwards … nothing. He has now understandingly given up on them.

If he proposed the most far right Tea Party legislation they would still find a way to disagree.

Posted by: tcsned at February 2, 2012 10:32 AM
Comment #335523

tcsned, Why are jobs going overseas, 1- Union demands, 2- High taxes, 3- rediculous regulations. You can praise Obama all you want but IMO he has to many failed policies. What is he going to run on what accvomplishments, He got Bin Laden that lasted a couple days, Qudaffiy all but forgotten. Beside that was done more by the French and British. If we keep Obama watch more jobs go overseas!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2012 10:36 AM
Comment #335524

tcsned, Obama has one problem in the Senate, Reid, who won’t work with the otherside. Close to 30 jobs bill tabled by him from the house. Maybe he would work with the other side but he has to rein in the idiots in the Senate.

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2012 10:40 AM
Comment #335526

KAP: “Giving Obama 4 more years would be like giving Carter 4 more.”

The irony of that statement is who knows how we would have seen Carter after 4 more years? Define Reagan, Clinton, and Bush by their first terms alone and it changes everything. Clinton would be seen like Carter probably. Bush would have been hailed as one of the best presidents we ever had instead of this guy no one wants to mention. Reagan would be like we think of President George H.W. Bush. We just don’t think much about one term presidents these days.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 2, 2012 12:29 PM
Comment #335527

KAP - Those reasons for jobs leaving for overseas are more like the excuses corporations give rather than the real reasons. I’d say #1 horrible trade deals with China allowing an oppressive country to exploit its own people to enrich them selves and the money to continue to oppress its people. #2 - other countries with corrupt governments that allow similar practices to China for a under the table payments. #3 countries with no worker/environmental regulations to protect their people from harm. This is as much Bill Clinton’s fault as anyone.

I’d agree about Harry Reid but Mitch McConnell is no different neither is John Boehner. When the GOP has filibustered almost every bill that has come to the Senate it’s hard to point all the blame at Reid.

Posted by: tcsned at February 2, 2012 12:39 PM
Comment #335528

KAP-
Job’s bills, right?

Not really. None of them really deal with funding actual job creation. They write up bills with budget cuts, tax loopholes, that push things like the XL pipeline- for the most part, everything they’d be pushing for anyways, but which they’ve chosen to call jobs bills on the theory that their policies create jobs.

Even if the track record doesn’t agree.

Obama’s legislation is specifically aimed at creating jobs, and it’s been stalled in the Senate by Republican Filibusters and blocked in the house. They show no desire to compromise, unless by compromise you mean concede to everything they want without a fight or any concession in return.

As far as why jobs are going overseas? Simple: to increase the amount of money going to the top in the companies in question. There’s no way a worker in this country can accept a steep enough wage drop or accept the sort of working conditions that as Americans we would regard as barbaric. We literally could not compete with them, and so folks up top in companies seek out labor from other countries.

Only trouble is, seventy percent of our economy depends on consumer spending, and its the jobs of those consumers you send overseas. The market will only let you discount the products they’re expected to buy so much before they can lower it no more.

High taxes aren’t a problem, nor are regulations. These aren’t the reasons given for the lay-offs or failures to create more jobs. A lack of consumer spending is. You could open up a store, and give the folks in there new jobs, but the customers aren’t there to patronize the establishment, to make it profitable.

It’s absurd, the argument you’re making on who the President worries about. Who pushed tax cuts for the middle class, and who opposed them without extensions for the rich? Who has blocked unemployment benefits, and who tries to maintain them? Who actually got out there and pushed for a real jobs bill first thing in his administration?

Who pushed for a federal agency meant to police the often unscrupulous behavior of this nation’s creditors?

These people claim to care, but their policies come at the cost, not the gain of those people.

Tom Humes-
Well, first, does the man gas the vehicle up? Second, if you forget to gas up a car, doesn’t it stop going anyplace on that basis, too?

Sigh. Your people have built your politics on a resentful hatred of anything different, but you’ve got no other options to offer people. Sooner or later, the longer range options will become the norm. Obama’s aim is that we profit from this. The GOP just aims to get rid of Obama.

You can make vain statements about how we’re cruising for a bruising, but really, yours is the problem, because sooner or later, the problems you never thought to deal with will come to the fore anyways.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2012 1:18 PM
Comment #335530

Why are things still so screwed up Stephen? O I know your going to blame everyone but your precious Democrats. Who is the obstructor now? I’ll tell you that idiot Senator Reid tables everything the republican controled House sends up. We have government agencies that are uncontrollable such as the EPA, justice department, labor department. I don’t blame corporations for taking their business out of the U.S. We give Obama another term he will turn the U.S. into a third world country. High taxes are a problem, Unions and their rediculous demands, and rediculous regulations that prevent any industry from comming here.

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment #335531


Kap, I believe the reasons you gave for jobs leaving the country is spot on. The unions, taxes and regulations are all a part of the program which created a huge middle class that could pursue the American Way of Life. Get rid of the unions and collective bargaining, make taxation as lenient as possible for the wealthy and their corporations, weaken or eliminate environmental and other regulations, such as the minimum wage, and business will thrive in America. We commonly refer to countries with such business friendly conditions as third world countries.

The latest Republican jobs bill is a gimmick aimed at preventing defence cuts.

Gimmick is the proper word to apply to jobs, as in the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, all described as jobs bills. It took a while to realize that the jobs part referred to job creation in China.

Another Republican jobs bill is to take an international project out of the hands of the State Department and turn it into the Keystone pork project labeled as a jobs bill. This is pleasing to the unions involved, the drill baby drill crowd, and the wealthy investors. It provides a tax free investment opportunity, gives the change over my dead body crowd something to cheer about, and is a crude attempt to convince private sector unions that they aren’t next on the take out the unions hit list. Knowing the mentality of many union workers, this ploy will convince some despite the current assault on collective bargaining and the right to work laws.

Clinton negotiated with Republicans? After they couldn’t defeat him in 96. Clinton negotiated Welfare Reform and a balanced budget agreement. Clinton did not negotiate NAFTA, he merely signed it while lying to the people about it’s affects. He did no negotiating before signing GLB.

Today, there is only one way for Obama to be seen as compromising as far as Republicans are concerned. He can force the Senate to accept the Republican controlled House legislative proposals unaltered and sign them into law. He can allow himself to be blackmailed on behalf of taxation of the wealthy and the corporations, on the keystone pipeline, and other Republican priorities. Or, he can be labeled uncooperative by Republicans.

I could care less if Republicans don’t want to mention Bush, that isn’t the problem.

What separates many on the left from many on the right is that many of us on the left acknowledge the Democratic Party compromises on corporate friendly policies are a major cause of the condition the country now finds itself in. While many on the right steadfastly refuse to admit that those wealth/corporate friendly policies have anything to do with our current situation and insist that the country continue to follow those polices and expand on them, including the elimination or privatization of many of the programs that helped to create the American Way of Life.

Posted by: jlw at February 2, 2012 2:53 PM
Comment #335533

KAP - part of the problem between Boehner and Reid is that the GOP House members keep sending up bills that are not anywhere close to reasonable legislation that anyone in their right mind … or left mind as the case may be :) would vote for. It is a cynical move to send these bills up knowing they won’t fly so they can use it as a bludgeon against the Democrats. It is a purely political move not a move to make law. The GOP is not the only one guilty of doing this but that’s what it is.

Posted by: tcsned at February 2, 2012 3:29 PM
Comment #335534

tcsned, I understand that it is a ploy that both side do but it is time for both sides to quit acting like little children and work together. I can negotiate better with my grandchildren then these bozos we have in congress and I mean that for both sides. It’s about time Obama gets some gonads and get on congress’s ass and if he is worthy of a second chance he better do like the Rock in the WWE says “BOOTS TO ASSES” and quit qith his vacations until the economyn gets better. The price of gas in my city just rose $0.25 bringing it up to $3.55 that kind of crap isn’t going to help him much.

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2012 4:02 PM
Comment #335535


I am hopeful that Obama will seize the initiative before Newt does and announce a super high tech jobs proposal that will dwarf not only the Moon colony, but all jobs programs of the past, including the interstate highway system. An electric interstate highway system the will charge vehicles on the go.

Researchers at Stanford University say they believe this can be accomplished using magnetic resonance technology. This will create construction jobs, green jobs, auto industry jobs, recycling jobs and many other jobs in related fields.

Using wind and solar energy to power much or all of this grid and reducing the need for gasoline and diesel fuel will greatly reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, if not eliminate it. A 10-15 year time frame on completing the highway and producing the vehicles to take advantage of it will put this country ahead of the energy curve crunch.

Posted by: jlw at February 2, 2012 4:26 PM
Comment #335536

“Well, first, does the man gas the vehicle up? Second, if you forget to gas up a car, doesn’t it stop going anyplace on that basis, too?”

That statement is ignorance at work. The statement is degrading, and cheap. You meant nothing but smear. Something you say you never do. You just dit it.

You are just an empty suit.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #335537

jlw,
It seems obvious, going with electric cars, and it addresses a multitude of problems with one solution. It’s a perfect example of where government can lead and industry follow, much like the space program, which paid for itself a hundred fold or more.

Posted by: phx8 at February 2, 2012 4:46 PM
Comment #335538

Once again you use the phrase “your people”. You are talking out of your arse.

My people are my family.

If you are going to continue to use that disrespectful phrase I am going to use every adjective that fits the left and call them your people.

Try me and see. I will start with Un-American. That is what your people are.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2012 4:48 PM
Comment #335539

Now if you really want to know the facts go to the Bible.
Daniel chapter 5

5:26 Mene
5:27 Tekel
5:28 Peres

Learn what those mean

Have your people from Belshazaar read it to and learn.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #335540


Kap, speaking for myself, I agree with you. While Obama has moved, in a small way, to denounce the Congress, he hasn’t been nearly as forceful as “Boots to Asses.” Since he is a Democrat, I can’t see him denouncing the Democrats as much as the Republicans, but he must be frank enough with the people to denounce the Democrats as part of the problem.

I also agree that the oil speculators could make or break his presidency this fall.

It saddens me that there will be few Democratic primary challengers going after Democratic incumbents and that the tea party seems less enthusiastic about challenging Republican incumbents as they were in 2010. While I am deeply disappointed in the tea party candidates determination to continue the support for corpocracy legislation, at least many Republicans were willing to challenge the status quo, even if was for the benefit of the corpocracy. Perhaps the lessening of enthusiasm is a result of the way in which these candidates have conducted themselves.

Posted by: jlw at February 2, 2012 4:56 PM
Comment #335541


Phx8, IMO, what made America great, made it the empire that it is, was thinking big. Big as in transcontinental railways, Panama Canal, interstate highway system, space program, etc. It is almost always the case that the benefits returned from thinking big are under estimated or under valued.

Posted by: jlw at February 2, 2012 5:05 PM
Post a comment