Not that any in the echo chamber will be convinced, but it sure seems like their central arguement -- on their central theme of the campaign -- is false.

Ooops.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...nts-top-republ/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-06/clinton-fact-check-democratic-convention/57627036/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

USA Today looks at the facts and stretches in his speech...they find no lies, and few stretches, and confirm all the important numbers Clinton used last night, especially the big job numbers over the decades coming under Democratic Presidents, and with the Republicans costing us over 1,000,000 jobs over the past couple of years.

Fish on...

Todd

Also, August job numbers came out better than expected.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-economy-jobs-020120906,0,1643009.story

Republicans are treading on dangerous grounds claiming that Obama is bad for jobs, that Democrats are bad for jobs, and that Republicans are good for jobs...three claims that are untrue, and also the main basis of their argument for why Romney should be President.

Fish on...

Todd

Uh Oh, there you guys go using logic and facts to make your point, now your going to really confuse all those Tpubs!


Fishy

If Bill would jump into the race, I would vote for him waaayyy before Pres. Obama because Pres. Clinton had an economic plan, Pres. Obama has no plan, not even a sketch on a cocktail napkin.

fox needs to look at this but facts don't mean anything to them

But they are significantly better than what the previous guy did in over twice as much time, right? That wouldn't be an issue if everyone would agree that the last guy did a bad job but the crazy part is a bunch of RWWJ would still vote Bush>Obama AND be talking about jobs and the economy while they did it.

Now, hide yer guns... I heard he's a comin'. He's just waiting until the second term to spring it on us. That is IF he doesn't cancel the election first and use DSHS to put us all into concentration camps.

Right?

These Muslims are [Bleeeeep!] tricky I tell ya!

Has Romney proposed one yet,cause I just hear rhetoric.

Fishy

To my knowledge Romney hasn't and I haven't said I would vote for Romney either. Still waiting on an Obama budget too. Also waiting for the Obama jobs council to convene too.

The real question is this and Vegas should make it a prop bet: Which will be lower if Obama wins a second term: His golf handicap or the unemployment rate. When Jay Carney was asked not too long ago why the council had not had a meeting in the last six months his response was " the President has had a lot on his plate".

Also from Politifact and deemed True:

"The RNC said that over the last six months, Obama has golfed 10 times and held 106 fundraisers even as his jobs council didn’t meet once. The RNC’s tally is on target. We rate the statement True."

Bill's facts and figures have been proven to be true. There is just one big problem with them: We aren't going to get to vote for LBJ, or JFK, or Bill Clinton. We get to choose between Romney and President Obama and you cannot tell me that in private moments Bill Clinton doesn't disagree with the President on most economic issues.

All the data shows is that jobs fall into buckets of years with certain presidents sitting. Meaningless w/o correlation to cause. If so called educated people are this guliable it's no surprise why we are in the mess we are in . One side says Romney eats babies and the other says Obama fuks the dog and sells the pups while the mess gets bigger.

AM is the only one here that has said anything of value and truth. Obama has failed in his oath to up hold the constitution. Let's talk about that it means something.

She is the only one that voted for the opposite side who is consistent in her criticism of Bush and Obama for that violation of oath. Congrats for that AM it is important.

The defense of either side is baffling to me.

I just can't figure how you can get bent over by both parties, but choose to defend one of them. It's political A2M.

I'm about a month away from deciding who I'm going to vote for. I need to do some figuring first, and weigh my options.

I haven't listened to either of the party puppets because you can't believe a thing that comes out of their holes............not one f'n word. I listened before and it was all bullsh!t, so I'm not going to waste my time pretending it will be different this time.

It won't.

So I'll find someone to vote for who isn't a piece of sh!t. I'm just not going to be a party to the RvD thing any more because there is only a subtle difference.

Voting for Ron Paul is the same as voting for Mork from Ork, and has as much effect.

I don't find it to be particularly savvy to note that politicians tend to be owned part and parcel by big business and to vote for one, then vote them out, then vote for another, then vote them out...you had to vote for them in the first place (when they were already owned part and parcel), and somehow you think you're smart by voting them out and voting in someone else that you'll accuse of the same thing four years later.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Voting for Ron Paul has one effect that is better than voting for Ron Paul...if you don't vote at all, then you need to shutthefuckup and not say one word...not one at all...about anything that happens in the political world.

If you vote for Ron Paul you have, to my mind, at least (only) preserved your right to bitchh.

I don't find it particularly savvy to do the same thing you've always done and expect different results.

Dan S for president.

And voting for Mork this time, just like you did last time, is different how?

Fish on...

Todd

There is zero difference in throwing a vote away and sitting out of the process in protest. Both are equally valid under the const. And by any measure there were zero options in 2008 and there are zero options in 2010 . The Egyptians and lybians have bigger sacks than we do the only bigger cowards in the world than Americans are the Chinese.

27 months of private sector job growth = 332,000 jobs.

Todd

I'm not going to be the "M" in the A2M I mentioned earlier.

That's all.

Oh you mean he flip flopped?

FIshy

Perhaps you also counted the days Bush took off dirt biking and cutting brush while proposing to send our troops into a disastrous war!

FIshy

First of all, get your claims straight. Republicans dont claim republicans are good for jobs. They claim that the private sector is good for jobs. Its the largest network of job creators, which no govt can or should compete with. Obama has shown, he will throw money at any losing concept, as long as it fits that agenda, like Solyndra and electric cars and Petrobas in Brazil. But he wont let private money create a pipeline to pump oil and sell it to whomever will buy it from a republican state. If you want to make Gasoline in North Dakota, then try and get an Obama permit for a plant. Good luck.

Private business does its own research to decide what product or services are needed and profitable. The fact is, the export of jobs is a function of population growth or growing standard of living, such as china and India. China highway system is expect to surpass the total miles in the US in our lifetime. Just like states compete, now countries compete. Excessive govt control raises the hassle and expense of creating a business or running it. Most commercial properties take a year from Demolition to construction, while they take weeks in other countries.

Govt promised more jobs thru more military bases, (which are closed only by non elected base commissions) and more post offices (which are closing) why? cause peace broke out a while back and we dont need to kill as many trees to write a letter. Govt responds much to slowly to dieing industries. They do have plans to kill a few, if they get a chance.

The Obama Administration counted census workers. How desperate is that? Did they subtract out all the lost jobs at Solyndra and the rest of the taxpayer funded losers? We still have to pay the interest on his 5 trillion in NEW debt. It takes over 300,000 new jobs per month, just to keep up with a new entries into the work force. No government can keep up that pace, unless you want to cull the population thru never ending war. Or you have every gas station attended and a cop on every corner.

The problem with Keynesian economics is, you eventually run out of other peoples money.

Blow jobs don't count.

Political News



60-day election sprint opens with weak jobs report

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/60-day-election-sprint-opens-with-weak-jobs-report-168908246.html

It's Bush's fault!

Quite the flocking convention

Bo has no F-in clue how to turn this around. I doubt romney does either. There again is no winner this election.

And the talk of RP being a thrown away vote is exactly what they all want you to believe. Dont throw your vote away we hear over and over. I ask how voting for either one of the two parties is not exactly that.......A thrown away vote. How many time do we have to all bang our heads against the wall before we stop and say, "shait, that hurts. I should quit doing that." Sending any sitting member of either party back is exactly that.

I know I know......it is the other guys fault. If only they were not holding my party back it would all be roses. To quote chuck......JFC! Grow a brain and a pair. Dont throw your vote away.

Here you go Fishy.

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/08/mitt-romneys-plan-stronger-middle-class01

Mitt Romney’s Plan for a Stronger Middle Class
A Plan For More Jobs And More Take-Home Pay

Energy Independence
• Increase access to domestic energy resources
• Streamline permitting for exploration and
development
• Eliminate regulations destroying the coal industry
• Approve the Keystone XL pipeline

The Skills To Succeed
• Give every family access to a great school and
quality teachers
• Provide access to affordable and effective higher
education options
• Focus job training programs on building valuable
skills that align with opportunities
• Attract and retain the best and the brightest from
around the world

Trade That Works For America
• Curtail the unfair trade practices of countries
like China
• Open new markets for American goods and services
• Build stronger economic ties in Latin America
• Create a Reagan Economic Zone to strengthen free
enterprise around the world

Cut The Deficit
• Immediately reduce non-security discretionary
spending by five percent
• Cap federal spending below twenty percent of
the economy
• Give states responsibility for programs that they can
implement more effectively
• Consolidate agencies and align compensation
of federal workers with their private-sector
counterparts

Champion Small Business
• Reduce taxes on job creation through individual and
corporate tax reform
• Stop the increases in regulation that are tangling job
creators in red tape
• Protect workers and businesses from strong-arm
labor union tactics
• Replace Obamacare with real health care reform
that controls cost and improves care

Sadly, not around my house.

I see this thread getting jacked!



Fishy

Stam loves it when anything's a wreck.

1. Bush tax cuts.

2. Medicare drug expansion...unpaid for.

There's two pretty good examples right there.

Fish on...

Todd

Wonder how many of those 368K that left the workforce are now on social security disability

Bwp. I do not remember any one holding a gun to Obamas head and forcing him to run. If memory serves he held his hand up volunteered and said he would clean it up in four years . Now , when he fails I am an angry white racist for holding him to his own promises? Fuk me if that's the new reality. Fuk us all if that's how it now works.

Bush went to congress numerous times about the impending mortgage meltdown and was basically told it wasn't a problem. Your hero Barnie Frank was implicit in the destruction of the economy.

shhhhhhhh facts will get you no kudos. The libs need Bush for a
scapegoat to cover their Azzes.

Office of the Press Secretary
October 9, 2008

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
The Washington Times Fails To Research The Administration's Efforts To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac









White House News




Setting the Record Straight
In Focus: Economy


Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late. "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade." (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08)

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001
•April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002
•May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
•February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.


•September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.


•September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)


•October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)


•November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
•February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)


•February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)


•April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)


•June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
•April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)


•July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007
•August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)


•August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)


•December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008
•February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)


•March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)


•April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)


•May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

◦"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)


◦"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)


◦"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

•June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)


•July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.


•September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08

Government Employment

During today’s round table on ABC, Rand Paul seemed shocked at my claim that government employment is down under Obama. Of course, it is. But maybe he’s thinking of the fact that since govt employment rose under Bush, we’re still at higher absolute levels than we were a decade ago.

That is, however, a strange comparison: other things equal, you’d expect government employment to grow with population (remember, the typical government employee is a schoolteacher). And here’s what has happened to government employment per capita:

I know Republicans know, just know, that government has surged under Obama. But it ain’t so.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/government-employment/

Fishy

It's all Bush's fault!

Kinda amusing that documented and dated facts have no weight when
they fly in the face of the libs mental rictus.
It's Bush's fault is their mantra.

Bush's fault!

I remember when it was Carters fault. Then the media mocked Reaganomics, until it worked. Then they stopped calling it Reaganomics. By late in his second term, NBC was asking their guests, how much longer the good economy would last.

They actually tried to talk down the success of the economy. Bryant Gumble and NBC in particular. Then they could not get enough air time for the "peace dividend" when the wall fell in 89.

Then the savings and loans got into trouble, so they blamed bush after he bit the bullet and raised taxes.

Clinton comes along and he retroactively raises taxes on the dead in 93. But he worked so hard.... Clinton recently said his administration benefitted from the technology boom of the nineties. Bush only had the housing industry to grow the economy. He said we needed a new industry every eight years. Almost word for word at his Global initiative conference, just a couple years ago.

And in 2013 all our taxes are going up. But since their is no Senate budget, spending will also go up, putting us further in debt. But no new industry. Just killing a few for the enviromental folks. Watch pay shrink some more to offset Obama care. Anyone who remembers Nixon wage and price controls will sort of understand, the pie in a single company is only feeds so many people. They cant print money.

Congrats?

I'd be shocked if Rand Paul knew that you exist.

First of all, Fannie and Freddie don't write loans, they purchase loans from originators. During the Clinton Admin, Congress in a very bi-partisan move with very heavy support from the Clinton folks, lowered the loan requirements for Fannie and Freddie, ie, they were allowed to buy much riskier loans. This was the start of the snow ball that came to a head with the sub prime mortgage meltdown. Every politician supported the original endeavor and almost everyone turned a blind eye to the impending implosion of Fannie and Freddie. However, most don't know that because during this period Fannie and Freddie were doing so many loans, FHA eased many of their underwriting requirements as well to get in on the action. Today, FHA is on the hook for tons of mortgages and the taxpayer is far from off the hook in this mess.

Id like to see more than one source that said 1/4 loans was Fannie or Freddie. They held seminars for lenders to make more loans. Jamie Gorelick, Johnson and Raines, all Clinton folks walked away with tens of millions of dollars in bonuses. Havent read a word about any wage clawbacks.

It isn't an urban myth, it is fact. I think I am pretty qualified to comment on it also as I am a certified residential real estate appraiser who is also FHA certified.

I don't know any economists and I don't typically do the C/P deal. However if that is what you want, read this and learn a little bit. This guy at the NY Times had more foresight than anyone. Note the date on the article. I'm sure you would like to expand your knowledge a little bit.

NY Times

My favorite paragraph is the last one.

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

God what a stupid link that is. You only ask that question, when you want to avoid the truth.

A bubble is in fact the result of running out of buyers. By 2005 in the fall, the banks were making interest only loans to dead beats and their girlfriends, who were not even married. I met one. It was exactly his situation. My buddy is a mortgage broker and he told me all the loans that required no verification were called drug dealer loans. How stupid is that?

Sir, In an earlier post you stated that,

"Fannie & Freddie were not the cause of the collapse, they played a role, of course they did, but most economist would disagree with the claim that they had anything to do with the collapse because they were not the big players."

And to support that claim you posted a link to a site.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/07/did-fannie-and.html

The lead to the story is,

"Did Fannie and Freddie Cause the Mortgage Crisis?"

Jim Hamilton argues that Fannie and Freddie are partly to blame for "causing the underlying problem we face today":

Did Fannie and Freddie cause the mortgage crisis?, by Jim Hamilton: Some thoughts about the role played by the GSEs in the run-up in mortgage debt and house prices.

Paul Krugman ably lays out the case for why it's conceivable that Fannie and Freddie could have made a contribution...

I have a two questions for you: is Paul Krugman a Keynesian, and who was the first president of the United States?

Please, wake up and smell the coffee.

If you read what I wrote, I don't blame FNMA and Freddie exclusively for the crash, I blame Congress and the Clinton Admin for knocking loose the first rocks that started the avalanche. One thing to keep in mind: lenders and banks were selling their loans in record numbers to Fannie and Freddie after the reduction in underwriting regulations. So if you cannot sell a questionable loan, will you write that loan and keep it in house? Some did stay in house but the vast majority were sold to FNMA.


Absolutely, banks, mortgage brokers, politicians, realtors, and yes, even appraisers did their part to contribute to the mess. Guess what, I put a huge chunk of blame on CONSUMERS too.

It was my opinion a few years ago that we needed to get back to sound lending principles that we had gotten away from. (Dogfish knows way more about lending money than I can ever hope to) Too many borrowers had no skin in the game, ie, way too much real estate purchased with 0 money down and sellers paying all closing costs.

What a maroon....

His best work was cleaning out his desk. We are still paying Egypt to keep the peace with Israel. Checkbook diplomacy. 40 states were right on to get rid of that clown.

Well dear when I look for cake, I always consider gravity.

You are not sure Krugman is a Kenyan? How about Keynsian?

And you call the questioner a dummy....

It will probably shock you then to learn that I was not the author.



Fishy

It was the lack of quotation marks that got him.

Yeah, there are lots of articles written by "Fishy" in the newspapers.

Fishy

Obstruct and Exploit

Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.

There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you’d never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy “works,” that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.

But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president’s policies have failed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinio...eneral&_r=0


Fishy

Too bad he didn't take a lesson from FDR. The WPA and CCC
put a lot of guy to work and essentially ended the depession.
Most of the O guys efforts about jobs have been BS electioneering
in recent times.
And immigration..
And taxes....
And 100 Mil. + election spending on the media.
etc.

And the conservatives are better at budgeting!


Fishy

Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans

The Republicans' plan to extend the Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy would cost $36.6 billion more than the Democrats' plan, which extends cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.html


Fishy

Wow... Not hard to see where the revenue gets lost under the Republican plan. Clearly, job creation is an expensive endeavor!

What we need is a comprehensive approach that curtails spending while spreading the tax burden equitably, ensuring that all citizens prosper.

Looking at historical facts show that corporations and the wealthy have paid more in taxes during particularly prosperous times.

If people do not have the money they cannot demand more products and services.


Fishy

No, re-read the article and my comments.

Fishy

Please, like the Dems stood around and looked at ways to make our economy worse, ask other people about the healthcare Obama legislated and you'll get many positive responses.

Fishy

Is that the offical ding bat position?

"What we need is a comprehensive approach that curtails spending while spreading the tax burden equitably, ensuring that all citizens prosper. "

Totally agree. So, how we gonna get the 50% of the population that pays no taxes to buck up?

Increase their wages retroactively from the mid seventies when wages stagnated and have not kept up with the rate of inflation and the 1% has reaped unconscionable increases to their bottom lines.

See graph at left!


Fishy

Do you know why it hasnt kept up with inflation?

Do you know what causes inflation?

My thoughts exactly, when the lower 50% pay less than 2.5% of the federal tax burden, it's time to make some changes.

What changes would that be JG?

Fishy

Two examples of why you get such pointed responses, please don't act like your the only one that understands these things!

Fishy

I have always been a very firm believer that people make better choices and are more responsible when they have even just a little "skin in the game".

Everyone should contribute some federal income tax.

Do the so-called 50% that pay no federal income tax have any taxable income? Kinda' hard to tax income if ya' don't have any.

The beneficial part is that JG would stop sniveling.

Aah the pain of it all. The O guy is an abject failure. There are still
some rich folks. Another 4 year will fix that. Misery loves company.
A cliche from the USSR.

So you don't think the person struggling to pay for rent,food,healthcare and education doesn't already have skin in the game?

Under your direction even if they get some type of public assistance they should pay? So we would be paying ourselves back instead of looking for ways to give them a hand up so that they can contribute.

I guess I don't see any logic there what so ever.

Fishy

There is already movement in manufacturing jobs being brought back.
Your right we don't need people to pay a pittance in taxes we need people to pay lots of taxes. If people do not have money they cannot demand the goods and services that create JOBS, that is what creates jobs. Not tax cuts for corporations that are already making record profits.

Romney has a record of not creating jobs but personal income and leaving the tax payer with the bill so I don't see where he will be any different at getting big business to "help out".

Fishy

Keep the tax cuts for those who will use the money to improve the economy...the middle class.

That, of course, assumes that you are interested in helping the economy, not just blowing steam out yer ass...which, in spite of your signature line, is not the case.

Or, just keep regurgitating FoxNews idea that it's just not fair that those pesky poor people don't pay enough taxes, a la Jerry Garcia.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah cause that won't impact the deficit in the least! I thought you wanted to pay down the debt?

Oh wait this is the new / old way of Republican math. Whine and squeal about the debt and then run it up some more while pointing the finger at the Dems.

"We cannot afford to double down on trickle down"

Bill Clinton 2012 DNC



Fishy

He shouldn't be ashamed, and in spite of what the right wing talking jackasses and their big mouthed minions say, no one is envious of his success or jealous of his money.

However, being a corporate raider at Bain is not experience to be a President in any way, shape, or form, as the USA is not a business, the people are not employees, and making a profit is not what the President does.

His record as Governor, however, is that of someone who created less jobs than 46 or 47 other governors during his tenure.

Fish on...

Todd

AM, Romney did make money but left us the taxpayers with a large part of the bill! I never said he should be ashamed but we should know the facts and those facts stink when you get into our pockets to profit.

Hank, Look to the left at the graph and then do a historical fact check to see when the economy has done the best and what the tax rates were at that time. Talk about not understanding anything.

It's the economy, so lets give money to those that are already making more than they ever have in history.
It's the debt, so lets give tax breaks to those that have profited so handsomely while cutting funding for those in need.Oh and increase funding for the military that they have not even asked for!

Sometimes I am astounded by your fervent blindness.

Fishy

blah blah blah blah....sheesh....

When you say things like this, it reduces your credibility and makes you sound similar to the birthers.

I've heard Pres Obama talk about higher mileage vehicles and "IF" the price of gas increases we would still win, I've never heard him ascribe to us having higher fuel prices.

Fishy

You would have...if you had listened to FauxNews.

Fish on...

Todd

Aunty, can I call you "3 Pinocchios" from now on?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...0EW9R_blog.html

Hell maybe Romney, when gov' had to deal with your class, unemployable.

Um... OK. Can I still call you 3 Pinocchios seeing as they basically came to the same conclusion as the Washington Post article I posted.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/obama-wanted-higher-gasoline-prices/

Doesn't really matter, I'm done for now. I think Abu might be onto something.

Todd, that sounds great and all but the unemployment rate during his term was like 4.7% and unemployment was pretty low everywhere then too. So, if you are below 5% unemployment, everyone that wants to work is working. Not much job creation required. So the lefts claims of not creating jobs as governor don't really wash.

I still think everybody should pay something. I will be less careful spending my rich uncle's money and more careful spending my own money

Screw reason.....I'm voting for the ice cream........

a story....


We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.'


The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided that we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and, from those, Jimmy and Heather were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jimmy might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Heather's mother.

The day for their speeches arrived. Jimmy went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now is was Heather's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."

She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn't know.

The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jimmy was forgotten. Heather won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream and 52 percent of the people react like nine year olds. They want the “ice cream.” The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.

Remember, the government cannot give--anything to anyone
--that they have not first taken away from someone else.

Did you vote for the ice cream?

Remember this: November is Take Out the Trash month!

Jeez, saw the link was from NBC News and thought for sure it would be Kris Jenner's breast augmentation.

Chuck---It's funny how much chit Toff used to give BWP when he dressed up like a Rep....but now that she's crossed dressed and become a democrap ball licker the silence is deafening.

More proof that dipchits and assshats will find each other even whilst not wearing glow-in-the dark condoms.

The stink those douchebags emit leaves a strong scent trail....

Put down the straw, let go of your partners' nut sack and try....just try for one moment to make sense.

Your double post finishing with an attempt to show what a patriotic girl you are was cute....pathetic...but cute.

God bless your little heart.

Yankee Doodle Ice Cream, anyone?

And to think,,, you used to be a cheer leader for that psycho.

Damn! Wish we had Bush back. He would be better than the
patronizing bigot we got now. And Odd would have something
to sink his fangs into. But then the petty dnc crybabies would have to
compete with some BIG crybabies.

Are you speaking about the worst President in American history?
And you think we need him back?
If your looking for Americas biggest problem, then look in a mirror, you fuking jughead.
What the fuk is wrong with you, genetics, head injury?
Might be time to stock up on guns and ammo, the rush is coming.

The sad part is you probably believe that.

yes, that is exactly the same. blaming the democrats 40-50 years after desegregation and the movement of southern democrats to the republican party is the same as blaming a party (who's leadership has not changed) for what happened less than 4 years ago.



what a load of crap. while bush and cheney are laying low, the republican party and the romney campaign is loaded with the same neo-cons who lied to get us into iraq and are desperate to go into iran. didn't condi rice speak at the convention? romney has tons of ex-bushies as foreign policy advisors.

yes, because tax cuts, no defense cuts, and mythical tax loophole closures are "feeding the cow and cleaning up the mess."

Explain it then. You won't be able to... at least not with facts.

Isn't it ap pro po that the DNC uses the jackass as a party symbol?
And there are several on this thread that could use that same Jackass
as an avatar. oops it is probable copyrighted

ap pro po, huh?

GAMEFISHPWR!!

lol

148

Oh, come on, Chuck. Stand behind your words. You just implied that Obama took away your health care benefits. I'm assuming you are backing off that now since you aren't able or willing to explain what/how he did? If you are saying he did "nothing" to take away your health care, then you might finally be right.

U.S. Income Gap Rose, Sign of Uneven Recovery

WASHINGTON — The income gap between the wealthiest 20 percent of American households and the rest of the country grew sharply in 2011, the Census Bureau reported, as an overwhelming majority of Americans saw no gains from a weak economic recovery in its second full year.

Income for the top fifth of American households rose by 1.6 percent last year, driven by even larger increases for the top 5 percent of households, said David Johnson, the Census Bureau official who presented the findings. All households in the middle of the scale saw declines, while those at the very bottom stagnated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/us-...tml?_r=1&hp


Fishy

Who are you to define "use"? Another Clintonite?
Dan S is just jealous.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Fishy

Why would I be jealous when I could just say my IQ is 155?

You're not very smart, are you, Mr. 148?

Let's see....if everyone is working......do you suppose more or fewer jobs are created?

So was unemployment high or low during the Bush administration?....how about the O admin?......

the fact is unemployment has not been helped by O......period

big difference between jobs created and unemployment numbers........

BWP....funny isn't it? You post your view of Republicans, which runs very close to my view of Democrats.

Might choose to ask yourself......what do the prisons in the US have the most of? Dems or Repubs?......If you don't know, I'll tell you....overwhelmingly it is Democrats.....overwhelmingly......so much so in fact, that the Democrats want to recruit their votes.....who again are the liars, cheats, law breakers?

when you are pro-war and dodge the draft, it is the hypocrisy that is the issue not the lack of serving.

it is a signature of being a neo-con... you first must be a chickenhawk.

Uhhhh... Hello..... We put Felons in prison and Felons are not permitted to vote..




















JFC

Are you refeering to Ted Nugant?

It's Nugent.............and he is a draft dodging fu.ktard.

You can say anything you want, however, you are stuck with the
reality when you look in the mirror. I too can say anything I want,
but aside from my homely countenance the mirror gives me no
reality pain.

Rumour tells that you are a normally intelligent person. How come
you act otherwise?

The reality that I didn't lie and make up some bogus IQ score?

Yeah, I'm OK with that.





Yeah, I know. You said your IQ was 148.

Washington - All persons with a felony conviction must re-register to vote after completion of their sentence and all parole and probation. However, the Secretary of State's website states that persons who have "willfully failed to make three payments in a 12 month period" on any court imposed fines may have their ability to vote revoked by the prosecutor.

Point is, Slaby's post reeks of paranoid BS

I would like to see if the voter rolls are actually cleaned.

Guess I'm just tired of being painted as a Gun Nut, Chicken Hawk, Paranoid, Birther, Swiftboating, Fanatical Kook just because I tend to embrace conservative values and reject 99% of the liberal agenda.
Every time one of my fellow "Conservatives" posts up more of that paranoid drivel it makes me cringe.
I would probably start referring to my self as Libertarian but their agenda seems to have been hijacked by the Tea people as well.
What's a person to do?

1. Take the Republican Party back from the kooks...but that genie is so far out of the bottle now it might not ever happen.

2. A third party based on conservative principles without including religious nuts, Tea Party fruitcakes, birthers and swiftboaters.

Either kick them out, or start a new party and don't let them in...the Republicans may have ended the chances of their party's long term viability by giving it over to the nutjobs.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, and in '08 Obama won...and now he will again, and for exactly the same reason.

Fish on...

Todd

For obvious reasons...there are districts out there with enough of a TeaParty, birther, nutcase percentage to take an election.

That's the same reason that the Senate is still Democratic, and why the President...as noted before, one of the most vulnerable incumbents ever...will win it going away in November.

The massive fruitcakes that the Republican Party sold out to in order to keep their majority cannot win a national election, and someone who's not a fruitcake can't get past the primaries in many, many Republican districts...a recipe for disaster.

You know I'm right...not sure why you insist on pretending otherwise, or pretending that Romney has a chance.

Fish on...

Todd

It's over...far over.

By the way, give Romney a call and remind him that "it's the Economy, Stupid"...would ya?

He's managed to completely fuckk himself, yet again, by insterting himself into a foreign policy issue, stick his entire head up his ass by doing so, and when called on it the next day, doubled down on it...again.

All he had to do was say "it's a terrible tragedy" and go back to his one single issue that might get him traction...the economy...but he can't help showing what an idiot he is, over and over.

Get ahold of him and help him out...I'm embarrassed for him.

Fish on...

Todd

So a President is supposed to wait around in the situation room in case something happens?

You should be embarassed that you opened your cakehole.

No, it was not, and you know it, and you are making shitt up.

Romney said America was sympathizing with the terrorists. It was a stupid comment when he made it, and a lie when you say it...because you know better.

Romney and Ryan talking about foreign policy at all is a massive mistake for his already very unlikely to win campaign.

Fish on...

Todd

The Office of the President is always with him...and like virtually every other argument against your lame continually lame FoxNews talking points, you already knew that and pretended it wasn't true.

Romney is failing, and he fails more each day...

Your mention, and Romney's, of the First Amendment is laughable for a few reasons...here are a few:

1. The right wing jerkoffs only care about the First Amendment when it can be used by them politically...otherwise they'd just as soon do with out the Freedom of Speech...which you know, and forget on purpose when regurgitating talking points.

2. The Freedom of Speech does not include the freedom to say whatever you want and no one can complain about it...and the freedom of speech to tell people they are fullofshit, like I am to you right now, is part of the First Amendment, too.

3. There was no attempt to curtail anyone's Freedom of Speech, in any event...which you know, but are too busy regurgitating right wing talking points to agree with.

No one...no one...sympathized with anyone who was entering the embassy grounds.

No one.

And you know it. Yet, here you are regurgitating right wing asshattery coming from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity anyway. It's disingenuous because you, just like they, know it is not true.

Fish on...

Todd

Keep your eyes wide open so you can observe everything spinning out of control now that QE-infinity has been announced today. What a Fukkin mess this is gonna create.

Further, Businesses won't hire with all the added costs coming down from health care and other Obama Admin. regulations. Too much uncertainty for them to move. They are waiting to see how much more gets dumped on them. Obama has had enough time to make improvements. He doesn't have to cure it all right away, but the results so so so far below expectations. At this rate, a second term for O won't be enough time and he'll still be blaming the previous administration.

These issues all correlate. Corp CEO's all know that the fiscal cliff is getting closer, accelerated by today's Fed Move. They are going to keep hoarding cash, and not hiring, in an attempt to survive whats coming.....

The very fact that you put that picture up, Hank, shows what a right wing tool you are.

You used to be smarter than that, but your constant regurgitation of Fox News talking points shows that you have joined the Asshattery 100%, which is probably why you don't see it a problem that the Republican Party has been coopted by TeaBaggers, birthers, religious nutjobs, and the like...you're one of them.

Fish on...

Todd

Again, you are purposely being stupid...or, conversely, you just are.

It is not curtailing Freedom of Speech to tell someone that what they are saying is stupid, unproductive, or moronic.

Also, that wasn't "sympathizing with the terrorists"...since it was a statement that was put out before the attacks even started...which you know already, but are lying about to make your stupid point, the same way that Romney did, and the same way that Hannity did.

Lastly, that statement did not come from the White House...it came from the embassy staff who was looking at an angry mob and was trying to defuse the situation...another fact which you know, but are ignoring so that you can, predictably, continue to parrot the right wing talking points with little or no reference to actual facts.

Fish on...

Todd