September 10th, 2012
07:55 AM ET
Obama's day ahead: laying low Freshly back from the convention and a campaign swing through New Hampshire, Iowa, and Florida, president Obama his laying low in the White House Monday with no scheduled events. Press Secretary Jay Carney will brief reporters at 12:30 p.m. Full schedule provided by the White House:
|
  |
 |
|||
|
|
|
||||
Maybe Obama could create a few jobs, that would be nice. Seriously Obama you need to drop out of the race. Do the right thing for this country. Other men/women have sacrificed their personal lives for this country. Give up the ego, go home.
Please, stop it. Why would he drop out when he is going to win. He is not going to be bullied by the Republicans.
None of the Romney men have sacrified their lives for this country. None of his sons, father or grandfather served in the Army.
Obama is related to the one of the first slaves and his grandfather whom he grew up with served in WWII.
Obama / Biden 2012
OK, but Obama did not serve in the military. So, why do you cut Gov. Romney for not serving? What a strange argument.
Obama is only a historical figure. No substance.
what a BS from a BS supporter. go mitt
VP Biden ask for FIVE deferments during the VIETNAM war, he did not serve, now he has his sons serve, are they less worth then him, or are they kept out of harms way.
Related to slaves, served in WWII, according to those researchers every American can be traced back to slaves, even if you can prove your not, he's grandfather that he said liberated a death camp, never left the US,
If I remember right Romney not only had 4 deferments (thanks to daddy) he had the gall to protest FOR the Vietnam War.
that is the same as saying "I have my deferment but you should go die for this country." Why not put his mouth where his money was? Oh right that is not where his money was! President Obama was 6 years old for 1969 start of Vietnam War.
GM losing $49,000 on each Volt sold ... the power hungry, two bit community organizer,
is driving America into an economic ditch !!!
@ jean2009 ... you are a typical, predictable, ill mannered Obama stooge, who responds to ALL opposing discourse, with ugly insults. It's become obvious that you Obama stooges care nothing for the truth ... all you, and "Dear Leader", care about is holding onto power at ANY cost. When "Dear Leader" looses, all you bribed, free loading disciples, will have to actually work for a living, and actually pay taxes. The fear of this reality enables you to justify dirty, dishonest tactics ... ... and, say, or do ANYTHING, in order to win. The Hard working, responsible, patriotic, moral, Americans in this country look forward to "Dear Leader", and his corrupt followers getting kicked to the curb in November ... so, that America can get back to fixing all the damage you and Obama has done to this great country ... so, goodbye, and good riddance.
Obama father was from Africa and mother from the US white by the way.How is he related to slaves.
I thought the government didn't create jobs besides maybe you should be asking the do nothing Congress where their job creation is.
your right the demos have not put forward a budget in 4 years and the demos to a person voted Obamas down.
Jay, no one's dropping out of anything! Perhaps another GOP loss will make the powers that be thrown the "Tea Party" out and run some candidates who aren't certified nut cases and can appeal to majority in the country outside the South. Demographics are agains the present setup.
Oh, by the way. How many years of his term did GWB spend on the ranch in Texas?
I guess that explains the mid term elections. It was more than just the south that put these Republican's in power in Congress. They are doing exactly what we elected them to do, limit the damage until we could replace this President.
If I were working a job and my record at that job wasn't so good, my agenda to my boss (we the people) would be packed with meetings with my top economic advisers until the issues were fixed. I guess soliciting for the job again has tired him out. We understand Mr President, while 88 million people are unemployed you take the day off. When is the last time you met with your jobs council? Maybe that should fill your day today.
Obama will say, or do anything to hold onto power ... and, the Obama stooges will defend "Dear Leader", and demonize his opponents ... no matter what Obama says, or does. America ... let's stop the illusion of the Emperor's new clothes ... America needs a REAL leader ... and, America is much more important than Obama. Obama is expendable ... America is not. Save America, elect Romney/Ryan in November.
Do you ever say anything that is persuasive to swing voters?
Doesn't Rush or one of them have a parrots talking to parrots section?
No doubt he'll hit the links today, it's hard work lying and deceiving 24/7.
Maybe his arrogance thinks that all that hopium he spread last week was all he needed to do.
Hey, 6 points up in a CNN poll, what else is there to do today?
Robme and Lying Ryan are the ones who are spreading misleading and false attacks.
Republicans "We will not have our campaigns run by fact checkers"
Neither do the President and VP Biden
@ LIONEL ...
CONVERSELY ... OBAMA AND BIDEN DO NOT HAVE THEIR CAMPAIGNS, STATEMENTS, OR POLICIES INFLUENCED BY FACTS. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN CAUGHT IN COUNTLESS LIES AND CONTRADICTIONS, WHEN VIEWED ON VIDEO TAPE, SHOT OVER THE PAST 4 YEARS.
Such as what? Promising to cut the deficit by 50% and only cutting it 35% from FY2009's record high?
I think that is substantially different than just an overt lie-$716B stolen from Medicare–and that doesn't even address that Ryan's plan called for EXACTLY the same cost savings.
CNN goes easy on Republicans. They walk on eggshells not to offend the knuckledraggers whining about the MSM/lamestream media stuff. They gave Ryan "misleading" on the GM plant. I'm sorry, but that was an overt lie. The plant was shut down before Obama was even elected, let alone inaugurated.
Why does the golf stuff bother you guys so much?
Frankly, Boehner is a pretty avid golfer. What bothers me is that those two don't play together more. Business gets done when two men are in a cart for a few hours. You can be nasty to someone else in politics and your base will get excited-do the same on a golf course and you're lacking all honor, etiquette and integrity. Actually, we'd probably be better off if Congress was held to the behavior that is expected on a course.
Romney: Obama's a failed President
Sherrif Joe: Yeah, cause he's no deportin' them mexican-lookin' types!
Romney: Stop it...be quiet...
Ryan: He also failed to approve my cuts to medicare, which would save it.
Romney: Not you too, we talked about this...keep that quiet till after the election
Bachmann: He's also failing to kick out all the muslims...probably because he is one!
Romney: Where did you come from? What are you doing here?
Tom Head: Yeah, Elect Romney, then we'll kick out them muslims, or there's gonna be hell to pay!
Romney: Oh, for the love of...not you too!
Palin: Is there a camera in here?
Rush: Did someone say camera? Where Sandra Fluke?
Christie: Is there some food in here?
Romney: ...someone get me the aspirin...
Obama: munches popcorn...
You should be a screenplay writer! That gave me a much needed laugh this morning.
Fiction must be payed well.
After Romney loses.... Nevermind I will be nice.
IF Romney loses, what will you say then? I mean, that would mean MOST americans voted for him instead. So... I don't know what are you going to say saying you are smarter than most people... ummmm I don't think so. And if you say so that shows how not smart you are. Let's just wait and let America choose. You typing here or me typing here in these comments will not make any presidents win. Voting will.
Great job President. 29 months of job growth. 4.5 million jobs created.
You have saved us from another great depression. You deserve some time off.
Unlike Robme who spent 5 days in multi-millionaire manson doing debate prep. Ha Ha Ha Ha....
You did a great job telling the folks in Florida the truth about the Romney / Ryan plan.
You do realize that over 5 million jobs were lost under Obama. And the 5 million does not count the people that dropped out of the workforce. Last month alone over 350,000 dropped out. Don't hear Obama's people talking about that very much.
Only counting the jobs added but not subtracting the ones lost is strange Liberal math.
If Obama says that up is down and the earth is flat then Lionel believes it 100%.
So use the U6 unemployment figure and quit talking about the U3.
Yes, unemployment on the U6 figure is up by .5% if you assume that Obama's policies were solely responsible for the economy 14 seconds after he was sworn in. That seems illogical, but use that figure. It puts us at 14.2% then and 14.7% now.
What policies do you feel took us from 7.3% in Jan 2001 to 14.2% in Jan 2009? Or more severe, what happened in 2008 that took unemployment up by 55% (under either the u3 or u6)?
Wouldn't a reasonable person be pinpointing what mistakes caused everything to jump?
@ just-a-moderate, So you take one month out of 96 and use that to judge a president? President Bush had some good years, 83 months below 6%. Evidently he was doing something right.
I have posted this before but it is worth posting again. The numbers are in order of unemployment percentage. Visit the official gov site to see a chart by year.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
President Bush's unemployment numbers
4.0 – 4.9 = 34 months
5.0 – 5.9 = 49 months
6.0 – 6.9 = 12 months
7.0 – 7.9 = 1 month
Obama's unemployment numbers
7.9 – 7.9 = 1 months
8.0 – 8.9 = 13 months
9.0 – 9.9 = 27 months
10.0 – 10.9 = 1 months
Clearly President Bush has the better record.
? When did I use one month? I said that unemployment nearly doubled in W's term. I said that unemployment went up 55% in his last year. Both of these items are true and establish a trend. Trends trump averages. That's stats 101.
Further, those numbers are even worse if you back out the rapid growth in public sector hiring under his watch.
The economic indictment against Obama is that he has only stopped the bleeding, but not fixed anything. That's a valid argument. But you can't be credible and not also acknowledge that 2001-2009 was an ugly reversal of a trend.
So if W's policies effectively doubled unemployment and turned surplus into deficit, I just don't see how Mitt can win without delineating how his policies are different than W's. He's effectively proposing W's policies on steroids.
IMHO, if you want Mitt to win, you have to throw W under the bus. Blame him for bad fiscal policy, bad foreign policy, and hiring too many government workers. Then articulate that you're not W and not Obama...that's Mitt's only chance.
@ just-a-moderate, you ask "When did I use one month?" did not you say "14.2% in Jan 2009". Oh, well, I guess Liberals just love to lie.
Like I said before 83 months below 6%. President Bush has the better record on employment.
@jay in NC...frankly, letting you use January 2009 was nice for GOP partisans–I was just using the same term that you were using for your calculations. The only difference is that I was using relevant stats like trends and you were using an average.
Let's use whatever you want to. What 96 month and 12 month period do you feel would be fair?
It is completely illogical to think that a president suddenly "owns" an economy after being sworn in. We track what presidents do in their first 100 days; realistically, to say a president has any control prior to the first 6 months is IMHO, nuts.
So use July 2001 to July 2009. Suddenly the numbers are worse. On that basis, Bush would have gone from a U6 of 7.8% to 16.5%. Obama would have gone from 16.5% to 14.7%.
It is entirely reasonable, logical, and honest to say that Bush was awful. You can still assert that Romney is a better choice for November than Obama. Your whole argument seems hollow when you try and call Bush's presidency a success. Why defend him? Throw him under the bus or you're going to get another 4 years of Obama.
@ just_a_moderate, you continue to pick a single month and draw a 'trend line' Any high-school student can see the flaws in that choice.
Let me throw out a hypothetical questions. say you have two presidents, each start and end with 12% unemployment, however during the first ones term the numbers dipped down to 5% and during the second one's climbed to 18%. Winch President would you say had the better record?
slice it anyway you want, President Bush has the better record.
@jay in NC....sorry , I have to disagree with you. I was an actuary....took stats through the 700 level...I just don't think that your "high schooler" comparison is accurate. The issue you are struggling with is covered before high school for the smart kids.
I am not picking any months. I've given you the ability to choose whatever timelines you'd like to. So pick the months. Or quit whining about it. But don't say that someone else is choosing the months when the issue is that you are refusing to.
As for your example, it's bad at best. Indeed, if two presidents started at 12%, and one went up to 18% and one down to 5%, I'd say there is a clear 'better.' There's no argument. Then again, that never happened.
Let's use reality. Say one president went from roughly 7-8% to roughly 15-16% (U6 unemployment) and another went from 15-16% to 14-15%...are you seriously saying that you can't comprehend that?
Here, look at it a different way. When you buy stocks, do you buy trends or averages? Or better, which would forecast the health of BlackBerry? Their 10-year sales average is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? Or how about Apple a few years ago when they reported their first quarter of results on these new i-device thingies? If someone traded stocks using your math, they'd go broke in a heartbeat.
just_a_moderate, are you saying that you can not comprehend that President Bush had 86 months below 6%. That is not an average that is the number of months below 6%. Pick any month in the Bush presidency, it is better than Obama's.
@jay in NC...I can comprehend that he had 80+ months below 6%, if you insist on using the virtually worthless U3 number.
I can comprehend that, on average, unemployment was lower under Bush. Average/count, whatever function you want to use. I get it...it's just a ridiculously uneducated way to look at things.
What's your goal here, to repeat the same thing? A parrot can be trained for that.
You're the ONLY person I have ever met that would cite average rather than trend.
You never addressed the BlackBerry example. How do you value them? On a 10 year average of sales or based on where the business is now? Do you even have investments?
If that example is too difficult, pretend it is personal net worth. Say that one person had a net worth of $10MM for 11 months, got wiped out and ended at $0. Would you still talk about those long-gone glory days or would you call that a bad year?
just_a_moderate, we all can see the trend with Obama, lower wages, more food stamps, more debt. But I am sure that you will find a way to spin that as well. Or if not then resort to calling us stupid. The truth is there, the world can see it. The Liberal King has no cloths.
@jay in NC
re: Obama and no clothes...why do you partisans always assume that historical analysis which finds your guy bad means the other party must be good? I agree with you. I have issues with Obama. I also have issues with Mitt. If you can't honestly look at W's presidency as a train wreck, how can you intelligently support his tax plan? I love some parts of it. I hate some parts of it. Talking politics isn't about supporting your party. Frankly, neither has a record worth calling "your party."
re: dollar cost averaging...that's a really bad example. I'm not referring to investment amounts and intervals. I'm referring to stock selection. Again, using a company's 10 year sales average would be foolish. An example would be BlackBerry, right? The average is a lot higher than what they're going to sell next quarter. It would just be a very foolish way to analyze data. Where that is relevant is that it is how you are analyzing unemployment from 2001-2009.
If you're willing to vote for Mitt, but afraid to ask critical questions, I simply don't get that. I'm not saying you don't have that right, but you mentioned deficits. Mitt's got a whopper planned. It's either going to be ignored or going to be made up by taxing the middle class.
At some point you get to a discussion about economics. That's far more relevant than party loyalty. Our economy has grown in times of both high and low tax. It doesn't grow long term without a middle class. That's undeniably true. Mitt's plan concerns me in both its vagueness and apparent impact on the middle class.
While I disagree with you, I only do so because I do like to talk about the impact of this stuff before I cast my vote. McCain likely had my vote...the Palin debacle scared me, but the real issue was when he called Lehman a confidence issue and said the economic issues weren't his forte...that's pretty much the issue that matters most to me.
you asked " When you buy stocks, do you buy trends or averages?" and concluded that "If someone traded stocks using your math, they'd go broke in a heartbeat."
Well, it is called Dollar Cost Averaging. Most Americans use this when contributing to their retirement. They put in the same each month, On low months they purchase more shares, on high months lower number of shares. It is hardly a way to "go broke in a heartbeat."
You are so full of hate that you can not think. You ask the question of if have investments with such contempt. Is this how Obama supporters fell about the poor? That they do not have investments so they do not matter? Drop the hate then maybe you can see the truth.
Why don't you pay attention to the jobs that were lost?! thats what I thought.
Mortimer Zuckerman: Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/unemployment/2012/09/10/mortimer-zuckerman-those-jobless-numbers-are-even-worse-they-look#ixzz265aIcu6pDon't be fooled by the headline unemployment number of 8.1% announced on Friday. The reason the number dropped to 8.1% from 8.3% in July was not because more jobs were created, but because more people quit looking for work.
The number for August reflects only people who have actively applied for a job in the past four weeks, either by interview or by filling an application form. But when the average period of unemployment is nearly 40 weeks, it is unrealistic to expect everyone who needs a job to keep seeking work consistently for months on end. You don't have to be lazy to recoil from the heartbreaking futility of knocking, week after week, on closed doors.
How many people are out of work but not counted as unemployed because they hadn't sought work in the past four weeks? Eight million. This is the sort of distressing number that turns up when you look beyond the headline number.
Here's another one: 96,000—that's how many new jobs were added last month, well short of the anemic 125,000 predicted by analysts, and dramatically less than the (still paltry) 139,000 the economy had been averaging in 2012.
The alarming numbers proliferate the deeper you look: 40.7% of the people counted as unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more—that's 5.2 million "long-term" unemployed. Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population since then has grown by 31 million.
We are still almost five million payrolls shy of where we were at the end of 2007, when the recession began. Think about that when you hear the Obama administration's talk of an economic recovery.
The key indicator of our employment health, in all the statistics, is what the government calls U-6. This is the number who have applied for work in the past six months and includes people who are involuntary part-time workers—government-speak for those individuals whose jobs have been cut back to two or three days a week.
Oh Yeah! Fox News as a reference source....talk about using a fully biased source of reference....keep drinking that poisoned tea!
Maybe Obama skipping Intel briefings can be blamed on 'SYNTAX' ... or, maybe it's George Bush's fault ... or, maybe Obama can just deny it, even if video tapes prove it ... or, maybe Obama will be more flexible, after the election ... or, maybe Clinton 'did not have sex with that woman' ... who cares what the truth is ... Obama stooges, like Lionel, Cynthia, Jean, or Judy, will defend "Dear Leader", and demonize his opponents ... no matter what Obama says, or does.
380K people left the work force.Obama does not attend his defence briefings. Lucky for Him he is in the public sector.
The worse president ever. He always tell himself: I am president. He is pretender , not president.
That's mean...why would you say that about W?
When presidents relax they still work and hear reports on country and world issues. President Obama has done a good job and kept us safe and from going over the edge. His money is here not in the caymens and we have seen the last 12 years of his tax returns. He owns one house not many and him and Mrs Obama are great parents. He is very good with foreign policy and economist say he did the right thing with the stimulas and bail outs. They also say romneys healthcare plan will cut short the number of yeas it would be solvent and increase cost for seniors. Do the math as fromer president Clinton said. He didn't serve in the military but his grand pa did and him and Mrs Obama have our military families welfare in mind. Romney go a deferment abecause of his mission work in france. Thats the difference. Only an idiot would think the president was a muslim or not born in the US. He is up in the polls and as people learn more his numbers will only increase. Forward.
Hello Judy. I respect your belief in the President. However, you have given very little that would cause me to cast my vote for President Obama. Simply because he an Michelle are good parents and the President had a Grandparent serve during WWII does little to describe his leadership capabilities. I couldn't care less how many houses he owns. This is not a popularity contest, or it shouldn't be.
Not all economists would agree that the President's stimulus solution will provide the long term fix we need for the economy. It may have halted the recession which supposedly ended April 2009. If the recession ended, then why isn't the economy moving forward? In fact, some economist like Peter Schiff believe we are headed to a much larger recession due to the stimulus and growing deficit. When you state they say Romney's healthcare plan will cut short the years it could be solvent, who is they?
I am also not certain that the President's foreign policy is as good as believed. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria and Russia have shown little if any cooperation. Russia still provides arms to Hassan. Pakistan charges us to ship supplies. Iran and North Korea want to develop nuclear weapons.
Bill Clinton can run numbers as much as he wants. It does not change the fact that unemployment is up, the deficit is growing and economic growth is flat.
CARAMON, WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR ROMNEY OVER OBAMA ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES? WHAT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE OF ANY POLICY SPECIFICS THE ROMNEY TEAM HAS THAT YOU THINK WOULD SOLVE ANY OF OUR PROBLEMS? WHAT DO YOU THINK ROMNEY WILL DO THAT WOULD BE SO MASSIVELY DIFFERENT AND COUNTER TO WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE? EVEN MORE REALISTICALLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ROMNEY CAN DO THAT WOULD BE SO DIFFERENT CONSIDERING THE GRIDLOCK IN CONGRESS?
DECEMBER 2012, you voted for Senator Obama simply on the promise of HOPE and CHANGE, never knowing what that hope and change would be. Now you will vote for President Obama on the promise of FORWARD, not knowing what that forward will be.
Hi December. How have you been? I did see you previous response from last Friday. However, I thought it was too late to respond. Why do I feel Romney would do a better job? A valid question.
Because Mitt Romney already had to cross the aisle as a republican governor with a democratic state legislature. He also reduced a deficit. Will there continue to be a gridlock in Congress, probably. However, some Democrats particularly in the Senate could cross just like Olympia Snowe did on healthcare. I also believe that continuing to increase the deficit will have very negative effects in the future.
Did you ever reason that maybe we wouldn't have needed a stimulus if George W. Bush hadn't foolishly tanked the economy with the failed policies Vulture-Voucher want to repeat. And yes the stimulus worked.
Obama-Biden 2012!
The Obama stooges continue to blame EVERYTHING on Bush ... while idolizing the two bit community organizer ... while they continue to ignore the fact that Democrats, Dodd & Franks, were primarily responsible for our economic meltdown ... and, they did it while under the Clinton administration !!!
Some very valid points. Mitty would create more jobs than the dems could dream about, thats a no brainer. Remeber also Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. To show how stupid and low the media is Obama has ruined our economy made us the butt end of world jokes and they still suck up to this guy. The only reason i can see is pure hate to the repub party, and yes racism. look around it has gotten worse. All u dumbo craps say how terrible Bush was but every freaking minute u compare Oblunder to him. Birdsof a feather . Instead of point and blame how about create and lead??? if u want to end up like Cuba Venezuela or another commie country stay with Oblunder. I MEAM how dumb can you be to keep this moron in office???
Ill close gitmo=lie
ill have unemp @6% or wont run=lie
ill cut deficet in half=lie
transparent gov =fast & furious= lis
THESE ARE FACTS THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED PULL YOUR HEAD OUT or live like third world country
So Jean, could you specify which of the Bush policies directly caused the economy to tank? Do you feel the housing bubble had no effect or cause on the economic recession?
CARAMON, THANKS. I AM DOING FINE AND I HOPE YOU ARE TOO..
GOVERNOR ROMNEY WOULD DO WELL TO HIGHLIGHT HIS RECORD AS GOVERNOR BUT HE HAS NOT. HE HAS AVOIDED TALKING ABOUT HIS SIGNATURE ACCOMPLISHMENT. ALSO, I MUST HAVE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE BUT IF WE LOOK AT ROMNEY'S RECORD AS GOVERNOR YOU WILL FIND THAT, AT BEST, HIS RECORD IS SIMILAR TO OBAMA'S. ALSO, BALANCING A STATES BUDGET IS NOT NEARLY AS DAUNTING AS DEALING WITH THE NATIONAL DEBT. I FIND IT HARD TO TRUST A GUY WHO TOUTS HIS RECORD BUT DOES NOT OWN UP TO ALL OF IT. I BELIEVE THIS ACCUSATION HAS BEEN THROWN AT OBAMA AS WELL SO ONCE AGAIN, JUST HOW MUCH BETTER DO YOU THINK MITT ROMNEY CAN DO, GIVEN THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT IN CONGRESS? I THINK THE WORST PART ABOUT HIS CAMPAIGN, THE ABSOLUTELY WORST THING HE COULD HAVE DONE, WAS SELECT PAUL RYAN FOR VP. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY HE WOULD PICK SOMEONE WHO COMES FROM THE SAME CONGRESS THAT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO MUCH OF THE GRIDLOCK WE HAVE NOW. WE NOW SEE THEM BACKTRACKING FROM MUCH OF THE RECORD RYAN HAS OFTEN WITH OUTRIGHT LIES. IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
THE TRUST FACTOR IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE KNOW WHO OBAMA IS BUT FOR SOME REASON, MITT ROMNEY IS BETTING TOO MUCH ON HOW BAD THE ECONOMY IS THAN GIVING US A REAL AND TRANSPARENT ALTERNATIVE. REFUSING TO RELEASE MORE OF HIS TAX RETURNS DOES NOT HELP WITH THE TRUST FACTOR. NOT PROVIDING DETAILS ABOUT YOUR TAX REFORM PLANS AND OTHER POLICIES IS DEFINITELY NOT HELPING. HE NEEDS TO SHAPE UP OR BY THE TIME THE DEBATES COME UP IT WILL ALREADY BE TOO LATE.
How about two unfunded wars...one of them on the pure speculation of non-existant Iraqi WMD and in a location where Osama bin Laden was distinctly known not to be?
How about an unfunded mandated drug benefit, which didn't even provide much savings? (And as a senior don't tell me it wasn't mandated. Anything that you are automatically signed up for at retirement age, and are fined for the rest of your life if you fail to select a provider at the appropriate age is...any way you slice it or dice it.... Mandatory.
How about tax breaks that favored the most wealthy that cost billions...it is estimated thatjust by ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would cut the Federal Budget by $28 billion just for 2013 alone. Now that is real savings.
How about the bloated defense costs for Halliburton...and Black Water?
How about No Child Left Behind which was to make the Bush brothers wealthy for marketing the tests and also keep the Texas School Book Publishers rolling in dough?
Gee Caramon need I go on?
Well December, once again I must admit that you make good points. I think there are some voters who are uncertain which way to vote. Some will vote for the President. Others, want a reason to vote for Romney. I think your last paragraph does a good job stating the concerns some voters have.
Oh and Caramon....That housing bubble...please! Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act was written by 3 of Bush's Republican soulmates, Look up George W. Bush and Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.. Look up the sub-prime mortage mess and Phil Gramm.
THANKS CARAMON, I APPRECIATE YOUR KIND WORDS AND CIVILITY WHICH IS RARE NOWADAYS ESPECIALLY FROM ME. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT'S RECORD AND THE ECONOMIC NUMBERS, HE SHOULD BE BEATABLE. THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN HAS PLACED ALL THEIR CHIPS ON THIS AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH A CANDIDATE WHO CANNOT OFFER A BETTER SOLUTION WITH A CLEAR PLAN. IF YOU THINK THE PEOPLE ARE DISAPPOINTED WITH OBAMA, THAT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE PLACED SO MUCH HOPE FOR THE PRESIDENT. YOU DON'T REALLY THINK THEY ARE GOING TO STOP DOING THAT NOW AND JUST VOTE FOR MITT? PEOPLE CRAVE IT MORE THAN EVER AND IT IS REFLECTED ON OBAMA'S HIGH LIKEABILITY RATINGS. IT THEN BECOMES A MATTER OF TRUST AND I HAVE MADE MY CASE AGAINST TRUSTING MITT.
AS FOR OBAMA, I REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK HE IS SUCH A BAD PRESIDENT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE ARE IN A RECESSION, AND HISTORICALLY DEFICIT SPENDING GOES UP, NOT DOWN AND HE GETS BLAMED FOR IT? THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALWAYS SPEND ITS WAY OUT OF IT REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION. AS FOR OBAMACARE, I DON'T THINK IT IS GETTING A FAIR SHAKE SINCE WE ARE NOT FEELING IT YET. AS IT STARTS AFFECTING PEOPLE'S LIVES THEN WE CAN MAKE A CASE FOR OR AGAINST IT. AS FOR TAXES, I THINK HE HAS NOT RAISED ANY, HE ACTUALLY CUT TAXES MANY TIMES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES THUS MAKING DEFICIT SPENDING EVEN WORSE. AS A REPUBLICAN, YOU SHOULD HUG THE GUY. AS A RESPONSIBLE AMERICAN, YOU SHOULD SHAKE YOUR HEAD.
WE AS A COUNTRY HAVE TO START LOOKING AT THIS NATIONAL DEBT WITH SOME COURAGE AND STOP LYING TO OURSELVES. WE ARE NOT ONLY PAYING LESS TAXES THAN WE SPEND, WE ARE PAYING LESS THAN WE DEDUCT! THESE LOOPHOLES ARE NUTS AND THE SOONER WE HAVE TAX REFORM THE BETTER. THE PROBLEM IS IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF COURAGE TO DO THIS. WHEN YOU COUPLE THIS WITH SPENDING CUTS WITH EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE, YOU WILL FIND EVEN LESS COURAGE THE LIKES OF SAY DURBIN. IF YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING THE NATIONAL DEBT, YOU WILL NOT BE POPULAR BUT THESE ARE THE KIND OF PEOPLE WE NEED TO DO THE JOB. I BELIEVE OBAMA IN HIS SECOND TERM CAN PUSH HARDER FOR THIS MORE THAN ROMNEY IN HIS FIRST TERM CAN AND IF WE TRULY BELIEVE THIS IS AN URGENT MATTER THEN THE SOONER WE GET SERIOUS ABOUT IT THE BETTER.
IF MITT ROMNEY CAN MAKE A COMPELLING CASE BY BEING MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT HIS PLANS AND THEY ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE THEN HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT OBAMA. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HIS STRENGTH AND HE HAS NOT DELIVERED. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED ANOTHER ROUND OF TAX CUTS, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY DEFENSE SPENDING NEEDS TO GO UP. IT IS TIME TO BE GROWN UP ABOUT THIS AND OFFER REAL SOLUTIONS.
Jean you make some good points. After reading some of the suggested materials, Phil Gramm certainly played a role in what eventually built up as a housing mess. However, it seems, the damage was done in 1999 and signed by Bill Clinton. I won't deny that Bush policies are partially to blame as well. He did push for more home ownership carrying on what was started in the Clinton years. However, he did eventually attempt to put some order into the housing market.
Something of interest I was also able to find...
"There appears to be ample evidence that the Bush administration recognized both the risk of subprimes, and specifically the risks posed by the GSE's who had an implicit guarantee of government backing. For example, in 2003, the Bush administration, recognizing that the current regulators for Fannie and Freddie were inadequate, proposed that a new agency be created to regulate the GSE's. This new agency would have been tasked specifically with setting capital reserve requirements, (removing that authority from Congress), approving new lines business for the GSE's, and most importantly, evaluating the risk in their ballooning portfolios. It was in specific response to this regulatory effort that Barney Frank made his now infamous statement "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." [72] Had this new regulatory agency been put in place in 2003, it likely would have uncovered the accounting fraud regarding executive bonuses which was occurring at that time at Fannie Mae. This accounting scandal would later force the resignation of Franklin Raines and others executives. [73] This new agency may also have slowed or stopped the further movement of the entire mortgage industry into subprime loans by exposing the full extent of the risks then taken by Fannie and Freddie, who at this time, controlled nearly half of all subprime loans being issued.
Efforts to control GSE were thwarted by intense lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[74] In April 2005, Secretary of the Treasury John Snow repeated 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." Then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid rejected legislation saying " we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." [75] A 2005 Republican effort for comprehensive GSE reform was threatened with filibuster by Senator Chris Dodd "
If I recall, the OWS movement blamed "fat cats" on Wallstreet for the mess.
Appears to be plenty of blame going around. My take is that Republicans and Democrats share the blame. The media doesn't help matter much because they have chosen sides. I am just as certain you can find many articles that claim that the housing bubble did not effect the economy.
Hi Jean. My previous response to you is still waiting for moderation. Most likely because I did some cutting and pasting. Hopefully you will have a chance to read it.
@Caramon....whoa, so "Not all economists would agree that the President's stimulus solution will provide the long term fix we need for the economy. It may have halted the recession which supposedly ended April 2009. If the recession ended, then why isn't the economy moving forward?"
What are you talking about? Recessions aren't some "supposed" measurement. Two quarters of negative growth=Recession.
Don't take someone else's word for it, go look it up. We are growing–that doesn't mean that it is massive growth, but a recession is an economics term with a definition. http://www.tradingeconomics(dot)com/united-states/gdp-growth
Furthermore, seriously, you're expect a unanimous support from economists to prove that the stimulus worked? How about "well over half" or how about "almost all economists not working in extreme right wing think tanks?"
Romney's has chosen to go with vague plans and then blaming Obama for the current situation. I think it is a foolish risk. He's running a referendum on Obama when 80%+ of the country doesn't like Congress. Obama is President, not CEO.
Mitt's alternative would be to outline his economic plan and offer it as a clear alternative. That's more than vaguely saying you'll cut taxes. If raise the effective rate, no intelligent person will fall for the reduction in a marginal rate....and those are the educated voters that they're fighting over in the +/- 8 states that matter.
But according to you President Bush or any other republican President NEVER did.
President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.
President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.
By Marc A. Thiessen, Washington Post
When you say Ultra -right-wing-nut Marc Thiessen it is the same and saying Limbag, Hunnity, and O'Really. Please use a more moderate source...otherwise you are posting lies..
@ jean2009 ...
TYPICAL B.S. OBAMA STOOGE RESPONSE ...
If you don't like the message ... trash the messenger.
Just what you'd expect from one of Obama's 'Brown Shirt' thugs.
Are you uneducated or nuts? Let's deconstruct your source: http://www.washingtonpost(dot)com/OPINIONS/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
Do you notice that little part "opinions" in the middle? Let's also look at the investigative body, a right wing think tank.
I have two questions: Who is better prepped and who makes their own decisions? The article seems to indicate Obama on both accounts-odd for a right winger to write such a nice article.
How on earth can you say it is a good thing that Bush came with Cheney daily. What an unbelievable waste of time. Do you seriously mean they couldn't be more efficient than that? Or was it that they needed Cheney there to make the tough decisions?
All you are underscoring is how bad W was. I'm sorry, but are you asking us to look at W's two Vietnam's as a measure of success??? You're nuts. Obama's unquestioned strength is foreign policy. That's not the place to attack him. We are better off, in terms of foreign policy, than we were four years ago.
Check your talking points...you parrots are only supposed to repeat "economy." Quit going off-script.
And tooth fairies leave money under your pilow for your lost tooth. Obama may be a good person & he certainly shows that he is a family man by sticking to his 9-05 schedule to be home with his family, but this is the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES for pete's sake. It is not a 9-5 job nor should he treat it like it is one. If he does he should go back to being a professoer. The US economy is in the tank, unemployment is not getting better, the tax system is broke, he hasnt had a budegt in almost 4 years & iif you read & believe this article everyday, the president has worked only a few hours on the US' problems in the last month & spent more time on the golf course, playing basketnall & campaigning than he has on runningbeing the president of the US. If he wants to lead the greatest country in the world, he needs to step up and do the job 110% of the time. Its not a part time job!
http://www.businessinsider.com -"Are You Better Off Today Than You Were 4 Years Ago" seems to not agree with you. All I have to do is look at the improvement in my monthly IRA and savings statements. In 2008, most seniors and far too many501c 3 Foundation charity trustees cried when their month securities statements arrived.
The answer is YES we are better off today than 4 years ago when jobs were being flushed at the rate of 750,000 a month.
Obama-Biden 2012!
If 50% of people do not pay income tax how could he not be up in the polls. You know people with money can not afford to pay for all the free bees Obama bribes them with. 1% is already paying 40% plus of tax with less than 40% of the income.
Okay for a zillionth time now, Clinton killed the economy with the nafta act that both houses passed. look it up and read its the dumbo-craps big idea to go global. oviously, europe, greece syria etc know how well the global move has worked out .also Clinton in His wife cheating wisdom, forced down the senate different criteria in underwriting laws forcing fannie mae freddie & country to be sub prime loan companys (mostly minorities who got raped by the banks). Along with all this wisdom they changed ins laws that forced AIG to insure this worthless paper. I pulled out of the market when this took place, most people who follow did also, u may or may not be aware but it takes about 2 yrs to see if finance changes are going to work. I Blame Bush for doing nothing about this. The fact is though he didint cause this mess. Oblunder with all his business savoy (not) has had 4 yrs, with the house and senate 2 years and has achieved NOTHING. Oblunder care in 2015 will banrupt this country, if u have 4th to 5th grade math aptitude its pretty ovious. You cant have 50 mil people pay for 120 mil people the funds will run out its not hard to see. so if u want to end up like cuba or another commie country vote for the joke. Mitt who has no personality, i believe will work on the jobs once laws are loosened jobs will grow, point being WHAT GOOD IS AN EDUCATION IF U HAVE NOWHERE TO USE IT ????
I see that this is another tough day at work for Obama. For the last 3 weeks he has worked abiut 5 hours according to this article everyday. What a joke. I guess everything really is fine
After the Republican convention Romney went boating and jet skiing and just popped his head up over the weekend for some not so successful Sunday interviews along with the not so successful interviews done by Ryan. (Maybe they should take another week off because they believe the Super Pacs and the $400 Million support of the Koch Bros. HAVE ALL READY BOUGHT THEM THE ELECTION!!--not.)
Romney hammered over NOT MENTIONING the TROOPS in his acceptance speech, a Fox interviewer asked him why – Mitt said THE TROOPS ARE JUST PART OF A LENGHTY LAUNDRY LIST AND HE DIDN'T THINK THEY TOOK PRECIDENT OVER THE ECONOMY. Seriously stupid comment, not only insulting to our Armed Service Members serving in Afghanistan who can now picture themselves HANGING ON THE ROMNEY CLOTHESLINE but, the Military Complex consumes the greatest part of,...wait for it,...OUR ECONOMY. Not to mention our Veterans programs the Republicans are happy to put on the chopping block while stimultaneously pounding their chests over Russia, Iran, China, North Korea. He said he mentioned the troops in Afghanistan in an American Legion speech – WHAT? TWO SENTENCES?? While RYAN was out and about DENYING that HE VOTED TWICE FOR $500 Billion Sequester facing Congress through their own obstructionism. You know, he is part of the Congress that has a 10% approval rating (And another reason to question Romney's thinking).
Howard, you call other people stooges when you are supporting the BIGGEST STOOGES TO RUN FOR OFFICE. I hope they pay you well for your loyal SUPPORT – Seeing as you work from your armchair, the only place a hoarder like you has a space to spew your hate of life in general.
Obama have not just created a lot of jobs, he saved the economy from going off a cliff that the republicans pushed it over. He saved the auto industry where Mr business experience-Romney would have let over a million Americans loose their jobs. Talk about judgement. Ask Osama Bin Laden how he is doing? Romney was willing to look pass Osama Bin Laden. Romney said that "he will not move heaven and earth to find Osama Bin Laden". Well, our president did, and the world is better off for it.
Talk about contrast, Romney wants to give tax brake upto $250,000 to millionaires and billionaires, while increasing the tax for the middle class and the poor. We know what Obama is going to do, He already did it-he gave tax brake to the bottom 95% of Americans.
The GOP voted against tax brake for the middle class, voted against a bill that would have blocked tax payers money from going to companies that ship jobs overseas.
I have said it before, you have to be a fool or driven by hate to vote for the GOP who have done everything the last four years to make sure the economy does not improve(sabotage) so that they can gain power back. Why should they be reworded for sabotaging the countries interest time and time again, vote after vote.
Now, they are asking us to vote for a man in Romney who specialise in shipping American jobs overseas. Does that make sense. Vote for GOP and show the world how folish you are-that you are rewording them for sabotaging the economy. The GOP NO vote on every attempt by Obama and the democrate to grow the economy is not patriotism. Their actions the last four years have been disgraceful to any American of good conscience. It is time to get rid of the GOP along with their Tea Party crazies.
Seriously Ben? How exactly did President Obama move Heaven and earth to find Osama Bin Laden? Is it possible he needed to rely on the intel provided by terrorists caught during the Bush Presidency. It seems to me that the Navy Seals did the ground work.
Romney does not want to give a 250K tax break to millionaires and billionaires. He wants to extend the tax cuts to those making over 250K. This includes many small business owners. How can you give tax breaks to people who do not pay taxes?
Bain did not specialize in outsourcing. They focused on creating businesses. Do you see the Staples store in your neighborhood? That large store chain which employs thousands of people was supported by Bain. There are many other American businesses that are successful today because of Bain.
"Romney does not want to give a 250K tax break to millionaires and billionaires. He wants to extend the tax cuts to those making over 250K. This includes many small business owners."
That's simply not true. It's 2-3% of small business owners.
The 97-98% of small business owners would be below $250k.
If the goal is to target small business with lower rates, I am 100% for it. I have absolutely no belief that Romney's tax bracket is the most pressing issue in our economy.
Further, increasing the effective tax rates on small business owners (those in the middle class that nonetheless ARE the job creators) by eliminating deductions is just foolish.
Shouldn't you say that the president is lying low? Unless Low is the name of an intern that is.
Who writes these headlines? Please! A little more literacy. It is not "laying low, but rather "lying low." To lay is a transitive verb, which needs an object, as in "she lays the books on the desk"; to lie is intransitive, as in "he lies down'; "he is lying down"; he is lying low."
There sure are alot of expert economist here on the comment section. But for those of you that are unfamiliar with how the economy works; lets take a look into Economics 101 shall we?
Overly simplified version of the US economy:
Think of it as a circular flow of a limited amount of money. Basically it's the constant exchange between consumers and suppliers. People need goods and services, so they buy the things they need(consumers). Companies/businesses/entreprenuers supply those goods and services(suppliers). Suppliers put that revenue into banks, while at the same time give the option to the Consumer to get back that money through labor. For the labor they've provided, the Consumer is then given this little thing called a paycheck, which they can use to get money from the bank and then use that money again for goods and services.
tl;dr Circulation of money= Consumer–>Supplier–>Banks–>Consumer (very very simplified) Keep in mind that there are alot of influencal factors left out in this simplified version: outside influence, gov't, competition, etc.
Heres where it gets a little shakey. As companies profit, they put that profit away into savings. The millions that they save = millions they just took out of the circular flow. As money is slowly being taken out, the circular flow starts to get thinner. When that happens, the value of the all-mighty dollar increases; followed by prices going up to compensate for this value increase. In the end we get this: high prices, little spending power. Obviously thats not a very good thing for the majority of the country. Spending power is constantly being slipped away into the bank accounts of Millionairs and higher. Unfortunately, little can be done about this slow economic demise. Rich individuals are protected by law and capitalism. But dont get me wrong, being rich is not a bad thing, as long as they plan to spend that money to put it back into the circular flow.
Before raging and flaming at me, you should know that Im no economist expert, and that I've only learned this in Highschool ahaha...In the end, you judge for yourself, and make your own decisions.
Wow, superb weblog structure! How long have you ever been running a blog for? you made blogging look easy. The overall glance of your web site is magnificent, as neatly as the content material!
I’m impressed, I must say. Actually not often do I encounter a blog that’s each educative and entertaining, and let me inform you, you will have hit the nail on the head. Your idea is excellent; the issue is one thing that not enough individuals are talking intelligently about. I'm very joyful that I stumbled across this in my seek for one thing referring to this. China Hood http://www.robinhoodchina.info