Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The Census Bureau says it let go about 243,000 of the temporary workers who helped in conducting the population count from mid-May to mid-June. Peak census employment reached about 586,000 in early May, indicating additional cuts to come that will keep distorting the payroll figures for months.

Private payrolls

For that reason, economists say private payrolls, which exclude government jobs, will be a better gauge of the state of the labor market for much of 2010. Employment at companies rose by 113,000 after a 41,000 gain in May, according to the median forecast of 29 economists surveyed.

The report will probably also show the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent last month, according to the survey median, from 9.7 percent. Joblessness, which reached a 26-year high of 10.1 percent in October, will take time to recede as the number of previously discouraged jobseekers returning to the labor force exceeds the number of available jobs.

Factory payrolls increased in June for the sixth straight month, according to the survey. Service providers have also been adding to headcounts this year.

Delta Air Lines Inc., the world's biggest carrier, will hire 700 airport ticket and gate agents to help handle increased summer traffic and operations disrupted by weather, Chris Kelly, a Delta spokeswoman, said June 18 in an interview. Those are in addition to the 300 pilot and 300 reservation agent jobs recently filled by the Atlanta-based airline.

Factory rebound

Manufacturers in the U.S. are reaping the benefits of the global recovery. Deere & Co., the world's largest farm equipment maker, last month reported second-quarter profit that topped analysts' estimates and raised earnings and sales forecasts for a second time this year as demand improved.

Farm machinery sales in the U.S. and Canada will gain 5 percent to 10 percent for the year and South American farm equipment sales are projected to jump about 25 percent because of improvements in the Brazilian and Argentinean markets, Deere said.

"Clearly the markets are improving, and there's a lot of good news out of Brazil," Susan Karlix, a Deere spokeswoman, said May 19 on a conference call with analysts.

On Thursday, the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index will show factories expanded in June for an 11th consecutive month, according to economists surveyed. Manufacturing accounts for about 11 percent of the economy.

Manufacturers' shares

The manufacturing rebound has helped underpin shares. The Standard & Poor's Supercomposite Industrial Machinery Index of 52 companies, including Caterpillar Inc. and Deere, has increased 7.8 percent so far this year compared with a 3.4 percent decline in the broader S&P 500.

Household spending climbed 0.1 percent in May after being little changed the prior month, economists projected a report from the Commerce Department tomorrow will show. Incomes likely rose 0.5 percent, the biggest gain in a year, as an increase in hours and average earnings more than made up for a smaller increase in employment, the report will also show.

The Federal Reserve last week said slowing inflation and the fallout from Europe's debt crisis where among reasons it will maintain interest rates low for "an extended period."

The central bank said the labor market is "improving gradually," changing April's assessment that it was "beginning to improve." Consumer spending still "remains constrained" by joblessness and "tight credit," it said.

Tax credit

Housing is feeling the effects of the end of a homebuyer tax credit, figures may show. Construction spending, due from the Commerce Department on Thursday, fell 0.7 percent in May after a gain of 2.7 percent, economists projected.

The following day, the National Association of Realtors will publish its index of signed purchase agreements, or pending home resales, which will show a 14 percent decline in May after three months of gains, according to the survey.

Another report from S&P/Case-Shiller on Tuesday may show an index of average home prices in 20 cities rose 3.5 percent in April from a year earlier.

bloomberg news

So, let's see:

1) Employment at companies rose

2) Factory payrolls increased for the sixth straight month

3) Delta Airlines is going to hire 700

4) Manufacturers are reaping the benefits of global recovery

5) Markets are improving

6) Manufacturing is rebounding

7) Income rose 0.5% (the biggest gain in a year)

8) Labor market is improving gradually

BUT somehow the republicans don't like any of this. The economy is recovering but they want it to fail. And they've done everything in their power to help it fail. They want Obama to fail, so they can push their agenda.

The republicans don't like any of the above listed economic improvements and want to go back to the failed policies of bush. Why is anyone with half a brain listening to them?

Edited June 27, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

You said the government payroll outpaces the private sector. This does not prove that statement. This shows that the government is hiring more than the private sector and THAT IS A GOOD THING.

Exactly! The government is hiring more people than the private sector is. Therefore, who will pay their salaries?

How is it that the more people you have to pay with your tax dollar is a GOOD thing? Let's look at this from a different perspective.

Cleo's family of 10 has a $4000. monthly income. Each member of the family contributes their income to pay thier expenses. They pay all their bills each month with $3000. of their income. She hires 10 people to do gardening, ironing, cleaning, etc. around her house. Each person gets paid $200. each month for their job. She is short each month by $1000. But, that's okay. She will borrow the money every month to keep those workers employed for her. She decides that others in the neighborhood need jobs as well. So, she hires 10 more at $200. a month for each of them. Now she is short $3000. each month in order to meet her responsibilities. Her family of 10 will have to work extra hours in order to come up with the funds to pay these employees, or they will have to give more of what they already have to pay for them. Times get tougher for the family members, cause they have to give more and/or work more in order to keep the rest of the neighborhood employed. In reality, the best thing for Cleos family would have been to get rid of 5 of the workers that they employed in the beginning, and never have hired any more of them. If she had done so, her budget would balance every month. The neighborhood people would have looked for ways to make a living if Cleo's family wasn't there to hire them.

A government job is a job and it does not take a job away from the private sector. If the private sector would hire and quit trying to get more work (for free ) from existing workers then the federal government wouldn't have to hire people.

The private sector is afraid to hire because they are uncertain of Obama's policies which he claimed would be very transparent, BTW. They also can't afford to hire, because Obama is expecting more from them now due to all the federal jobs that they must pay for. You see, when you hire someone for your business, you pay their salary directly, and they work for you personally. But when the government hires people, you ALSO pay for their salary, but don't always get something in return personally. How is the government hiring an employee going to make MY business prosper enough for me to be able to afford an employee or two? It wont. I must contribute to the salary (which is typically twice that of a regular employees salary) of all government employees through my taxes. Therefore, now, I can't afford an employee of my own. Yes, every federal job given keeps the private sector jobs from being made. These fed. jobs must be paid, and they are far more expensive then any private job. The salary is usually 2-3X more, and the benefits are extra-tremendous, so is the pension. (Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job, yet the government feels their employees are deserving of this extra treat!) That's another topic. Anyway, the private sector is going broke because the federal government is bankrupting them. That's why they need to get more work out of their existing employees instead of hiring more of them. Who could afford it?! Oh, I know that you believe that the government isn't making anyone pay more taxes, but this is not entirely true. When the government spends, it must get its money to pay for these things from somewhere. They get it from big businesses who pay more in taxes, and they in turn raise the cost of their goods and services. The American people in turn pay higher prices for EVERYTHING, and there you have it. It's the way the average Joe pays his tax. Through the cost of living. There is a reason that a jar of Hellman's mayo now cost $4.59 in CT. Because they must get the tax money that the gov. requires of them from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Keep in mind that when a person is hired by the federal government, the pay taxes, buy things and stimulate the economy.

This could happen just as well without the governments interference. If they didn't hire people, the private sector would over time. Every economy goes through a slump and they always pull themselves out of it.

As the economy improves, the deficit is reduced and fewer people depend on government programs (aid). They become productive members of our society. And that is a good thing.

I wish the government would do more hiring, like the WPA program under FDR. Another great president the neocons hate.

...................................

[pattygreen 5]

It's downright hilarious to watch patty complain about "Bush bashing" when all she does is Obama bash. And before that, she was busy bashing Clinton. Remember???

I have NEVER bashed Clinton. Prove it! I was never interested in politics until this last election. I voted for presidents, but not much more. You are lying!

She swore that Clinton's failed policies are why 9/11 happened.

Lie!!!!!!!

Which was patently false. The Republican dominated congress stopped Clinton from being as aggressive as he wanted to be with terrorists in certain middle eastern countries.

So whether the bashing is deserved or not, it's going to happen from the opposition camp. That's the way it is in American politics. In fact, that's the way it is in politics everywhere. We're just dirtier about it than in some countries.

I'd like to see patty's list of Bush accomplishments too - particularly when it comes his economic accomplishments - which is what she constantly wrings her hands and whines about regarding this administration.

I did not pay much attention to what Bush was doing while he was the president. Like I said, I only recently became interested in politics the last year of Bush's presidency. So, I can't give you a list of his accomplishments. I belive that his accomplishments will be recognized when looked back upon in a decade or so.

As far as economics go, all I know is Obama spends much, much more than any president ever did. He is very arrogant and prideful. Boastful and corrupt. This one gets me every time!

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when...the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Talk about 'prideful'. He is the epitomy of the word!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You said the government payroll outpaces the private sector. This does not prove that statement. This shows that the government is hiring more than the private sector and THAT IS A GOOD THING.

Exactly! The government is hiring more people than the private sector is. Therefore, who will pay their salaries?

How is it that the more people you have to pay with your tax dollar is a GOOD thing? Let's look at this from a different perspective.

Cleo's family of 10 has a $4000. monthly income. Each member of the family contributes their income to pay thier expenses. They pay all their bills each month with $3000. of their income. She hires 10 people to do gardening, ironing, cleaning, etc. around her house. Each person gets paid $200. each month for their job. She is short each month by $1000. But, that's okay. She will borrow the money every month to keep those workers employed for her. She decides that others in the neighborhood need jobs as well. So, she hires 10 more at $200. a month for each of them. Now she is short $3000. each month in order to meet her responsibilities. Her family of 10 will have to work extra hours in order to come up with the funds to pay these employees, or they will have to give more of what they already have to pay for them. Times get tougher for the family members, cause they have to give more and/or work more in order to keep the rest of the neighborhood employed. In reality, the best thing for Cleos family would have been to get rid of 5 of the workers that they employed in the beginning, and never have hired any more of them. If she had done so, her budget would balance every month. The neighborhood people would have looked for ways to make a living if Cleo's family wasn't there to hire them.

In this scenario, when the people were unemployed, I was paying them unemployment, plus food stamps, plus all the other aid they were entitled to. When I hired them, I stopped paying them all of this and instead paid them a wage, from which they PAID ME TAXES. Then they used these wages to buy things in the economy from those who sell goods and services thus stimulating the economy, increasing demand and allowing the places that provide these goods and services to hire more people based on this increased demand.

A government job is a job and it does not take a job away from the private sector. If the private sector would hire and quit trying to get more work (for free ) from existing workers then the federal government wouldn't have to hire people.

The private sector is afraid to hire because they are uncertain of Obama's policies which he claimed would be very transparent, BTW. That's just baloney. They also can't afford to hire, because Obama is expecting more from them now due to all the federal jobs that they must pay for.Apples and oranges. The federal government hiring workers does not impact on private sector hiring workers. That makes no sense. The government has not raised your taxes - in fact, they are lower (lower payroll taxes) so, as usual, your argument makes no sense. You see, when you hire someone for your business, you pay their salary directly, and they work for you personally. But when the government hires people, you ALSO pay for their salary, but don't always get something in return personally. How is the government hiring an employee going to make MY business prosper enough for me to be able to afford an employee or two? How is the government NOT hiring someone going to make your business prosper enough for you to hire an employee or two- since your taxes have been lowered? In fact, the government has added some tax incentives for businesses to hire. It wont. I must contribute to the salary (which is typically twice that of a regular employees salary) of all government employees through my taxes.Again, your payroll taxes are lower now under Obama. Therefore, now, I can't afford an employee of my own. Yes, every federal job given keeps the private sector jobs from being made. These fed. jobs must be paid, and they are far more expensive then any private job. The salary is usually 2-3X more, and the benefits are extra-tremendous, so is the pension. (Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job, You're kidding, right? :lol:Have you not heard of golden parachutes? Carly Fiorina got fired from Hewlett Packard and got $20 million. yet the government feels their employees are deserving of this extra treat!) That's another topic. Anyway, the private sector is going broke because the federal government is bankrupting them.The federal government is bankrupting the private sector? It was the private sector banks on wall street that caused this economic collapse, not the federal government. It was the federal government that rescued the private sector. That's why they need to get more work out of their existing employees instead of hiring more of them. Who could afford it?! Oh, I know that you believe that the government isn't making anyone pay more taxes, but this is not entirely true. When the government spends, it must get its money to pay for these things from somewhere. They get it from big businesses who pay more in taxes, and they in turn raise the cost of their goods and services.Big businesses are not paying more in taxes, in fact many don't pay any taxes. The American people in turn pay higher prices for EVERYTHING, and there you have it. It's the way the average Joe pays his tax. Through the cost of living. There is a reason that a jar of Hellman's mayo now cost $4.59 in CT. Because they must get the tax money that the gov. requires of them from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Trust a neocon to blame the federal government for the cost of a jar of mayo from Hellman's who controls the cost - and sets prices to maximize profit.

Keep in mind that when a person is hired by the federal government, the pay taxes, buy things and stimulate the economy.

This could happen just as well without the governments interference.No, it wouldn't. Private companies always try to maximize profits and that means getting more work from fewer employees. If they didn't hire people, the private sector would over time. Every economy goes through a slump and they always pull themselves out of it.

As the economy improves, the deficit is reduced and fewer people depend on government programs (aid). They become productive members of our society. And that is a good thing.

I wish the government would do more hiring, like the WPA program under FDR. Another great president the neocons hate.

So much of your thinking is beyond puzzling, not to mention just not factual.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

from pattygreen:"(Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job",

Company Focus

You're fired. Here's your $16 million.

Multimillion-dollar severance packages for lousy executives are more than just outrageous. They also provide critical clues about a company's board, its stock and its future.

By Michael Brush

While many Americans are cashing their final unemployment checks and wondering how theyll pay next months bills, the top brass at our nations biggest companies could hardly pick a better time to be laid off.

Chief executives leaving S&P 500 companies pocketed a cool $16.5 million on average in the past two years on the way out the door. And there's little sign yet that the going rate for executive departure has come down.

That $16.5 million doesnt even count juicy perks like gold-plated pension plans, rich stock option grants, health benefits, or use of corporate jets and company secretaries. These goodies can bump up the value of the typical executive severance package by an additional 50%.

The biggest potential prize on the horizon? That would go to Robert Nardelli, who could collect more than $82 million for leaving Home Depot (HD, news, msgs).

Critical clues about a company

If youre tempted to dismiss these opulent severance packages as just another holdover from the era of corporate greed, dont. There is a valuable investing intelligence in all this, too.

Juicy severance packages often tell you a board isnt riding management hard enough. Lax oversight can mean a board doesnt care much about what should be its main task -- looking out for shareholders. If so, guess what happens to the stock?

It sinks.

When executives can negotiate an excessive severance package, it suggests the board has no control over shareholder funds, says Paul Hodgson, a researcher at the Corporate Library, a group that advocates stronger board oversight of companies so that shareholders can benefit.

Just a few examples. I will file this under other incorrect things you have posted like:

-insurance companies can't drop you if you get sick

-the violence in the tea party was all in my head

-the IRS will have to hire 16,000 due to healthcare

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Deficit Hawks, Please Explain This

Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29:52 AM PDT

http://www.cbpp.org/...

Why not pound this fact home over and over and over again.

The very people that are calling the unemployed "funemployed" are enjoying the very same tax cuts that sunk us into deficit spending and who beat the war drums that also played/play a major role in creating/increasing our deficits.

http://www.warresisters.org/...

11% General Government, how much smaller can government get? You wouldn't know it was only this small % by listening to all the yapping done by the republicans, teabaggers and other neocons.

The GOP policies caused the deficit and prolongs long-term unemployment.

We need to call them on their lies 24/7. (I do my part)

The first chart above is from a 2004 report by the Center for Budget and Priorities

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes...

Executive Summary

The Bush Administration has stood in favor of tax cuts through thick and thin. In the midst of a booming economy and large projected budget surpluses, President Bush’s top economic policy initiative — both as a candidate in 2000 and upon taking office — was to cut taxes. When the economy slowed, the Bush Administration’s response also was dominated by tax cuts.

Now, in the face of yawning deficits and its own pledge to reduce them, the Administration has again put forward large, permanent tax cuts as part of its most recent budget.

Emphasis, mine.

IMO, this chart demonstrates that tax cuts increase the deficit because we know who implemented the tax cuts: Reagan and Bush II

ibid.

And that Trickle Down Theory, Bogus! During the Bush administration, the country had the weakest economic expansion since WWII

For six of the seven indicators, the average annual growth rate between 2001 and 2007 was below the average growth rate for the comparable periods of other post-World War II economic expansions.

Notably, this expansion was among the weakest since World War II with respect to both overall economic growth and growth in fixed non-residential investment. These two indicators should have captured any positive “growth effects” of the tax cuts.

The labor market also was weaker during the 2001-2007 expansion. Both employment growth and wage and salary growth were weaker during this expansion as a whole than in any prior expansion since the end of World War II.

The 2001-2007 expansion outperformed the average post-World War II expansion in only one area: corporate profits, which grew much more rapidly than average.

Conclusion: Republicans bad for economy, good for corporate profits. So true, so very, painfully true.

The true cause of our deficits is reported by The Center on budget and Policy Priorities. The GOP lies are exposed.

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control.

If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s long-term deficit problem.

But we should not mistake the causes of our predicament.

Here's a chart from the same source article, dated 1/17/2010 as the above quote:

http://www.cbpp.org/...

One more time:

THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE WARS CREATED THE DEFICITS, THE RECESSION MADE THEM A BIT WORSE.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The above posts shows how bush's policies and agenda have impacted the CURRENT DEFICIT.

To those who keep yapping about all of Obama's spending - they should consider:

1) The bank bailouts started under bush and have been repaid with interest

2) The stimulus has added only a small amount to the current deficit

3) The recession is responsible for about 40% of the current deficit and the way to end the recession IS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY - so spending on the economy will actually help REDUCE THE DEFICIT.

You can see that the stimulus and Obama's agenda only make up a small part of the overall deficit - so to those who keep yapping about all this Obama spending* (that they claim adds "so much" to the deficit) - unless you can document what exactly that is - then shut up.

*Obama spending has to be spending that is not for bush's policies, not for the wars, etc..and not for mandated programs that have always existed. It has to be just Obama spending and it has to be shown to make a substantial impact on the deficit.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

In this scenario, when the people were unemployed, I was paying them unemployment, plus food stamps, plus all the other aid they were entitled to. When I hired them, I stopped paying them all of this and instead paid them a wage, from which they PAID ME TAXES. Then they used these wages to buy things in the economy from those who sell goods and services thus stimulating the economy, increasing demand and allowing the places that provide these goods and services to hire more people based on this increased demand.

The difference is that when they were getting unemployment, it was a TEMPORARY help till they could find a private sector job. Once they were hired by the government, the paymnents you and I dish out to them every week NEVER ends. (even after they die, they get pensions) When have you ever heard of a government job, that was meant to be a permanent job for someone, end? Never, or rarely.

[pattygreen 5]

The federal government is bankrupting the private sector? It was the private sector banks on wall street that caused this economic collapse, not the federal government. It was the federal government that rescued the private sector.

When they bailed them out with our tax money, they bankrupted us. They should have let them fail and allowed the chips to fall where they may.

[pattygreen 5]

Trust a neocon to blame the federal government for the cost of a jar of mayo from Hellman's who controls the cost - and sets prices to maximize profit.

Companies that provide goods and services are not going to take a loss when they are taxed or regulated highly and it costs them more money. They will pass the expense down to the consumer. So, in essence, WE pay that tax in higher prices for every good we purchase, including Hellman's mayo. When we say that we are being highly taxed by the government, this is what we mean. We are taxed through the cost of living from the governments burden on businesses.

[pattygreen 5]

from pattygreen:"(Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job",

Company Focus

You're fired. Here's your $16 million.

Multimillion-dollar severance packages for lousy executives are more than just outrageous. They also provide critical clues about a company's board, its stock and its future.

By Michael Brush

While many Americans are cashing their final unemployment checks and wondering how theyll pay next months bills, the top brass at our nations biggest companies could hardly pick a better time to be laid off.

Chief executives leaving S&P 500 companies pocketed a cool $16.5 million on average in the past two years on the way out the door. And there's little sign yet that the going rate for executive departure has come down.

That $16.5 million doesnt even count juicy perks like gold-plated pension plans, rich stock option grants, health benefits, or use of corporate jets and company secretaries. These goodies can bump up the value of the typical executive severance package by an additional 50%.

The biggest potential prize on the horizon? That would go to Robert Nardelli, who could collect more than $82 million for leaving Home Depot (HD, news, msgs).

Critical clues about a company

If youre tempted to dismiss these opulent severance packages as just another holdover from the era of corporate greed, dont. There is a valuable investing intelligence in all this, too.

Juicy severance packages often tell you a board isnt riding management hard enough. Lax oversight can mean a board doesnt care much about what should be its main task -- looking out for shareholders. If so, guess what happens to the stock?

It sinks.

When executives can negotiate an excessive severance package, it suggests the board has no control over shareholder funds, says Paul Hodgson, a researcher at the Corporate Library, a group that advocates stronger board oversight of companies so that shareholders can benefit.

Just a few examples. I will file this under other incorrect things you have posted like:

-insurance companies can't drop you if you get sick

-the violence in the tea party was all in my head

-the IRS will have to hire 16,000 due to healthcare

Just because big companies don't do what's right, doesn't give the government a free ride to copy them. Discussing issues with you seems to always lead to a "If they can do it, so can the government" mentality. I can not tell private companies what to do with their business employees. If they choose to give them millions in pensions, what's that to me. It's their money, and they made it, and they can do as they please with their finances. The government, OTOH, is a company that I am forced to support with my finances and feel that they should get rid of pension plans that are outrageous!

So, how is what I said about School superintendents getting a pension plan incorrect, as you stated? I was talking about a private school's superintendant. They don't get pensions like the public, government run school supers get. Also, big companies that give big pensions are just fine with me, so long as it's their money and not mine. I could care less what they give their employees.

Edited June 28, 2010 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

You don't see the blue in that circle, along with the gray and the green. That makesup 1/2 the circle. ALL that is OBAMA spending! Stimulus, recession, and his agenda. I don't have any problem paying for the war. Any funds that go to military defense is acceptable to me. That's what the government is supposed to be there for.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The federal government is bankrupting the private sector? It was the private sector banks on wall street that caused this economic collapse, not the federal government. It was the federal government that rescued the private sector.

When they bailed them out with our tax money, they bankrupted us. They should have let them fail and allowed the chips to fall where they may.

That is just not true. The bailout, which bush started, prevented the collapse of the banking system. Our economy runs on the availability of money from banks, from payrolls to loans. And the banks have paid the money back with interest, so how did that bankrupt us. But I do agree that there should not be any banks too big to fail. Break them down and regulate, baby, regulate.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You don't see the blue in that circle, along with the gray and the green. That makesup 1/2 the circle. ALL that is OBAMA spending! Stimulus, recession, and his agenda. I don't have any problem paying for the war. Any funds that go to military defense is acceptable to me. That's what the government is supposed to be there for.

Nice try. But bush owns the recession. It started in December 2007 and we lost 8 million jobs from then to Feb. 2009. Pres. Obama has helped us get out of the recession by the stimulus and have gone from monthly job losses to job gains. But only a neocon would be opposed to that or all the other positive signs of economic recovery.

While it is the job of the federal government to protect us, it is not the job of the federal government to engage in an unnecessary war, invading a soverign country with a pre-emptive attack and causing 4000+ to die and having no funds to pay for this war. The unnecessary invasion of a country is not "military defense". It's military offense.

[pattygreen 5]

That is just not true. The bailout, which bush started, prevented the collapse of the banking system. Our economy runs on the availability of money from banks, from payrolls to loans. And the banks have paid the money back with interest, so how did that bankrupt us. But I do agree that there should not be any banks too big to fail. Break them down and regulate, baby, regulate.

The banks paid the money back with more borrowed money. This is their way of being deceitful. I have already shown you the proof for that.