What has changed?!

What has changed is our national debt and spending have both exploded. That's what's changed.

Other than that, not much else.

Corruption is more evident in Congress, outright bribery is taking place for votes, and the number of Americans identifying themselves as democrats is at a historical low. The Constitution has no official place in this administration, Chicago style politics is rampart. And as if this was possible, the terrorist have less respect for the US now then ever before.

The only actual change has been in the level of blatancy of the corruption and sense of entitlement.

In previous administrations, you kinda knew this stuff went on, and it pissed everyone off.

With this administration, that was going to CHANGE things? It's IN YOUR FACE that they'll do whatever the hell they want, spend our money, continue shoving through "agendas" while Americans don't have jobs, negotiate with union thugs but NOT Republicans, and try over and over and over to convince the entire country that they know what's best and we should all just sit down and shut up.

I think it's Obama that should sit down, shut up and listen to the American people.

This line from the article nailed it:

The fateful step, he said, was to plunge ahead with health care as the next major initiative.

Had he asked Congress for a scaled down version, to eliminate the worst practices of the insurance industry and eliminate their anti-trust exclusion, and then said something like "We're coming back to this, when more of you are back to work and the economy has stabilized?" Win. Win for everyone, he keeps his promise without overreaching, the Republicans would have gotten on board, the people in this country would have seen that as ACTUAL pragmatism.

Instead we have a massive, TRILLION dollar abortion of a bill only a third of the country wants, and 17% un/underemployment.

Yea, just keep going, Obama and hope the economy recovers IN SPITE of you, and people are too stupid to realize that and give you credit for it.

REMEMBER: Economists pretty much agreed that the economy would recover in late 09/early 10, BEFORE he was even elected. He gets no credit from me if/when it does, and indications seem to be pointing to the fact - it will take longer because of the spending and agenda-pushing that has business, industry, AND consumers running scared.

Most of Obama's promises, those associated with character and morals as a leader are being tested:

- Reaching across the isle for bipartisanship approaches to our problems - closed the door on any Republican participation in the closed door health care meetings...encouraged the congress to railroad their agenda without consideration of other thoughts, resolutions, amendments...

- Transparency to the process - don't even need to explain this one...

- Fiscal responsibility - promised to scrub the budget line by line to remove government waste - in reality he has put forward the largest federal budget which includes the largest military spend in history.

- Expel special interest from the government process - wow, here's another easy failure. First the Pharm industry deal, now Unions... He is trading concessions for Democratic votes - that is morally wrong and shows just how desperate the Democratic party is right now.

I would love any Obama supporter to explain to me how he is doing such a good job as a leader if these fundamental qualities of character are so blatantly promised and ignored. He sold this country a bottle of snake oil and has brought a new level of corruption into the Oval Office.

Hi, nozzle.

We're not universally despised partially because the rest of the world is seeing us start to circle the socialist bowl they've already been flushed down. Part of the animus towards the US has always been jealousy over our freedom and standard of living, inarguably the highest in the world - why else would people continue to come here in droves and NOT the other way around?

For some reason, liberals think their life is made better by someone else's being made worse, even if their life doesn't actually improve. Misery loves company.

As to foreign policy, we have a rare moment of agreement here. Aside from the length of the dithering on Afghanistan and the ongoing nationbuilding, Obama actually gets a B+ from me on foreign policy.

Domestic policy and making the American people a priority as opposed to his agenda and his "fat cat" buddies in pharma, insurance, unions, Wall Street, Soros, ACORN, etc etc etc?

A resounding F.

His agenda is intrusive and ineffective big government

Obama has all of the pragmatic qualities of Peter Pan.

I love the quote:

"What we don't know yet is whether my administration and this next generation of leadership is going to be able to hew to a new, more pragmatic approach that is less interested in whether we have big government or small government; they're more interested in whether we have a smart, effective government," he said on that day in December 2008."

What the liberals never understand is that the People don't want a Government inserting itself into every aspect of life.

We don't want a 'big brother' to take care of us.

We don't want re-distribution of wealth.

The 'transparency' promise was a lie.

The 'veto pork-laden bills' promise was a lie.

GITMO is chugging along. The war is expanding.

We're hemorrhaging assets and printing monopoly money. Government is taking over businesses and trying to do the same with Medicine.

The Administration has been populated with social engineers, Socialists and people with questionable morals and backgrounds.

We don't want it, and we're going to start to kick it to the curb in November!

More back pedaling and double talk. Do not forget,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ELECTION TIME is growing nearer and nearer so day by day all the RATS in our houses (Senate, Congress & white house) are scurrying around attempting now to appear to us the way they want to be perceived!!!!

DON'T BE FOILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THESE ARE RATS AND THEY ALL MUST GO!!!! If you are an American it is your duty to RID OUR HOUSES of these RATS by voting them out of office!!!!!!

New polls by ABC? Both ABC and CBS must have gotten 'kissed' again.

Take a look at the Rasmussen polls-

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history" target="_self">see trends).

It amazes me that msnbc insists on promoting drivel that is obviously pro-Democrat, pro-Obama. Only Obama believes that the country was united on his Inauguration Day. Many influential Democrats were behind the US sub-prime mortgage mess that heavily contributed to the GLOBAL economic downturn. Who is the Washington Post trying to fool this time? Go Scott Brown!

This clown is no Reagan, and as far as health care goes, go to a VA hospital and see what government lead health care looks like.

the change has been a radical left, corrupt, illegally appointed czar laden regime that is purposely dismanteling capitalism and freedom in our country. this is as close to a dictatorship as we have ever seen. It is a one party, elitist rule. they need to keep the people down to secure votes on the promise of more entitlements. this is becoming the land of mediocrity and getting by on the gov't tit. sad for the entrepreneurs and millions of people with dreams of prosperity that these bleeding heart socialists want to take that away.

If BO wants to see his numbers improve 1st he needs to dump or veto the FORCED HEALTH INSURANCE BILL that they are calling HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM to hide what they are really doing. Bo is making the government soo big that the people that are already struggling to find a job and put food on the table are going to be taxed to death. The first thing BO needs to do is take an economics class as neither him nor his advisers have a clue as to how to handle money, and they are sure good at spending money that this country does not have. I am an independent and the dumocrates are scaring the heck out of me.

Gingrich or other Republicans who bash Obama for so-called big government spending (though these are temporary) are despicable since anyone with even short-term memory knows it was Republican “Invisible Hand” superstitions that helped create this economic mess. More to the point is the really big government spending the Republicans have been guilty of prior to Obama’s election. Yet time and again GOP leaders (and the media) never mention the trillion wasted in the Iraq war--which Bush omitted from budget numbers and still deficits were at an historic high. The non-stop hypocrisy is what’s really polarizing.

Likewise Republicans who whine about not being accommodated forget that’s the way it is when you’re the minority, and how ruthless they have been to Dems when the GOP has been the majority party. The difference is Dems weren’t obstructionists who abused the filibuster at every turn. Once immediate concerns of Health Care and Financial Reform are complete, Obama can work on issues with more consensus. But let’s face it, these reforms are of current necessity, not choosing, and Republicans would never cooperate on these issues—especially reforms favoring Main Street rather than Wall Street--never. Shame on the Republicans for making a mockery of our system and the American people.

In regard to polls, the media always neglects to mention a few things. Many Republicans fed up with Bush switched to Independent, skewing things. However, they are still conservatives who will vote for Republicans. Those who have always been Independent will continue to lean to the left. Same goes for teabaggers who currently diss the Republican Party (because they DO remember big government spending by the GOP that got us into this mess), but they will still vote Republican too.

In addition, many congressional leaders ran as Democrats when in reality they are conservatives. But never mind their dishonesty—hey, whatever it takes to win, right? Or in the case of Lieberman whatever serves him personally (Palin too). Ironically, it will be the religious right and teabaggers who will enforce very strict litmus tests for Republican candidates.

I was once Republican, and my advice to them is to stop with the wedge issues of God, guns and gays. Return to the days of Goldwater, Reagan, and even McCain and keep religion out of politics (or at least stop the double standards when Republicans cheat on their wives) and stop with the fear mongering and conspiracy theories. Without tolerance, you won’t have a big tent, and if you’re not fact-based, you won’t have credibility. You’ll remain a fanatical-fringe minority.

TruePatriot,

This is a tough thread.....I agree, religion should never be in politics...i don't think the far right..Pat Robinson...and followers will have it....

It has been a very tough year for any President to take the reigns of power in the United States. So far the bloggers in this chain claim to identify empty challenges of what has President Obama done in his first year. Politifact.com produced a list 91 campaign promises fulfilled and 33 promises with partial success. (2010, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/14/rating-obamas-promises-1-year-mark/ )

"Of 502 campaign promises, a PolitiFact analysis finds Obama has fulfilled 91 and achieved at least partial success with another 33. More than half of his promises have had enough progress to be rated In the Works."

I would suggest that is a pretty substantial list of accomplishment for any President. President Obama faced the economic crisis that started in October 2007 and hit bottom in March 2009 coupled with economic stimulus efforts that straddled both administrations. While these were not campaign issues - the tested President Obama's administration to provide quick corrections to stabilize an economy headed by most economist estimates - into depression. We are still reeling from the aftershocks of unemployment while the hopes of energy stimulus spending offers rays of opportunities for millions of displaced workers from construction and manufacturing. But, President Obama did attend to his immediate priorities of ending Iraq, fighting the right war in Afghanistan, closing GITMO, and Health Care Reform. These issues plus the latest security breech the Fort Hood and Christmas attempted bombing have highlighted blood and polarized political view points that are the meat of mainstream gossip media.

I look forward to a day when I can evaluate President Obama from hindsight and the impact he made on Health Care, financial reform, energy reform, and the end of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It didn't matter to me who won the Office of the President as we were headed into the recession. Economic cycles come and go without political favor. We have learned that government can take action to mediate the effects of recessions and curb the rate of inflation after taking recession dampening measures. What we need to see from President Obama and future Presidents is leadership to bend the deficit spending curve down.

I read recently that it was January 8, 1835 was the last time our government did not have a deficit. Government borrowing money is healthy to a point. Only a few government officers - 44 administrations have had the experience managing a budget the size of the United States. The United States has a longevity beyond corporate and human mortality. At best, five administrations are still alive to consult for lessons learned - and even those lessons learned are outdated when faced with newer financial challenges offered during the last two decades. I think the current administration is off to a great start fulfilling campaign promises. I think the compromises made on health care will cripple the effectiveness of this important legislation - but the measure must be passed so that more work can be accomplished to get it right. In the end - by 2020, I foresee a single payer system where government contracts health care insurance out to private insurers for fundamental health care insurance for all Americans. Individual will be able to purchase supplemental insurance, but health care insurance provided by employers will be a benefit of the past leaving employers the ability to harness profits for business investment or returning profits to shareholders.

We spent $2 trillion for temporary and not permanent actions. When this temporary runs out how many more trillions are they going to spend? We can not afford a pragmatic government that doesn’t care how it gets there just the end results, plus according to poles most Americans don’t like where we are going.

AF & True,

What you're both either wanting or choosing to ignore is ....

Your dreams for a socialist United States of America are NOT shared by the majority of its residents.

This country absolutely supports helping the unfortunate, but it's gotten out of control when people who can and will work face such taxation and meddling from the government, that they can't pay their own way anymore.

When 46% of the population does NOT pay income tax, we've reached a tipping point where too many have no skin at all in the game, and think that the handouts are free and infinte.

I agree, the wealth has gone too far to the top and it has been the result of government meddling - against consumers. In the case of dismantling Glass-Steagall, the dirt is on the hands of the Republicans for authoring the bill, the Democrats for signing on to it, and Clinton for signing it. You guys need to realize, neither party is blameless here.

The solution is NOT to tax the middle class into oblivion by taxing the wealthy, who just pass that expense down if they are in a position to, or just spend less - which costs everyone else jobs. The extremely wealthy won't notice.

You're aware the Obama is in the "extremely wealthy" class, right? Has he given up his salary, for the betterment of the country, like the CEOs of the car companies did? Is he donating the profits of his books to charity? He has plenty already, and lifetime health care and pension. Just ... food for thought.

You'll all scream "SUPPLY SIDE DOESN'T WORK!!!!" I'm suggesting it WOULD, if it were allowed to by regulation that serves both consumers and the business community, not one at the expense of the other.

How could a thinking person expect change from a hyper partisan from the most corrupt political machine in the nation. While in the state senate here in Illinois he supported policies that bankrupted the state. Hardly a candidate for change.

WASHINGTON POST:

GDP was at -4 (minus 4) this time last year. Now at 6+ (six plus).
Every one of the major indicators are UP.

Would like to see you plus any group of your choice successfully swing an economy around from the brink of a great depression ~ in the space of one year. This fact alone negates most of the opinions and extrapolations in your article.

Who are you helping by forwarding this kind of rhetoric? Do i really need to ask?

"they're more interested in whether we have a smart, effective government," he said on that day in December 2008."

Smart and effective are exactly the opposite of the past years actions of our government. I hope Brown wins by a landslide.

Alan Nasser is professor emeritus of Political Economy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.

From Counter Punch website:

January 15-17, 2010

The Big Lies Just Keep Coming

Obama's Latest Ruse: the Bank Tax

By ALAN NASSER

When president Obama was awarded Advertising Age’s 2009 Marketer of the Year award, we were alerted to expect carefully crafted public relations posturing in defense of the reputation of Brand Obama. We have not been disappointed. The president has regularly taken verbal pot shots at the financial oligarchy in a cynical effort to convey the impression that he shares the public’s outrage at the behavior of the plutocrats. But he has thrown no sticks and stones at the banksters, who know as well as you and I that mere words can never hurt them.

None of Obama’s faux outrage has been as disingenuous as his Wednesday announcement that he will finally respond sympathetically to the public’s deep resentment of the administration’s tolerance -and therefore encouragement- of the bad guys’ looting of the public treasury.

Obama assured his constituents that he would “recoup every last penny for American taxpayers” by taking back, in the form of taxes on the banks, the wealth that households have been forced to transfer to the coffers of the instigators of the financial crisis.

The announcement was timed to offset what will surely be another surge of public anger at the expected announcement this week of the banks’ year-end bonus payments.

The proposed taxes would apply to financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets and would extract about $90 billion from them over ten years. Obama’s central claim is that this would cover all losses incurred by the government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). We are supposed to be relieved that households will in the end be repaid all that has been transferred from them by TARP. “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it,” said Obama.

Obama is perpetrating a massive ruse. The tax-the-banks proposal rests on conspicuously false empirical assumptions and appalling math.

A key premise of the tax proposal is that TARP is the government’s sole gift to the financial elite. This is of course false: TARP is in fact a relatively small fraction of the State’s total rescue effort. Financial institutions have also been treated to no-cost and virtually unlimited access to credit, broad guarantees against losses and lax regulation, to mention only the most conspicuous gifts. Even if TARP did represent the administration’s total commitment to financial institutions, Obama’s claim would still be nonsense. TARP handed $700 billion to the banks. How does $90 billion “recoup every last penny” of $700 billion? The president thinks, with good reason so far, that he can get away with anything. Anything. Hence the screamingly counterfactual premise and the slapstick math.

That’s not the worst of it. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General charged with overseeing the bailout plan, reports that the bailout could end up costing $23.7 trillion. Critics of Barofsky accuse him of exaggeration. Let’s suppose they are right. Say Barofsky doubled the true cost of the government’s commitment. So what? Bloomberg reports, with no challengers, that the cumulative commitment to financial rescue initiatives amount so far to more than $8.5 trillion. $90 billion is a small drop in a big bucket.

How do these figures compare to what working people have lost? Households have so far lost $12 trillion in wealth in the wake of the crisis. By the end of the third quarter of 2008, shortly after the announcement of an impending collapse of the entire financial system, households had already lost $647 billion in real estate, $922 billion in stocks, $523 billion in mutual funds and $653 billion in life insurance and pension funds reserves. Total destruction of household wealth in Q3 2008 came to $2.8 trillion, the worst decline on record. That comes to four times TARP’s $700 billion. If “[w]e want our money back,” we’re dead out of luck. Obama knows this, but the man is an instrument of his financial masters, and the ad campaign functioning to obscure this reality requires big lies. The president has these coming out of his ears.

AF Chief, Thank you for the post, I thought it was well-written and had actual logic behind it - unfortunately that is too rare here on the vine. The first vote you got was mine. I do want to make a couple of comments though.

"Of 502 campaign promises, a PolitiFact analysis finds Obama has fulfilled 91 and achieved at least partial success with another 33. More than half of his promises have had enough progress to be rated In the Works."

First of all I gotta point out that 124 out of 502 isn't a very high percentage. Opening up the link, I was pretty disappointed to find out that one of the promises they rated as kept was a promise to get his daughter a puppy. The also seemed pleased with his efforts on health care. Considering the promise was "government provided health care for all, no increase in cost and care equal to or superior to what you have now" and the reality is health care for a select few, huge increase in costs and a severe reduction in care for senior citizens, I would have to rate that promise as broken, not in the works as they did. In short, I fear that website is a President Obama support website, not an unbiased site.

But, President Obama did attend to his immediate priorities of ending Iraq, fighting the right war in Afghanistan, closing GITMO, and Health Care Reform.

Iraq is not even close to being ended, casualties are at an all-time high in Afghanistan, GITMO is still open and I've already stated my objections to health care reform.

Economic cycles come and go without political favor.

Couldn't agree more. People act like the President single-handily controls the economy and that's simply not true.

Essence;

Federal Reserve and other agencies took critical emergency measures (TARP) to prevent several of the world's largest financial firms from crashing and burning. This action averted a certain global-wide meltdown.

These firms were held accountable and now a year later all but $117 Billion out of the $700 Billion loaned has been paid off by the Banks.

This action averted a certain global-wide meltdown.

That's their (the financial institutions) version of events. I still criticize Bush, Obama, McCain and all the rest for giving huge sums of taxpayer money to people who did something stupid. This really was the largest theft of taxpayer money in history and it's all perfectly legal. Let me point out the government won't bail out the rest of us if we do something stupid.

In 2008, government was forced to loan money to the banks.
When banks cannot lend money, the business system collapses.

In other words, when the financial foundation collapses everything collapses = no payroll and no visa card, for example.

Yes, it is frustrating that big money was lent to guys who are already rich and not to us ~ that is the nature of capitalism. On the positive side, most of the TARP loan has already been repaid with interest.

Backhouse, this will have to be one of those times we agree (respectfully) to disagree. I'm not as convinced as you are that the entire system would have collapsed if we had not rescued the stupid financial institutions. I think a lot of them would have been bought out by people who knew how to correctly evaluate risks. That is the true nature of capitalism.

On the positive side, most of the TARP loan has already been repaid with interest.

Of course they were able to repay the loans. They made an absolute killing keeping their profitable loans and dumping their bad loans onto the taxpayers. They made another killing by buying up the businesses that the government did not rescue - Washington Mutual for example was snapped up for pennies on the dollar. And that is another problem I have with the bailout: if the government was going to bail out one financial institution they should have bailed out all of them. As it is, it certainly appears to me the criteria of deciding which businesses to bail out was determined by who had the right friends. That is not the way a responsible government conducts business.

Bill Karson, great post. I've been struggling to make the same points that you made so clear. Hopefully more people will be able to read it. Do you mind if I cut and paste parts of it for future postings? I'll make sure I give you full credit.

Change? How about Chicago style politics on the Nation level! Give me Chicago style pizza..., not Chicago style politics...

TruePatriot

Hmmm, interesting. Guess you forgot about Carter and Clinton. Look up Fanny and Freddie one more time. Then look up Barny Franks and Criss Dodds quotes days before both fanny and freddy bellied up. Yep. all those crooked Republicans. FYI, they all had their hand it the mess. But if you are so inclined, go look up bill s 190. Opps, that was Republican trying to save us before Freddy and Fanny tanked.

The really sad part of what Bob Marshall said is that the majority of the American don't want this health care bill, and Obama could not care less about what we want. He has an ego bigger than the USA!

Yeah, there's a difference between making a massive grand transformation, and making a GOOD massive grand transformation.

Both Buchanan and Lincoln had seen massive national transformations. The only difference was that one was good and one was bad.

And Obama has to clean up Bush's mess....

What would most of you done..let the banks crumble, auto industry crumble, not extend unenmployment so more people can suffer..your all cowards to call this administration a failure at this point....your hatred of this president has blinded you to the better good, now if the reps win in Mass. and in November there will be gridlock and nothing will be done.

I have been on numerous blog, racism is there big time.." an african can't run a country" "the monkey that mauled the women should rethink the stimulus" and cruder....i hope you get what you wish for.....reps ruined the country before and you will do it again...good luck..buh bye

Cara, understand something:

It's not about hating this president. He won the election, and many millions of people voted for him based on a bunch of empty promises and centrist rhetoric. Which turned out to be all lies.

What many of those SAME people would have rather seen happen is for GM and Chrysler go bankrupt WITHOUT taking almost $100 billion in taxpayer money - that this administration admits we'll NEVER get back. It was already too late for the banks, but GMAC just got ANOTHER $3.8 billion two weeks ago. 17% of the people in this country do not have decent jobs, and this administration just keeps pushing wheelbarrows full of cash into lost cause financial institutions.

We would have rather the stimulus NOT be done, a significant majority of Americans opposed it. And it turns out? It hasn't done much of anything for anyone except Friends of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Do you know, approximately 1/3 of the stimulus is expected to spend out JUST in time for the November elections? Could they be any more blatant in the corruption and vote buying at tax payer expense?

How do you defend unelected union thugs getting a special deal in backroom negotiations - that over 200 ELECTED Republican representatives of the people of this country were not even allowed to observe, much less be a part of?

It's not personal, Cara, it's his policies and lack of ethics.

Cara M Obama has been the one who brought racism back. Remember without white voters. Obama had no chance. We gave him a chance and he used this chance screwing the American people. Was he not the One that stated The white policeman was profiling or his Grand Parents were typical white people. Why does he support? Acorn, SEIU why did he not arrest black panthers armed with clubs outside a polling place? maybe because they are mostly black groups,How about the illegal activities of the Black Caucus, Why weren't they charged? Protection From the president. This presidents statements and action in the past year surely show me how prejudice he is against whites. After I voted for him. Now the leopards spots return.

Like social security which started out providing pennies for old people and grew to something worthwhile, the health care bill will grow into something that actually helps people on the bottom. Righties don't like this - lefties are impatient with the process but that's what's going to happen. It's called pragmatism; Obama understands it; I understand it. If you don't understand it - study up.

Social Security is broke. Flat broke, due to government malfeasance. Medicare/caid are rife with fraud and abuse, and also broke. Over a hundred TRILLION combined unfunded liabilities. How is that possibly good for the country as a whole?

"Righties" would rather not see the creation of yet another entitlement program that saddles future generations and our economy with unsustainable debt.

"Righties" would rather see the people at the bottom get a hand UP, by creating jobs for them to work at via the private sector to pay their own way, not a hand OUT funded on the backs of those willing to work. THAT is sustainable.

To add, now Obama has conspired with unions behind closed doors and they now have a special deal with health care. That's two. A special deal to a state ans a special deal to unions. This whole is illegal.

Prags - the growth of technology - along with population growth creates a situation where principles which may have been legitimate 500 years ago no longer really apply. A simple example - look at a painting by Brueghel from the 1500s - there's thirty, forty people involved in making hay - work that is now done by one man and a tractor in an afternoon. Society evolves along with changing conditions; the most folks like yourself can do is drag your heels and try to slow things down - you are on the wrong side of the historical process.

This is not the 1500's. This is not a Brueghel painting. The founding principles of this country, 230 years ago not 500, still apply - if the nanny state supporters like yourself would let them.

Your circular logic fails.

Pragmatic,

You mean like trickle down and make 5.50 an hour, and what makes you think liberals don't want everyone out working....geez, there will never be enough jobs even if every able bodied person could work..you know that, but you like to throw that republican mantra, self responsibility so that lets you off the hook and you can defend small government and less social programs.

I appreciate your response to my post earlier...very civil....just a question..do you think if we just let the free market work it self out, would we be in a better place if everyone went under....also those backroom deals with the unions your call corrupt, i call it compromising....as far as i read, and i could be wrong...it only changed taxing med packages from 23,000 to 24,000...

One unfortunate truth, we will never see eye to eye..too much hate

Prags - there is no such thing as a free market - just one that is tricked up for the people on top.

You are wrong about the union deals, first of all. The unions were exempted from 40% taxation on Cadillac plans for seven years - taxation that anyone non-union with the same plan will have to pay. Unelected union thugs had a place at a negotiating table representing 12% of the working population and shaping legislation that effects the entire country, while over 200 Republican representatives, representing about 40% of the population were not even allowed in the room. THAT is what happened.

Liberal mistake #143 - Assuming anyone who opposes Obama's policies is a Republican or a right-wing extremist.

For the record, I'm actually a registered Democrat who did not vote for Bush either term, and voted for Obama. Whether you choose to believe that or not, it is fact.

I'm not going into a long dissertation about why there are no jobs, there are too many factors, some Republican disasters but the majority are liberal policies that drive business and industry out of this country by piling on too much pointless regulation and taxation and opening our trade borders too wide, and only one way.

Not to mention the sheer weight of all these entitlement programs that have turned into a lifestyle choice, as opposed to a hand up to someone in trouble. FTR, I completely and totally support helping out people in need. I do not support allowing huge swaths of the population living on government assistance because it has become so excessive, actually WORKING is less profitable.

RHR - you're right, it is no longer a free market. When the government decides which industries win and which loose via taxation and regulation, when the government decides which banks succeed and which fail via bailouts, it is not a free market.

A free market - allowed to operate and regulated to serve the people AND the businesses and industry that employ them, not one at the expense of the other and crushed under meaningless regulation, works. We haven't had that in decades, and THAT right there is the problem. It's not a D or R problem, specifically, it is a government problem in general, and a problem of too many people whining to the government to make everything be unicorns and lollipops. Utopia only exists in your mind.

Malfeasance and government: two words to keep tightly associated when discussing professional politicians.

I do think that businesses would have worked their way out if left alone. When an entity files bankruptcy, the debts are usually wiped out and they start anew. People seem to think the business disappears into thin air and all of the jobs along with them.

excaliburgc...you my friend are a racist and don't even realize it! He could have given a black person a penny and it would have set you off because your problems with people of color and unions began before he was ever elected! Stop hiding behind excuses and claim it....you are a racist!

Pragmatic - we had a "Free MArket in the late 19th Century - due to the utter limitlessness of human greed that had to be reined in by regulation - there is a constant struggle between capital and labor - I happen to side with labor - though I understand the need for capital, also.
Ron Brooks writes, "Hussein you are an Idiot and a trader to Freedom"

Nuff said.

RHR -in case you haven't noticed, it's not the late 19th century anymore. We needn't live as though it were, nor shape policy as though the same realities apply.

Please join us in the technological age you tried to use as an excuse for collectivism in another post. Really, you can't have it both ways.

I don't know how you people manage to stay upset about this all the time, as if there were anyone on the national political stage with solutions to these problems, other than Ron Paul who says throw away most of the executive branch bureaucracy because it's unconstitutional. Then you wouldn't be able to bitch back and forth about whose side should be in the top office making all your decisions for you

I think some of you need to go back and read. SS was doing fine until the government started borrowing money from it and did not pay it back and then Johnson moved it to the general fund and the IOUs went away, this is just a simple history of what happened to the SS. Lets face it the government can't run a business. I believe the government should have let the banks and the big 3 go down. Yes it would have been tough on the people but I believe we would have been in a better place right now. Believe it or not numbers can be made to read what you want them to read, so I don't look at the polls I listen to the people on the street. Do I like what is happening? Hell no I don't. I do not like the fact that our elected officials won't listen and continue to push bills and laws on us that we don't want. I will be very careful in who I vote for this November and again in 2012. Do we need to clean house? I believe we do. Do we need term limits? I believe we do. Do we need to take back America? Yes we do and we need to it now. As always just my opinion.

The problem with SS is that it is specifically a Pyramid scheme. Each generation leeches off of the next generation which supposedly should be a bigger generation. So long as every generation gets bigger, we're fine.

The problems with SS are because our baby boom generation is now retiring and cashing out, but we don't have enough young people to support them. Hence the 'pyramid' is collapsing.

Cara M

And Obama has to clean up Bush's mess....

What would most of you done..let the banks crumble, auto industry crumble, not extend unenmployment so more people can suffer..your all cowards to call this administration a failure at this point....your hatred of this president has blinded you to the better good, now if the reps win in Mass. and in November there will be gridlock and nothing will be done.

I have been on numerous blog, racism is there big time.." an african can't run a country" "the monkey that mauled the women should rethink the stimulus" and cruder....i hope you get what you wish for.....reps ruined the country before and you will do it again...good luck..buh bye

Cara, it is not just "Bush's" fault. Anyone who has studied the history of the United States can easily see that our problems started years ago around the time of the Great Depression. Blaming it on one person is only making you yourself look prejudice, not to mention just as hateful as the people making racist comments. I am sure you can find racism on many blogs, but you can also find racism against whites to just as equally. I myself am Native American and hate the Obama administration. Sure he is talking about giving all natives one thousand dollars for there "past struggles", but I see it as him trying to buy my vote. I have lived on the reservation and I will never go back. I will never accept free money or housing. I have seen what happens to people first hand once they rely on someone for their monthly checks. I find they are no better than dogs. Look how many people have relied on Obama. Look at how many people are sitting on their couches doing nothing just waiting for their unemployment check in the mail. Look at what has happened to businesses. A LOT of failed, but the ones that grew are the ones that are now too big to fail. How is that any justice? Think about what COULD have happened if Obama had just let them fail, more businesses could have been created because they would have all been at equal competition. But no, now anyone who wants to start a business or someone who already has one can be bought out. You can not justifiably say that unemployment would have rose, just like I cannot justifiably say that leaving the economy alone would have solved issues. Also, I strongly believe that anyone who WANTS a job can find one. You know how? MOVE! That is what my family did all my years of growing up. My father would take us where the work was, even if it meant doing backbreaking work for a dime a day and us living in an unheated trailer during the winter. There was only one time my mother used her food stamps, and that was during Vietnam. I know that she felt terrible using it, she felt like she was worthless. I find this whole "recession" a bit humorous. People are having such a terrible time finding a job, but look at newspapers from lets say North Dakota. Never was there a time people were not hiring. My grandson walked out on three jobs this past summer and never had a hard time getting another one. No, he does not have a college degree, only a GED. He does not live on the reservation either, neither does he get any special benefits for having native blood in him. But that is how easy it has been to get a job during this "recession" if only people would move. I understand that people have their homes, but humans are suppose to be able to adapt. Life is not fair, and it isn't suppose to be easy either. But I do not believe any administration should be made up of just republicans or just democrats. You need equality, and that is something we have not had for a long time. People have this idea that if the republican doesn't solve issues than vote for a democrat. Well, if the democrat doesn't solve any issues than vote for a republican. People need to start studying who our leaders are and vote for who best holds our personal values, not just what title they have stamped under their name or their color and gender. Why were people interested in Hillary? GENDER. Why were people interested in Obama? COLOR. They backstabbed each other on stage like children picking their class president, and one of them still got elected. But let me ask you something, what will happen once the unemployment money runs out? That is when you will see turmoil, because millions of people, all at once, will be trying to find a job, and having no income at all to back them up. What will happen than?

Pragmatic - the point I've made is that the world changes - has changed - is changing - will change. To deny that technology that replaces the labor of a hundred humans with the efforts of one must change the societal equation is erroneous.

Unknown,

I happen to agree with just about all you said....but what do you do with the people that don't have your backbone and great attitude...do we just say tuff luck...you sound great, in fact better adjusted then most...no anger.

You took the time to reply to my post in length..did you find it offensive..i want to know why a mostly pro republian thread can collaspe my post...is is because i am pro Obama

PragmaticToAFault - I share you concern for the amount of government regulation our manufacturers have to endure. But European and Asian manufacturers are facing the same regulations. Businesses that try to circumvent those regulations come under the scrutiny of environmental and human rights groups around the world - not just in the United States. I chuckled in both the United Kingdom (England) and Italy when I could not perform required corrosion control clear water rinses on aircraft that had flown under 250 above salt water. The reason was in the UK, the NRA (National River's Administration) determined the amount of cadmium released from the way stream from the aircraft exceeded permissible limits. I ask the NRA representative if we should control the rain water off the same aircraft. He was not amused. In Italy, there were no environmental controls on aircraft washes. So in the absence of controls we had to perform to the most stringent US environmental controls (California). All way-stream solvents and cleaning agents had to be recovered, barreled, and sent back to the US for disposal. In 1993 dollars, an aircraft was cost $8,500 for materials, labor, equipment. Adding the waste disposal increased the cost $1,500 adding four more personnel, packaging, and logistics. But, we left the environment as we found it essentially leaving is as if we had never performed aircraft wash operations there. This was good for the Mediterranean Sea and local environment.

The point is We the People have ask for government to take action to curb manufacturing pollution, provide living wages, ensure safe and discrimination free work places. We the People ask for these protections because business did not take basic measures to provide safeguards for their employees absent of mandated government regulation.

Cara M

Unknown,

I happen to agree with just about all you said....but what do you do with the people that don't have your backbone and great attitude...do we just say tuff luck...you sound great, in fact better adjusted then most...no anger.

You took the time to reply to my post in length..did you find it offensive..i want to know why a mostly pro republian thread can collaspe my post...is is because i am pro Obama

I do not think you being pro Obama has any reasoning to the collapse of your thread. I think it is the fact that you are playing the pointing game. You cannot just blame the republicans or just the democrats. There have been great presidents from both, as well as terrible. But you brought up the race card, and I think that Americans started to realize months ago that it is no longer justifiable. The problem now is that Pro Obama supporters are having a hard time to play anything else but that. I am not sure how long you have been posting on Newsvine, but when Obama first became president, it was mainly a Pro Obama board. Anyone against Obama had a hard time posting on here without a struggle. But now look at the way the wheels have turned. Even a blind person would realize it has a lot more to it than race. I do not find the absence of politics offensive. If all someone has to go by is their beliefs than so be it. I do, however, find ignorance quite irritating. Acting like everyone is out to get you is not the way to prove your point, you cannot have anger either. The collapse of your post is due to lack of maturity.

Unknown - you raise some issues that I feel compelled to respond to.

Bush economic policies - 2002-2003 recession stimulus and tax cut seemed like a good idea at the time. Five Democrats crossed the asile to help pass this legislation. However, 435 economist sent President Bush a letter warning the tax cut would double the deficit. Bush faced three issues - post 9/11 recession, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The policies implemented in 2003 finalized the string of falling dominoes leading to the recession of 2008 that saw unemployment soar to 7.6% by December 2008. So we have a report card on the Bush Administraion economic policies - and in all fairness - these policies were reactions to events not promises made during campaigns. But the impact has been crippling non-the-less.

There is no doubt President Obama worked in concert with the Bush administration during the TARP, Stimulus, and Bailout plans. Hence people state President Obama's economic policies are a continuation of President Bush. I had no expectation that the recession would abruptly end on the day President Obama took office. Major financial institutions failed! Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs, two bond rating services, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch, Country Wide...these plus more sent economic 9.0 shock waves across American that saw investor's values plummet over 40%, and unemployment continued to rise a major manufacturers couldn't get financing to meet payroll much less production, innovation, and new products. I agree with you that we will never know the true depth of the recession had we just allowed banks, brokerages, GM, Chrysler, and their logistics chains to fail. However, that being stated President Obama has commited to reforming the financial industry, and including all spending in the budget. Off-book budget spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan understated the deficit spending from President Bush as well as overstated surpluses during President Clinton's administration. We the People need to know the total spending of our government - and I think President Obama is moving us in that direction.

The 2008 candidates were by far the best I've seen in the nine elections I've been alive. Any of the primary major candidates could have and would have been excellent Presidents - yet still faced with overwhelming challenges on their inauguration. Democrats Clinton, Richardson and Obama were succinct, intelligent, issue oriented, Biden was all of those attributes plus emotionally charged (Howard Dean light). Republicans McCain, Huckabee, Romney challenged Americans to stay with the GOP and provided great campaigns detailing their platforms that differed from President Bush (43). Two more additions on each ticket would have been the cafe supreme! Republicans missing were Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and Democrates Gore and Kerry. But as far as candidates worth voting for in two parties? Wow - that was an impressive list. That election was the most comprehensive ticket of political leadership ever presented to the American public.

To your point on JOBS AND MOVING. As a 20 year old, I could and did move for employment. I held three jobs during the recession of 1973-1975 and then I enlisted in November 1975 for 26 years in the Air Force. Finding entry level work is easy. Applying for entry level work with college degrees is futile. Employers do not look at degreed applicants for entry level work. Employers know the time spent hiring a degreed applicant for an entry level position is wasting time and increasing turnover. In my city, entry level employees do not earn a living wage. That means they share apartments or live with relatives to afford shelter, food, transportation, education, health care, or hobbies they pursue.

Full employment means meaningful employment that is commisurate with the experience and education of the individual available to fill the position. Sadly, while your grandson who has a GED moves from three different jobs in one summer - I have witnessed 40-60 year old men and women who never achieved a GED or high school education and those who did graduate or attain the GED laid off by the thousands from good paying ($13~$18) production and manufacturing jobs. These positions will not be available after this recession is over because of continued improvements in automation and individual productivity. The rising divide between those who have the means to provide for themselves and those who do not is growing. It is not based on color or gender as much as how many skills you can offer to an employer. Economic prosperity is not achieved by creating entry level positions. Economic prosperity is achieved when we employ innovative imaginative people who have the training, experience, education, and motivation to create new limits and push new frontiers.

Pragmatic,

"We're not universally despised partially because the rest of the world is seeing us start to circle the socialist bowl they've already been flushed down. Part of the animus towards the US has always been jealousy over our freedom and standard of living, inarguably the highest in the world - why else would people continue to come here in droves and NOT the other way around."

Yes, watch out for the British.,French,Spanish,Itallians and even the Belgians...they all want to come here...

Not everyone wants to come here, like it or not there are some happy socialist countries....also we no longer set the trend....not since the gun and religion crowd and Palin of course.....only the poor want to come here..

"

Cara M, I appreciate that you care about the same things we all do here.

You agree that $5.50/hour isn't a lot of money to make. You agree that unemployment is too high. You agree that life sucks because businesses are failing. However, I think what you're trying to do is to just "fix the symptoms" of the problems without attacking the root causes. The problem with simply raising the minimum wage, bailing out business, etc. is that unintended consequences are going to occur.

If all you do is just hike the minimum wage, prices will simply go up anyway. If all you do is bail businesses out you get a fiasco. If you regulate businesses then no one will create them and there will be no jobs. Unemployment that is temporary isn't bad, if there is incentive to create businesses (aka deregulation and other businesses failing). If you just bail out "too big to fails" then you create barriers to entry for new entrepreneurs as well as the "too big to fail" companies getting greedy which means the workers just lose anyway.

In short deregulation, not regulation, as well as education reform (so people have marketable skill) is the only way to solve problems.

Take a look at Mitt Romney. I think you'll like his viewpoints.

Kevin,

I appreciate what you are saying. I really didn't like bailing out business and banks but felt it would be worse if we didn't...and noone knows..but i think it could have been catastrophic..multiple banks going under, multiple car company's, all the jobs lost....maybe letting the car company's go in to bankruptcy would have been better...

I get that the answer is education, but this country will allways exploit people for low wages....if you can't pay a living wage then maybe you shouldn't be in business.

Now you say deregulate...do you remember Enron, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing and MCI ...how about wall street......there must be oversight..

Anywho, i know Mitt Romney....if this administration fails i will still support the democratic party...Republicans think they should go back to the origianal platform....and that means going backward..hate, racism, sexism etc....and if Palin runs i will campaign for the dems. But i do hope for the best for this country.

You hope for the best for this country? By what means spending it to death? Intruding on peoples lives and livleyhoods? Enforceing programs people do not want? I really do not think you have a clue what is best for this country. You dont think people have a right to hate people who destroy this nation? All of your critisisums are eronius the only haters are the democrats who use hate as a lie to destroy and elect criminals into office.

why the +?

Kevin - Vacation time; he was off TV or a couple of days.

Pragmatic,

Too much regulation...i guess wall street does fine on its own....big corporation should do great, they can't even follow the rules with regulation...oh, right, too many rules....oh and the enviorment, screw that.

no need for a dissertation about why no jobs, but you seem to have an answer for everything else.....and your comment about utopia just shows you are smug and a little arrogant...

Well enough of this, have a nice day Mr. Democrate.....

You responded in the wrong thread.

All the hate you profess to want to get away from is coming from you, Cara, not me.

If you disagree with me, fine. Calling me arrogant and smug doesn't do much for your case, especially since I didn't call you any names. Pointing out the flaws in my logic would.

Wall Street would be regulated, had Glass-Steagall not been gutted, that was one of the disastrous Republican blunders I was referring to. I said nothing about the environment at all, much less disregarding it.

Do you have any answers, or just complaints and name calling?

Wrong thread indeed, i am all over the place today

I was addressing the comment that people are looking for utopia...i hardly think in these times utopia would be on there mind..maybe just surviving.

I don't have an answer for anything..nor does anyone else on this thread. But it's the same old stuff...right now it's dump on democrat's...everyone forgets what Bush and his cronies did to this country..talk about corruption...his bogus war in iraq,wmd's..whatever...now everything will be fine if the gop wins in Massachusetts and in November, how so?

Stop blaming Bush, first of all, unless you're willing to recognize that now, Obama is equally responsible since the vast majority of his economic policies are identical. That isn't the change millions of us voted for - just more of the same from a different party.

Bush was not helpful, in any way. I've opposed the Iraq war since day one, millions of people you would probably consider right-wingers have. But heaping the entire mess on his head is imply not accurate. Much of what broke in '07 had started decades before, and decades of either too much government meddling or not enough lead to that climax - not just Bush.

Everything will not be fine, if Brown wins, and I doubt anyone thinks that. What will change is the ability of the Democrats to jam through anything they can pay each other off enough to vote for, by restoring the opposition's ability to filibuster and actually FORCE inclusion in the debate and hopefully encourage BOTH parties to do a better job. The Dem's will still hold a majority, just not an unaccountable one.

Our government was built on the concept of checks and balances, not a fascist system where one party sets the agenda and jams it through. Those checks and balances need to be restored.

Prag it would be great if you only had a clue but you dont. You are so way off base I hardly know where to start. I have said this many times but it looks like you are hypnotized and just cannot break out of the hypnosis mode.

IT was the democrats who were the majority and voted us into war in 2002.

It was the democrats who lyed about fannie mae and freddie mac when bush attempted many times during his administration to investigate them.

Everything will not be fine for at least one year but truthfuly everything will never be fine again in this country even in three years when we can possibly get rid of the worst administration this country has ever seen it will take decades to track down all of the money that was stolden from this country from this mess in office.

I can honestly say I have heard no one defend not voting democratic while I have heard people who have voted democratic regret their vote.

I give this whole administration a big red F

SandyShores - you get a big white I (for incoherent.)I had to change you from a D (Deranged)

You're responding to the wrong poster, Sandy, and the Republicans took control of both houses in 2002 - after swapping majority status with the Dems's for a year - by a one vote margin or based on Gore's say-so.

When the Repulibcans took over, is when they really started to screw things up - badly. But they NEVER had a super-majority and your point it valid - that to do ANY of the stupid things they did for the next three years, they needed - AND GOT - some Democratic support.

Sober up before you post.

I keep seeing the word "promise" used in the media. I do recall candidate Obama "promising" to be practical. A promise is what parents say to kids, we are all suppose to be adults and there are NO promises.

The idea is wrong no matter what but on top of that would mean Biden and Peolosi would be in charge and even though they could not use the race card as the left does now would be no better off and maybe worse

It the Sarah Palin virus. Now drink your kool aid, smoke some crack and hit the sack.

Oooooh!!! Theauthoities.

He is in office partially for what you say- the rest is the media and left being so intent to make history by electing a non-white that they bought everything he said or was said about him and anything against him was automatically thrown into the (RACIST) file- no matter what reason anyone had for being against his ideas it was only because of his skin - with the media hyping that it is no wonder folks believed his lies in this PC world we now are forced to live in

The extreme right and left are both wrong but guess you can only see what the left tells you too - hopefully the rest of the country is not so blind and maybe just maybe we will finally get some people in DC in 2010 and 2012 that actually care about the country and people and not about ONLY lining their own pockets. As for the hate doubt the right has an exclusive on it if your rhetoric is any indication

Liberals are a miserable lot. Always angey but have no ideas that they can defend. All you ever hear them do is attack the person not the message.

I love america, good post. I agree that we somehow need to find middle ground. Too much extremism on both sides. This administration is creating the largest chasm that has ever existed in this nation. He must start trying to appease both sides by exercising some moderation or it will get worse.

People don't want the government to wipe their asses. The only groups that wants that is Liberal democrats, Acorn,Seiu. Welfare for America or Socialism what ever its name be. Spend,Print, Spend. Most of America just want jobs and Smaller Government.And Honest Politicians

The irresponsibility of Medicare Part D contributed significantly to the Republicans being shown the door in '06 and '08. As you say, that didn't stop seniors from taking advantage of the program.

It was hoped that slapping the Republicans around and tossing them out would send a message to the Dems, to knock it off.

They weren't and aren't listening. Dem slap fest, commencing on Tuesday.

As it stands now, when poor people need medical, they go to the emergency room and get free care. Why do they keep saying that more people will be insured? The cuts in medicare will result in less middle class people having access to care because doctors are going to stop accepting medicare patients. Already they get 20% less from a medicare patient and that is going to increase another 21%. When the doctors can't cover their costs, they won't deal with us.

They are taking away from medicare to help fund medicaid. How does that help anyone?

You are not alone in believing that some change would be good for this country. Problem is, none of this change is worth the effort and the american people don't want his self driven change. Get rid of the Obammer, the senate, congress and the rest of the leeches in washington and start over. New people couldn't do any worse than the existing idiots.

You have it backwards on health care, treasurehunter.

The Republicans are fighting the health care reform because it is not reform, it is a payoff to pharma, the insurance industry and unions. The Republicans want to remove the insurance industries anti-trust exemption, and FORCE them to compete. Between the two options, the Republican plan would cost the insurance industry the most - so insurance fell in behind the Dems.

You're right, both parties suck. But you need to understand that the Republicans are not the enemy the Democrats and MSM make them out to be in this instance. Opposing parties are supposed to oppose. The last year has shown us what happens when there is no balance from opposition - it's worse than gridlock.

treasure - How sad, you got fooled even though the candidate was telling you in every campaign speech what he was planning. All the signs were there, you fell in love with the idea of a black man and showing the world how wonderful you were, this is so typical liberal thinking. You didn't look beneath the surface at his background, he is doing exactly what he believes it takes to make his America uptopia. He is making right all the wrongs of white America. He is a politician first and foremost; but a racist of the first order.

To say we would have been worse off with the other choice is just sour grapes on your part. You don't know and neither do any of us. But from reading your post, you will repeat the same mistake again and pick a loser.

You have good points till the end where you say the Republicans are in bed with big business- they may have been but it is this administration that has cut deals with the Insurance & Pharmaceutical companies and the unions - the Republicans are not in this at all it is all Democrats and big business ( including the banks and wall street) so what is needed is for everyone to vote INDEPENDENT- get enough of the Dems and Repbs out and maybe those in DC will start working for the country instead of themselves

Actually, I think we would have been better off with McCain. It would have been a check on the Democratically controlled Congress. That's what's missing now. This country runs best when there are checks and balances - that's the way this country was designed to run.

Personally, I did not vote for Obama. Having grown up in Illinois, I knew already that Illinois politics is corrupt and hardball. Granted Louisiana is known for corruption and New York is known for hardball politics, but Illinois is the only state that combines the two, especially Chicago. This is why I never bought into the 'dream'. Luckily, I know a snakeoil salesman when I see one.

To hear people today slamming sarah palin is beyond sickening. I could have put a three year old in office as president and gotten better choices for this country. Sarah at this point to me looks like the person who would have been best suited to go after the criminals in the white house who are in full speed motion destroying this country. I would much rather have seen these people in prizon breaking rocks where they truely belong.

I hope you fully expect things to get worse over the next year because with this administration in office they will we already cannot compete with the world expect that to worsen over the next year.

This country may never be the same the people did after all elect the most corrupt people out of the bush administration. I give the obama administration a F and one to the fools who keep voting in the criminals that lied about our financial situation during the bush administration. You are either a complete idiot or there is no or.

It would be fantastic if Brown were to win. But, even if he doesn't win, it would still be a clear sign...the race would NEVER have been this close in Massachusetts! Let's hope Mass follows VA and NJ.

I have always thought it was funny for Obama to compare himself to Lincoln. Wonder if he knows that Lincoln wanted to send all blacks back to Africa and even had the ships ready for that purpose? In the Lincoln/Douglas debates he made the statement that blacks would never be equal to whites and they should never intermarry. This is who Obama thinks he resembles?

I compare him to the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.

Ray - Good Post - Temporary amnesty for Haitians, Temporary tax on Banks, Temporary reprieve for Union Medical Tax, you are right, the spin never stop. The only thing that was temporary that has been rescinded is tax cuts.

Socialist is too tame a term for Maobama and his thugs -- Communist is a better descriptor -- NJ and VA were a start -- MA is next -- I pray the American people are finally getting wise to the agenda of these snakes!!!

and yet another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HbcxXvvf_s&feature=youtu.be

Everything about the teabaggers (I still can't get the sexual images attached to that phrase out of my mind when I type or say it) shows them to be tools of the GOP, so how can you feel that they constitute a third path?

I'd be all for a viable third party if it were: socially moderate (maybe even a little liberal), fiscally conservative; were willing to take strong action to protect average Americans against corporate excesses; were willing to scale back governmental intrusions and excesses to those things that only government can do well (I know, I'm veering close to Libertarianism here), and that it places the well being of the American people above all other considerations, then I might be able to support it. Know any parties like that? Yeah, me neither...

You've actually described the majority of the tea party, David.

Yes, there are extremists within the party that carry their Bibles everywhere they go, are bigots and racists. Every movement has a fringe, and unfortunately the opposing party (democrats) and their cohorts in the mainstream media want to make the most noise about the fringe of the tea party, ignoring the majority who are NOT extremists.

And remember: The Republican party co-opted (or are attempting to) the tea party, NOT the other way around.

I'll take your word for it, and I'm not being cynical. I must admit that all I've seen of them struck me as extremely strident and reactionary, neither of which I felt was constructive given our dire situation. I also had the distinct impression (hence my earlier statement) that the GOP was utilizing them to undermine any chance of success on the part of our present administration. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't have all the answers, and I hope I didn't offer offense. As I've said elsewhere, polarization is not my goal, as that only perpetuates the cycle of misunderstanding that holds us all down.

No offense taken.

I'm not a member of the tea party either, who's just defending something I happen to belong to.

What I find very repulsive and discouraging is the misrepresentation and denigration of the movement. They are doing NOTHING wrong, have done nothing but exercise their constitutionally protected freedom of speech and assembly, and they get called names by Pelosi et al (astroturf, etc), and accused of being an arm of the Republican party which is just not true.

And the movement started under Bush, not Obama, which people love to say they're just standing in the way of THIS administration - simply not true.

They're trying to stand in the way of overreaching government, excessive taxation and loss of liberty - all of which Bush was guilty of, and Obama continues.