Cleo's Mom

His popularity might not be what it was a year ago, but it still beats the republicans. A new Newsweek poll released this weekend, contain some interesting and a in parts frustrating results - Like the difference in the support for HCR at the beginning of the poll (40-49) and AFTER being asked about the specifics of the plan (48-43), but the most interesting part is a match-up between president Obama and congressional GOP on 9 issues: a. The economy: Obama 46 GOP 30 * * b. Creating jobs: Obama 49 GOP 26 * * c. Tax policy: Obama 44 GOP 34 * * d. Dealing with government debt and the federal budget deficit: Obama 42 GOP 33 * * e. The war in Iraq: Obama 45 GOP 30 * * f. The war in Afghanistan: Obama 46 GOP 27 * * g. Dealing with Iran: Obama 40 GOP 30 * * h. The use of military courts versus civilian trials for terrorism suspects: Obama 34 GOP 38 * * i. Climate change legislation: Obama 38 GOP 26 * *

Question: How did Bush get people to believe lies but Obama can't get people to believe the truth? Answer: Because they're the same people. :redface:

Who's to Blame for the Deficit Numbers? from: Center for American Progress SOURCE: AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari Former President George W. Bush, seated, signs the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington. The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are the primary source of the current deficits. By Michael Ettlinger, Michael Linden | August 25, 2009 The revised deficit numbers reported by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget today show a lower deficit than previously estimated for 2009, with higher deficits for 2010 and beyond. Political opportunists will be busy looking for chances to score points over these numbers—pinning the dismal fiscal picture on the Obama administration. The real story is, however, fairly obvious. The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits. The Obama administration policies that are beginning to give the economy a needed jumpstart—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in particular—place a distant third in contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficit numbers. The deficit picture for the years beyond still needs to be painted. To come to these conclusions, we calculated the relative importance of the several factors contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficits by looking at the impact in those years of various policies. A detailed description of our approach is at the end of this column. Below is the percentage share of the major contributing factors to the total deterioration from the surpluses projected in 2000 to the current deficits according to our analysis. The policies of President George W. Bush make up the largest share, followed by the current economic downturn, and then President Barack Obama’s policies. Before explaining these further, it should be said that the generally worse deficit numbers reported today aren’t all that surprising. Since the last projections in May, it’s been plain that this recession has been worse than most analysts thought. With a weak economy comes lower tax revenue and higher safety net expenditures—with the loss in tax revenue causing the lion’s share of the deficit problem. The effects of a deeper recession have a long-lasting impact. Even as growth is restored, it is growth from a reduced starting point—a smaller economy in 2009 usually means a smaller economy than previously predicted for several years hence. Encouragingly, there have been signs of late that the administration’s policies to end the recession are starting to take hold. Without such efforts, the picture would be much gloomier, particularly in the short term. One piece of good news is that the government is no longer expecting to spend another $250 billion rescuing financial institutions through the Troubled Assets Relief Program—which explains the improved deficit picture for 2009. And the projections for deficits in future years would be far more pessimistic if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act policies were not starting to get traction. As for the deficit’s cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009. Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent. The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies—fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping—contributed mightily to the nation’s current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010. President Obama’s policies have also contributed to the federal deficit—but only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration. The cumulative cost of the financial sector rescue, mostly initiated under President Bush in response to the financial markets collapse, is also significant—contributing to 12 percent of the problem. A variety of other changes, described in the methodology section, are also contributors. For the longer term, it’s a bit disingenuous to assign any responsibility for the deficits. That’s a story yet to be told, and CBO and OMB provide a selection of numbers to choose from for the long run. Much will depend on how the economy fares. If the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, were to be continued in their entirety there would be large deficits. If, as the Obama administration has proposed, they are only extended for those making under $250,000, then they still contribute to the deficit but not as substantially. There are a number of similar budget items that have a long history for which one can, with equal legitimacy, assign responsibility to either their originators or current policymakers for continuing them. New Obama program initiatives, it’s important to note, contribute little to future deficits. The administration has insisted that its additional spending, especially on health care, be fully paid for with savings elsewhere in the budget and additional revenues. In fact, to address our budget challenges it is critical to reform health care which, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, is the single biggest budget headache in the long run. Regardless of responsibility, of course, the long-run deficit situation is one that needs to be addressed. Michael Ettlinger is the Vice President for Economic Policy and Michael Linden is the Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress. Methodology Contributors to the nation’s fiscal situation in 2009 and 2010 (in billions of dollars), as measured against surpluses projected in 2001 20092010President Bush’s policies-$923 billion-$918 billionCurrent economic downturn-$426 billion-$469 billionPresident Obama’s policies-$225 billion-$497 billionFinancial rescues begun by President Bush-$422 billion-$123 billionAll other-$302 billion-$262 billion Three times each year, the Congressional budget office releases revised estimates of its budget projections going forward 10 years. In each of these revisions, the CBO describes how its current estimate has changed from its previous estimate, and why. By studying these estimates, we can attribute the change in the federal bottom line to various factors: specific legislative policies, changing economic conditions, and technical modifications. Specifically, in January of 2001, just as President George W. Bush was taking office, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in fiscal year 2009, the federal budget would enjoy a $710 billion surplus. Today the Congressional Budget Office says that the budget will have a $1.6 trillion deficit, a swing of $2.3 trillion. Our analysis looks at the component causes of that swing. Note that this is somewhat different than determining the sources of the deficit—the numbers we derive add up to more than the deficit because they include loss of surplus. It is reasonable, however, to allocate the costs pro-rata between the surplus reduction and the deficit increase. Thus, the percentages presented above can be fairly characterized as the percentage contribution of each factor to the deficits for each year. In order to determine what caused that swing, we allocated changes in CBO’s projections to one of five categories. To President Bush we attributed all changes that CBO marked as “legislative” from its January 2002 update until its September 2008 update. We then modified this total in several ways. First, we subtracted more than $40 billion due to later revisions in CBO’s estimate of the costs of Medicare Part D. CBO categorizes these changes as “technical.” Second, we added about $60 billion in costs stemming from the economic stimulus of 2008 that CBO also classifies as “technical.” Finally, we adjusted downward the current cost of President Bush’s tax cuts. CBO’s estimates of the cost of President Bush’s tax proposals for 2009 and 2010 were based on its economic assumptions for those years. Because the economy is worse than CBO expected at the time it made those estimates, the cost of those tax cuts is also somewhat smaller than expected—as the tax system in general is producing less revenue, the cost of enacted tax reductions is less. To account for this, we adjusted the cost estimates of both the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (the Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act had no budgetary effect for 2009 and 2010) by the same ratio as CBO’s GDP projections at the time and current projections. This adjustment has the effect of reducing the amount of the fiscal deterioration attributable to President Bush. We believe this is more generous to the former president’s contribution to the current problems than a similar analysis recently conducted by The New York Times. The impact of the current economic downturn was calculated by summing all of the changes attributed to “economic factors” in CBO’s estimates from January 2008 through August 2009. To these we added revenue adjustments made in January and March 2009 that CBO classifies as “technical” but describes as being mostly due to economic changes. To President Obama, we attributed all legislative changes since CBO’s March 2009 update. The “financial rescues begun by President Bush” category consists of expenditures stemming from TARP and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and from CBO’s decision to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac onto the federal books. The remaining causes, including the economic changes from 2001 to 2007, CBO’s technical changes not accounted for elsewhere, and policies enacted at the very end of 2008 (such as Alternative Minimum Tax relief) were allocated to “all other.” We added $100 billion in additional expenditures for 2010 because CBO’s baseline does not include an additional AMT “patch” for fiscal year 2010, though such a “patch” is exceedingly likely.

From Laurakey: I am not sorry I voted for President Obama. Not one little single bit sorry! Me either! :redface: Those who can read, read the paper, read a book, study the issues and who listen and have an understanding of our economy, our issues, etc. and who get their news from someplace other than Fox understand that the current economy is NOT Pres. Obama's fault. He inherited this mess, but those who oppose him or who just don't understand, want to blame him while rewriting history to absolve bush for any of it. It just doesn't work that way. I have explained, posted charts and opinions of experts in economy, ad infinitum, about how the stimulus was necessary - maybe not popular, but necessary. It sure was popular with those who received the money, though, even if they opposed it. And it worked. The banks bailouts,started under bush, were necessary at the time, but remain unpopular and understandably so, when these same companies are now giving bonuses. Pres. Obama would have loved to inherit the economy that bush did, but he didn't and you have to work with what you're given. He could have ignored everything, done nothing, the economy would have collapsed, the banks would have failed, there would be no money available to anyone and we would be in a depression with at least a 15% unemployment rate. Now I know that for some that would have been okay. They would be the 85% still employed with health benefits. Or retired receiving their socialism SS checks and government run health care (medicare). And the debt would have kept climbing because it always does when unemployment goes up (less revenue) while those receiving unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc..goes up. While the cost of the wars and the unpaid for medicare drug plan and tax cuts under bush continued to raise the deficit. But Pres. Obama doesn't get credit for stopping a depression. No, the conservative media keeps bashing him for the current conditions. And all this negative media bashing affects the polls because it is easier for people to believe some stupid sound bite on fox than to think for themselves. Instead of blaming corporate america - which is who got us into this mess - it is far easier to just blame "the government".

More republican hypocrisy: The Recovery Act (stimulus) Speaking at CPAC on Friday, Republican Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty attacked the Recovery Act and said "we can't spend more than we have" - even though he couldn't balance his state budget without dipping into the Recovery Act funds. Hmmm. I wonder if he opposed the Iraq war and the Medicare part D plan both of which was "spending money that we didn't have"?? Nah - because those things didn't happen under Pres. Obama.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom Who other than someone who thinks they're god can pass judgement on someone and call them immoral? Anyone can make a judgement on anyone. People do it every day, everywhere. Why do you think that people dress up for job interviews. Impressions matter, what people say and do and believe matter. This is how you come to a conclusion (judgement, if that's what you want to call it) about people. You have made an impression to me. It is that on some of your beliefs on some controversial issues, you take an immoral stand. You feel that killing babies in the womb is just dandy if that's what the mother desires. Show me where I have ever said it was dandy for a woman to have an abortion. To me and many others, that is an immoral stand.Abortion is legal and safe now and I want to keep it that way and that does not make me immoral. If another woman never chose to have an abortion that would be fine by me. You feel that the act of homosexuality is just fine. To me and to many others, that is an immoral stand.I don't believe that gays should be discriminated against and should enjoy all the rights and privledges that heterosexuals do. You feel that the government taking our hard earned money and giving it away to others to do as they please with it is just great. I, and many others feel that it is stealing.Our country was founded on taxation with representation. It is legal and hardly immoral just because you don't like to whom they distribute money. That is an immoral stand that you take. I am free to feel that you are an immoral person based on your stand on issues. You don't know me and you know nothing about my morality. My political views don't make me immoral. Yes, they do. What we believe and how we live is what makes up our morality..And that's what you're basing your insult on. You call yourself a christian who follows the word of God but you are mean-spirited and you insult, judge and name call. Where does it say in the bible to do that? Your posts don't reflect christianity in my view. And no amount of bible quotes or backpedaling is going to convince me otherwise.

Who other than someone who thinks they're god can pass judgement on someone and call them immoral? You don't know me and you know nothing about my morality. My political views don't make me immoral. And that's what you're basing your insult on. You call yourself a christian who follows the word of God but you are mean-spirited and you insult, judge and name call. Where does it say in the bible to do that? Your posts don't reflect christianity in my view. And no amount of bible quotes or backpedaling is going to convince me otherwise.

I am certainly at least as moral as you - and furthermore, I am right. When you said in a previous post (on another thread) that all my posts were hate filled (which was a lie) the gloves came off as far as I was concerned. And I will give it back to you in kind. You also posted this question to me: Are you black or something? Cause you certainly are coming off as an offended black person who is hanging on by a thread to your President simply because he matches your skin tone. That is very offensive. And what does.."or something" mean? Are you implying that only people of color support Pres. Obama? You are a very judgemental and you look down on those who disagree with you and call into question their morality. How dare you. :thumbup: You say that I am not your teacher, well you are not my god!!!

First, my condolences for having to live in Texas. I feel your pain. LOL. But you are exactly right. Howard Dean said it best when he said that the south has been voting republican for 40 years and what have they done for them? Nothing. The poorest parts of this country are in the south. I have posted this question on several different threads: What major program has the republicans passed that helped the middle class, yet alone the poor? I read an analysis that the PR firms hired by republicans, among others, could make poor people protest estate taxes. The republicans are very good at reducing issues to a single sound bite. It's usually a lie, but it doesn't matter. It is said to incite, fear-bate or create hate. And it does.

All of these republicans and by extension, the teabaggers, none of whom voted for Pres. Obama, just hate, hate the fact that he was elected president. They hate his popularity. They hate how smart and well spoken he is (thus their sarcasm about teleprompters, that they use, btw). They hate that he gave a smack down to the dumb republicans at the GOP retreat. So what to do with all this hatred? Hide it behind phoney concerns for healthcare, spending and the deficit (where were these concerns under bush? Hmmm?). The 95% white teabaggers have never accepted Pres. Obama as their president. So it is a lunatic assembly of birthers, secessionists, John Birchers among others. They want Obama (and therefore this country) to fail so that they can succeed in getting elected. So let them take over the government - again - and then they will own the problems. There is NO way they can make the government smaller like they promise (nor have they ever even while in power). And we've seen the failed policies of the republicans under bush. The republicans are not going to support anything that Pres. Obama proposes. Nothing. And we need to make sure the public sees them for the hypocrites and do nothings that they are. I make sure I do my part.

Saving money does not create jobs or stimulate the economy. Spending does. It's that simple. And when Pres. Obama (as a concession to the republicans) gave 1/3 of the stimulus money as tax cuts, we saw that. People didn't spend the money and help create jobs. They paid bills or saved it. There is nothing wrong with that on principal - just that that doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy. Spending does. And the stimulus spending worked. We needed it then and now.

From Pattygreen:This is just another story among many that proves the stimulus money isn't 'stimulating' any jobs. Obama is wasting alot of money trying to get jobs up, yet it's only going into the hands of politicians who are abusing it. Once again, for the slow learners: :thumbup: In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009. Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimateswere by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found: • CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created. • IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created. • Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created. • Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created. In the report, Obama's economic advisers argue that their estimates "are consistent with a broad consensus of numerous professional forecasters. The fact that such a range of public and private forecasters broadly agree with our assessment should increase confidence that the act is having a substantial stimulative effect." Once again, PG, don't let the facts by experts stand in the way of your wrong opinion.

“Rather than use dollars for teachers and principals to buy more supplies, we chose this. We find very little of those supplies end up benefiting individual students as it relates to achievement levels,” Lewis said.(Lewis is the superintendent, not in the union) “We sent teachers because these are the people who will come back and teach our young people.” Last year, the school system paid America’s Choice, a program which provides professional development to educators, $8 million of the $52 million it received under the federal stimulus program. The six-year contract was designed to help improve academics at 40 of DeKalb’s 93 Title I schools -- all of which have not consistently made adequate yearly progress, Lewis said. Under the contract, DeKalb agreed to send school staff to the program’s conference at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel in Los Angeles. However, the conference fees -- including $91,000 for registration and $290,000 for hotels, flights and meals -- were not included in that $8 million stimulus package. The district had to take that money from Title I funds. About 45 teachers, 50 reading and math coaches, 39 principals and 32 assistant principals, with about 20 central office staff, will spend three days learning new teaching models for math, science and reading. The district also has to pay for substitute teachers to cover classes while those 45 teachers are away. The school employees boarded a plane in Atlanta on Wednesday and are scheduled to return Saturday. They will then train the staff at each of their schools on the teaching methods they learned. Lewis said it would not be efficient to send only several teachers and have them train the whole district because of the size of the school system, which is the third largest in the state. “If we were going to send five or 10 or even 15 and have them retrain everyone, the year would be over before we could train all the teachers,” he said. “Time is of the essence.”

I've posted ad infinitum about the hypocrisy of the republicans with respect to the stimulus, including the republican hypocrisy hall of fame (shame?). They are experts at talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Let's start with the free handouts to corporations - called corporate welfare. I have previously posted what this costs us and I am all in favor of doing that and making it very costly to them if they move jobs overseas.

Karey - I am glad you got it out. How did the doctor remove it in the office? The port incision is usually the biggest one and not done laprascopically. Were you just given a local? I hope you still got a copy of your operative reports. You might need them in the future. But for now, you just need to heal and get better. Good luck.

One year in, the evidence is clear – and growing by the day – that the Recovery Act is working to cushion the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and lay a new foundation for economic growth. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs through the end of 2009 As a result, job losses are a fraction of what they were a year ago, before the Recovery Act began The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Cut taxes for 95 percent of working families through the Making Work Pay tax credit Cut taxes for small businesses Provided loans to over 42,000 small businesses Funded over 12,500 transportation construction projects nationwide, ranging from highway construction to airport improvement projects Made multi-billion dollar investments in innovation, science and technology that are laying the foundation for our 21st century economy Provided critical relief for state governments facing record budget shortfalls, including help to prevent cuts to Medicaid and creating or saving over 300,000 education jobs Economists on the left and the right have stated that the Recovery Act has helped avert an even worse economic disaster What did Pres. Obama accomplish? Fewer job loses, positive GNP growth, saving the economy from a second depression. I can understand that those too stupid to understand a bar graph might not get that things are improving under Pres. Obama's economic policies. But none of that matters to those birthers, John Birch society members, the secessionists , racists and the other extremists who make up the tea party movement.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed liberals in the highest level of government sanctimoniously defend terrorists who kill us while persecuting those who defend us from murderous attacks. Really? Read on: from dailykos; Two senior Taliban leaders have been arrested in recent days inside Pakistan, officials said Thursday, as American and Pakistani intelligence agents continued to press their offensive against the group’s leadership after the capture of the insurgency’s military commander last month. Afghan officials said the Taliban "shadow governors" for two provinces in northern Afghanistan had been detained in Pakistan. Mullah Abdul Salam, the Taliban’s leader in Kunduz, and Mullah Mir Mohammed of Baghlan were captured about two weeks ago in a raid on a house in Akora Khattack, according to a leader at the Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqaniya madrasa there. NYTimes.com So here is your Talking Point for the Day on National Security if a wingnut says Obama isn't doing everything he can to keep America safe. President Obama has caught more Taliban Leaders in 1 month than Bush/Cheney did in 6 years The arrests come on the heels of the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s military commander and the deputy to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the movement’s founder. Mullah Baradar was arrested in a joint operation by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s military intelligence agency. NYTimes.com I have taken to heart the advice that Progressives should be just as loud about good news as we are about bad news, so, in that spirit, I gladly give you this GOOD NEWS - and no, it's not good news for John McCain. The Taliban played a central role in the planning of 9/11 and the training of the terrorists who launched that attack. The Taliban harbored Osama Bin Laden and American troops had Bin Laden cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan when then President George W. Bush and President Dick Cheney decided to let Bin Laden go so they could invade Iraq for Oil and declare mission accomplished. At the time it was a stupid decision that cost America the lives of our troops, plunged Iraq into chaos and drove America's debt through the roof, and most Americans do not know this. So let's spread the news. There is a new Sheriff in town, and we are finally doing the job we were supposed to do, the job that Republicans ignored for years and years. And now, under a new President, we are beginning to finally bring the Taliban to justice. More proof that ELECTIONS MATTER. 2010 is upon us, with mid term elections only months away. It is time for EVERYONE who is opposed to the lunacy and corruption of Conservative governance to GRAB A MOP. It is time for us to FIGHT BACK. That starts with messaging. So let's spread the message far and wide, and let's Yell Louder when we do it. So spread the GOOD NEWS. Make it viral. Shout it from the frigging rooftops, and Yell Louder! President Obama has caught more Taliban Leaders in 1 month than Bush/Cheney did in 6 years Put that in your coal pipe and smoke it, wingnuts.

From Pattygreen: Cause there is really no reason to admire Obama or anything he is doing to this country of ours. Saved our economy from collapse, among other things. See below. From dailykos. A partial list of Pres. Obama's accomplisments: A week before he was sworn in, Obama jammed part two of the bank bailout down the throat of his own party — a $350 billion accomplishment. Two days after he was sworn in, Obama banned the use of "harsh interrogation" and ordered the closing of Guantánamo. A day later, Obama reversed George W. Bush's funding cutoff to overseas family planning organizations — saving millions of lives with the stroke of a pen. Three days after that, Obama gave a green light to the California car-emissions standards that Bush had been blocking for six years — an important step on the road to cleaner air and a cooler planet. Two weeks after that, Obama signed the stimulus bill — a $787 billion accomplishment. Ten days after that, Obama formally announced America's withdrawal from Iraq. A week later — we're in early March now — Obama erased Bush's decision to restrict federal funding for stem-cell research. In April and June, Obama forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy. In June, Obama reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with a single speech — an accomplishment that the Bush administration failed to achieve despite a series of desperate PR moves (anyone remember Charlotte Beers?) and a "public diplomacy" budget of $1 billion a year. Also in June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program, a "socialist" giveaway that reanimated the corpse of our car industry — leading, for example, to the billion-dollar profit that Ford announced on Monday. I haven't even mentioned Sonia Sotomayor, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the order to release the torture memos, Obama's push for charter schools, his $288 billion tax cut, or the end of Bush's war on medical marijuana. Or the minor fact that he seems to have — with Bush's help, it must be said — stopped the financial collapse, revived the credit markets, and nudged the economy toward 3.5 percent growth in the last quarter.

But those slackers need cable tv for their big screen tv's - don't you know? :sad:

I've always maintained that the conservative/republican movement is mean spirited and cold hearted. We see it at this week's Obama bashfest at the CPAC. At this event: -they have made fun of Pres. Obama's physical appearance (ears) -smashed pinata's of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -urged people to walk on the faces of news anchors from MSNBC on mats to "stamp out the liberal media". What are these people? In 8th grade? Is this who we want to lead our people during this economic crisis? Then there are the teabaggers who at a recent event in the state of Washington had this to say about their democratic senator Patty Murray: And there were some strong words spoken at Saturday's Tea Party in Asotin [WA]. "How many of you have watched the movie Lonesome Dove?," asked one speaker from the podium. "What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd? What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd. He got hung. And that's what I want to do with Patty Murray." So, they not only advocate the otherthrow of the government now they want to hang those who don't agree with them. The teabaggers are just middle aged, middle class angry white racists who are just mad that an african american is president and they try to disguise this by claiming to care about healthcare, spending and the deficit. Well maybe they fool some of the people but they don't fool me.

Using the teleprompter: At the republican "Obama Bashfest" (a/k/a CPAC) both Jim DeMint (who wants healthcare to be Pres. Obama's waterloo) and Marco Rubio criticized Pres. Obama's use of the teleprompter. How do we know this? Because they were reading it off of - you guessed it - a teleprompter.

I will copy my first post, because you obviously didn't read it or chose to ignore it. Republican hypocrisy - where to start? Let's start with the handling of terrorists: The republicans have been relentless in their criticism of Pres. Obama's handling of terrorists. - In 2009, we caught twice as many terrorists as did bush. - Only the terrorists released from Gitmo by bush have rejoined terrorists groups. - bush tried hundreds of terrorists in civilian courts while Pres. Obama is criticized by republicans for doing so. - bush took 10 days to respond to Richard Reed (the shoe bomber) but Pres. Obama was criticized for taking 3 days to speak about the Christmas day underwear bomber. - bush tried the shoe bomber in civilian court but Pres. Obama is criticized for wanting to try the underwear bomber in civilian court. - the republicans leaders criticized the underwear bomber being mirandized but were told on Christmas Day that the FBI had the underwear bomber in custody. They claim they didn't know the FBI would mirandize him!! The shoe bomber was mirandized within 5 minutes. The Obama administration has an excellent track record with regard to handling terrorist and terrorism. No apologies to the hypocritcal conservatives is needed. Oh, and BTW, just in case you missed it, we captured the #2 Taliban terrorist in Afghanistan. Big capture. Very important. Better tell Beck because he confused it with Al-Qaeda.

from open congress.org Bill Containg Debt Ceiling IncreaseNew Debt Ceiling Level EnactedNumber of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)$14,294,000,000,0000111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)$12,394,000,000,0001111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)$12,104,000,000,0002110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)$11,315,000,000,00033110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)$10,615,000,000,00034110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)$9,815,000,000,00026109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)$8,965,000,000,00051108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)$8,184,000,000,00050108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)$7,384,000,000,00050107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002)$6,400,000,000,00031105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997$5,950,000,000,000Passed by unanimous consent; 55 Republicans vote in favorBill Containg Debt Ceiling IncreaseNew Debt Ceiling Level EnactedNumber of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)$14,294,000,000,0000111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)$12,394,000,000,0001111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)$12,104,000,000,0002110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)$11,315,000,000,00033110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)$10,615,000,000,00034110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)$9,815,000,000,00026109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)$8,965,000,000,00051108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)$8,184,000,000,00050108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)$7,384,000,000,00050107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002)$6,400,000,000,00031105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997$5,950,000,000,000Passed by unanimous consent; 55 Republicans vote in favorBill Containg Debt Ceiling IncreaseNew Debt Ceiling Level EnactedNumber of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)$14,294,000,000,0000111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)$12,394,000,000,0001111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)$12,104,000,000,0002110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)$11,315,000,000,00033110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)$10,615,000,000,00034110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)$9,815,000,000,00026109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)$8,965,000,000,00051108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)$8,184,000,000,00050108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)$7,384,000,000,00050107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002)$6,400,000,000,00031105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997$5,950,000,000,000Passed by unanimous consent; 55 Republicans vote in favor The republicans consistently have voted to raise the debt limit in the past under many administrations, it is only under Pres. Obama that they vote no on everything.