Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

POLITICS: Democrats the real “party of the rich”

Letter by Craig Chilton, Bonney Lake on May 16, 2012 at 3:46 pm with 144 Comments »
May 16, 2012 4:39 pm

I got a nice chuckle last Sunday (5-13) while reading the Charles Barkley interview in Parade Magazine. The interviewer stated “I read somewhere that you’re a Republican; true?” Barkley answered “No, I said I was rich like a Republican.” I like Charles Barkley. He is a funny guy. Unfortunately, like many Americans, Barkley is uninformed.

The wealth in this country is held overwhelmingly by liberals and the “party of the rich” is the Democratic Party. This idea that the Republicans are the “rich guys” is just propaganda promoted by the Democrats for years and reignited by President Obama’s class warfare. The top three wealthiest states in the U.S. are all blue states, based on any metric from the Census Bureau. Out of the top 10, blue states dominate the list.

Most political analysts have declared Washington as a solidly blue state and, with King County full of wealthy liberals, it’s no wonder President Obama came here last week. How does King County vote? Overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Wall Street? In 2008, President Obama railed against the Wall Street “fat cats,” then took in millions from them. He did better at getting Wall Street cash than any other president in the last 20 years – almost $16 million compared to John McCain’s $9 million.

President Obama has raised more than $3.4 million and Governor Romney about $1.1 million in Washington state. It’s clear who the rich guys are.

Leave a comment Comments → 144
  1. Gee Craig thanks for parroting the GOP party line and you did with NO FACTS what so ever!
    You drank your fill of the kool aid!

  2. averageJoseph says:

    Craig, they will never let the facts get in the way of their talking points. Thanks for trying tho.

  3. RLangdon says:

    Campaign contribution do not indicate who has the richest contributors or which is the richest party. They simply indicate who has the most support for his candidacy, and clearly that is President Barack Hussein Obama, who will easily win his re-election bid. Bye bye Mitt!

  4. aJo – so ture – the GOP and thier zombie base care nothing about the truth.

  5. Lets look at some real comparisons. The letter writer’s thesis is about comparing Democrats and Republicans.

    So lets look at the 2012 presidential election by party.

    So far Obama, the only major Democratic candidate, has raised $197 million, 53% from donors giving less than $200 and only 19% giving the maximum of $2,500.

    Republican candidates have raised $219 million with just 13% under $200 and 57% from donors giving the maximum.

    Repub vs Dem rich guys goes to Republicans by a landslide.

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

    The GOP SuperPacs raised $21.5 million the first two months of 2012 and the Democratic raised $7.9 million.

    Where individual donations are unlimited, Republicans are impressive in their giving.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75123.html#ixzz1s7RgkJ4u

    “Five wealthy people, led by Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons and Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, have donated nearly $1 of every $4 flowing to the super PACs raising unlimited money in this year’s presidential race, a USA TODAY analysis shows.”

    “No Democratic donors rank as high as the top donors to Republican super PACs.”

    “Those donations have helped new Republican-leaning outside groups swamp Democratic-friendly super PACs in fundraising.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-21/super-pac-donors/53196658/1

    So, in all three categories, Republicans have given the most, given alrger amounts and lead the PACs with the number of high dollar donors. Thye facts are exactly the opposite of what the letter writer tries to portray.

  6. averageJoseph says:

    remember when Barry and McCain promised to use public financing… and Barry ‘evolved’ and changed his mind?

    Kooky

  7. Statistics can be skewed any way you want them to read.

  8. Fibonacci says:

    wllake
    Yes, statistics can be skewed, but can you refute the facts as stated?

  9. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    53% from donors giving less than $200 and only 19% giving the maximum of $2,500.

    Sounds like someone is still spouting the biggest myth of the ’08 election.

    Tuddo, better read this from the highly impartial The Campaign Finance Institute.

    http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/08-11-24/Realty_Check_-_Obama_Small_Donors.aspx

    or this:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/obama-money.html

    You see… a false distinction can be drawn between those who contribute under $200 dollars – repeatedly – up to the the $4,600 individual limit, and those who simply write checks for more than $199.

    What do you think the 0bama strategy is?

    The facts are that he raised 80% of his money from “bundlers and large donors” in 2008 – almost identical to the percentage raised by George W Bush in 2004 – and he’s doing exactly the same thing now, in 2012.

    And why should anyone be surprised that democrat super pacs lag behind Republican-leaning super pacs, considering 0bama didn’t execute his flip-flop on taking money from them until February 6, 2012. You’re comparing the “first two months of 2012″ when the dems had been soliciting super pac $ for exactly… 3 weeks?

    Skewed much?

  10. Vox, so you are trying to use 2008 elections to say something about the 2012 election? Your link compared Obama 2008 with Bush 2004. Talk about a lack of credibility.

    Every election cycle the amount of money gets much larger, and this year is no exception.

    The comparisons I cited were apples to apples. I could compare Romney’s income in 1968 and Obama’s this year and prove Romney isn’t as rich as Obama, too.

    What silly nonsense and distractions will the desperate who have only recyucled failed economic policies come up with next?

    The letter writer said Republicans don’t give as much and Republican big donors don’t give as much as Democrats. I proved that thesis flat wrong.

  11. averageJoseph says:

    Those buddist nun super pacs…

  12. aislander says:

    Inherited wealth generally leads to lefty politics.

    Earned wealth generally results in conservatism. (Unless you feel you stumbled onto the money through dumb luck, as with Hollywood types, and are feeling guilty about it…)

  13. littleroundtop says:

    Amazing Biden and Obama are millionaires , they basically have made their forturnes in public service . Biden gave about 2 percent of his earning last year to charity , Obama not much better . Romney close to 11 percent . Biden and Obama want to take money to redistribute , but privately not their own . Romney believes in freedom and wants you to make that choice , yet he gives more privately to the poor.

    We need to reform the tax codes . Obama does not have to pay a higher percentage , he should however not to be able to take the two 12000 dollars deductions because he gave each of his kids that much last year to shelter . His big talk is not followed by how he walks . Increasing tax rates without tax reform just means the selected rich get the tax breaks as always .

  14. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Let’s not ignore his lotto style fundraising. $10 for dinner. $3 for a picture. First off that is classless, but becoming par for the course. Second, each lotto ticket lowers the average donation.

    We know WS bet big on BHO and predictable lose money policies. No getting around that.

  15. harleyrider1 says:

    George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Clooney, and most other Forbes billionaires and millionaires are liberals. Democrats, who have substantial American wealth.

    America would have it too if people like Buffet paid the $one-billion dollars in back taxes he owes or the paid 33-White House staffers pay their back-taxes. The list goes on – Google it.

    Barrack pretends the rich are evil while h,e in a very active role, became the wealthiest during his Presidency. $10-million dollars. And while he expounds this, he travels with and to, some of the richest people in the USA. For all his claims, he loves money. He only stays, travels, and hob-nobs with rich people. Because he is President? Well, when he is no longer, what will the excuse be?

    Is it wrong? No. It has been shown repeatedly in America you have the opportunity. So if you work hard and become someone, it is not bad. It’s not wrong – and it’s not evil.

    But at least pay your taxes to the Country that treated you well.

  16. Just goes to show who has the better economic policies. The case has been made.

  17. GHTaxPayer says:

    Biden was raised on a silver spoon and attended all private schools and Ivy league university. He owns 4 homes, including lakefront AND oceanfront mansions.

    Obama went to ALL private schools, including ultra-exclusive Punahou school in Honolulu, then attended Ivy league universities while living with his grandparents who were majority stockholders and execs of a bank.

    Obama spends majority of his time with Millionaires and Billionaires, whether on the golf course or at fundraisers and has appointed 4 Goldman Sachs execs to his WH cabinet. He currently has $7 million at JP Morgan and calls them the best run bank in the country – even after the just lost $2 Billion in client investments.

    Obama has not even brought an indictment against any Wall St. firm for 2008 banking failure, and DOJ prosecutions against Wall St. are at a 20 year low !!

    Obama is definitely the best President that Wall St. can buy.

  18. islandernwly says:

    “Obama is definitely the best President that Wall St. can buy.”

    As opposed to Bush, the worst President Wall St. bought.

  19. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    LOL, that “whoshing” sound is another salient point sailing right over tuddo’s head.

    Tud, ignoring the fact that the writer actually mentioned 2008 – not 2012, you launch into a comparison of funds raised primarily by Republican-leaning super-pacs, to funds raised by the 0bama administration for this election cycle. The obvious problems are:

    (1) there are nearly six months remaining in this cycle, and
    (2) a sitting pres should always have a big advantage in the amount of hard money in his chest going into an election year, especially one who has not had to face a primary opponent, and
    (3) Romney has had to spend significant amounts of hard money on the primary, as challengers to an incumbent who faced no primary challenge usually must (thus he is sitting on his money at this juncture – while super-pac money takes up the cudgel), and
    (4) you’re trying to paint 0bama as a saint (as if he weren’t doing enough of such shameless self-promotion on his own) for lagging behind in soliciting $ from super-pacs, when in fact he didn’t need to flip-flop on that until February 6, 2012. (Wow… shocker, Republicans are ahead in super-pac contributions!!!!!!!).

    We know the 0bama fund-raising strategy for 2008, and we know he’s been using the same strategy for this cycle, albeit less successfully – thus driving his flip-flop (along with the rest of the pathetically whiny democrat party) on use of super-pac’s. If you bothered to read the link from TCFI, you might have noticed it was dated a full three weeks after the election of 2008, and (predictably) they expressed shock at the myth of “the little guy contributor” and how the 0bama campaign had everybody fooled (wink-wink).

    The obvious conclusion is that he’s been using the same tactics in his fundraising for this election. Trouble is it isn’t working for him – thus he’s turning to super-pac money, along with the rest of the democrat party.

    They’re just a few years behind Republicans because the arrogant cloud of invincibility they were all breathing on November 4, 2008 led them to believe they would be in control of the federal government forever and ever, and everyone would love and agree with them and shower them with personal contributions.

    Then came November 2, 2010.

    Despite lip service protestations over the CU Decision, 0bama and the dems were only able to hold off on the hypocrisy pedal for two years. Not bad though… considering the source.

  20. clearconscience says:

    This letter to the editor is a joke, right?

  21. Here’s and two inconvenient facts;

    Republicans and their supporters spend more than Democrats.

    Most Republican donations tend to go though anonymous CPACS.

    Most (as in almost all) of the anonymous high cost attack ads support Republicans.

  22. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    x, I’d ask you to provide proof of that pap, but that would be a loaded question.

  23. charliebucket says:

    pardon the pun, but this letter and the replies are rich. Laugh out loud absurd.

  24. Lynnwoodfats says:

    Democrats-Republicans…two sides of the same coin.

    instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, when is the last time you voted for a candidate that you really wanted?

    The two parties having a death grip on elections…both serving the same master.

  25. “President Obama has raised more than $3.4 million and Governor Romney about $1.1 million in Washington state. It’s clear who the rich guys are.”

    Oh….this is rich…..hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Yeah….with this thought in mind we now KNOW that the Republicans will be outspent by the Democrats, nationally.

    The GOP is probably spending all their money trying to keep Wisconsin’s governor employed. Last I heard they had outspent the Dems 20 to 1.

  26. “x, I’d ask you to provide proof of that pap, but that would be a loaded question.”

    It’s public information, find it yourself. LOL

  27. Fats….I don’t find the Democrats to the the “lessor of two evils” and I’m not willing to waste my vote on someone who has no chance of beating the Republicans.

  28. Joey……That was the funniest piece of propaganda you have posted from youtube to date.

    Are they sure she didn’t say “I have to pass wind”?

    Please…don’t ever stop posting such tripe.

  29. “Obama spends majority of his time with Millionaires and Billionaires, whether on the golf course or at fundraisers”

    Sorry, GHT, you’ve mixed him up with John Boehner. I know, the skintone is confusing, but Obama doesn’t play nearly as much golf as The Speaker, who has no job.

  30. philichi says:

    I am just a simple middle class hard working Republican. However, I hope to be a rich Democrat some day. I can see it all now. I will have fund raisers at my home and drink mint juleps with the other rich Democrats. As we, like the other rich Democrats including President Obama, send our children to private schools, we will compassionately raise money to keep the poor children stuck in the public school system. I will earnestly work to restrict drilling to keep fuel prices high, I will also drive my Prius around with an “Obama”and “Free Tibet” sticker on it. People will think that I am very compassionate. I can hardly wait to be a rich Democrat!

  31. scooter6139 says:

    Vox – Your rebuttal to tuddo has me a bit confused. Tuddo was stating info for the 2012 Election season and you countered with 2008 Election information. So do you want to argue about the last presidential election? Or do you not have the facts to actually rebut tuddo’s numbers on the election this year?

    I went and pulled some info from your posted site, Campaign Finance Institute, for some info on this election:

    http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-04-24/Obama_and_Romney_Each_Have_Their_Best_Months_So_Far_Gearing_Up_for_the_General_Election.aspx

    “President Obama’s fundraising continues to be strong among small donors. Through March 31, the Obama campaign had raised 44% of its money ($80.2 million) from donors who had given a cumulative amount of $200 or less. This is substantially more than the 28% ($64.0 million) that Obama had raised from small donors at this point in 2008.

    The Romney campaign continues to depend heavily on donors who give large contributions. Sixty-four percent of the candidate’s funds so far have come from donors who have given the maximum legal amount of $2,500. However, the Romney campaign did see an uptick in small contributions in March. While less than 9% of the campaign’s cumulative funds have come from donors who have given $200 or less, the campaign received 13% of its money in March from unitemized contributions ($200 or less).”

    http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-22/88_of_Obama%E2%80%99s_Itemized_Donors_in_January_Were_Repeaters_40_of_Romney%E2%80%99s_Donors_Have_Maxed_Out.aspx

    “Potentially more troublesome politically is that 40% of Romney’s 40,011 itemized donors have given the legal maximum (see Table 5). They cannot give to the campaign again, which may help explain the tactical importance of the Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, Restoring Our Future. Super PACs may accept unlimited contributions but must remain independent of candidates.

    At the other end of the giving spectrum, President Barack Obama continues to raise substantial amounts from donors who have given a cumulative total of $200 or less. Obama raised 47% ($61 million) of his $131 million from these donors through January 2012, which is far ahead of the 24% he showed at the same time in 2008.”

    http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-08/Small_Donors_in_2011_Obama_s_Were_Big_Romney_s_Not.aspx

    The title of this article speaks volumes: “48% of President Obama’s 2011 Money Came from Small Donors – Better than Doubling 2007.”

  32. charliebucket says:

    LOL, phil, here I thought all democrats were welfare queens sucking at the govt teat. you guys kill me with your absurdity. still chucking anti dem, anti lib, anti Obama BS against the wall to see what sticks. (eyeroll)

  33. averageJoseph says:

    No chuck, just the idiots who keep putting the rich ones who promise the minions they will be taken care of.

  34. vox – why? you would not accept proof from me and never give proof of your talking points.

  35. charliebucket says:

    as usual joe, nothing but name calling from you. do you ever shut up with the name calling? Forum bullies hiding behind the anonymity of their keyboard are a dime a dozen, SSDD, yawn.

  36. Joey is “SSDD”

    HAHAHAHA

  37. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Okay, scooter, let’s see if you can follow me. Open and read each of the following links in the sequence I have posted them:

    http://www.cfinst.org/press/PReleases/08-02-21/Reports_Highlight_Obama’s_Dominance_in_Fundraising.aspx

    http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/08-07-22/Obama’s_Small_Contributions_Surged_in_June_but_McCain_s_Party-Based_Strategy_Gave_the_GOP_Side_a_Combined_Cash_Advantage_on_June_30.aspx

    http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/08-11-24/Realty_Check_-_Obama_Small_Donors.aspx

    Notice how CFI didn’t “catch” their mistake until three weeks after the election?

    Sound familiar?

    Along with the points I made in my previous post, that is the point. The strategy of the 0bama campaign in ’08 was to try to limit private donations (hard money) to under the $200 limit – both for the PR points it garnered by being able to say the were supported by “the little guys” (how many times have we heard that), as well as to hold those potential multiple-contributors in reserve for when they really needed them – after the convention.

    Why on earth would anyone fall for that spin again?

    And in the end, CFI was “surprised” to find that in actuality 0bama’s ’08 campaign was 80% funded by whales (just like it will be this time)? Yeah, right.

  38. Mr P – I thought you already sent your children to a private school?

    As to the President, well, I’m just thinking that a public school can’t provide the level of security required for the children of the leader of the free world, but I could be wrong there.

    Mint Julep? The drink of the Southern racist?

    Fundraisers? Yeah, we still have to do those because we don’t have many donors that can toss up the coins like Newt had going with that casino owner.

  39. Has anyone handed Obama’s campaign $5 million…and then $5 million again?

    Does Obama have a Super PAC run by Karl Rove that cultivates the biggest givers of all political history?

    As usual, filibustering is used for smoke and mirrors.

  40. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Has anyone handed Obama’s campaign $5 million…and then $5 million again?

    Uhhh, no… that would be as illegal for him as it would be for Romney.

    Does Obama have a Super PAC run by Karl Rove that cultivates the biggest givers of all political history?

    Yes, and no. Look up Priorities USA – it’s not run by (insert The Imperial March – Darth Vader’s theme – here) Carl Rove.

    Gee Larry, you’re really up to speed on this topic, ‘eh?

  41. GHTaxPayer says:

    Since 2008, Obama has accepted more campaign money from Wall St. and Big Oil than any other politician. FACT.

  42. “Buffet paid the $one-billion dollars in back taxes he owes or the paid 33-White House staffers pay their back-taxes. The list goes on”

    And there it is, the lie that must be told often.

  43. “Since 2008, Obama has accepted more campaign money from Wall St. and Big Oil than any other politician. FACT.”

    And another lie to told as often as you can.

  44. Asilander,
    ‘Inherited wealth generally leads to lefty politics” = another unsupported throwaway line.

    Littleroundtop – If the Dems are the party of the rich why are the Dems;
    for raising taxes on the rich and on corporations,
    for worker’s rights,
    for reregulating wall street, banks, etc?

    The answer my friend is that the GOP is the party of the rich, for the rich, by the rich, and thankful for all the help it gets from fundamental, evangelical zealots.

    CT7
    Mitt Romney raising money at home of ‘morning-after pill’ exec ($50,000-a-plate fundraiser)

    From the Christian Science Monitor – (one of the two truly fair and balanced news sources)

    Romney’s fund-raising dinner is at the home of insurance mogul and civic activist Pat Ryan and his wife, Shirley; between 50 and 60 people will attend, with the minimum donation $25,000. Romney returns to the Chicago area on June 14 for an event with a sliding price tag, from $2,500 to $75,000.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/05/mitt_romneys_illinois_players.html

    Vox – the whooshing sound is another of you posts going down the drain where it belongs.

    Conservative rich people = good.
    Non-conservative rich people = bad

    Conservative Super PACS = good
    Non-conservative Super PACS = bad

    Very rich conservative candidates = ++ good

    Moderate wealthy non-conservative President = bad

    Does anyone else see a bias here?

  45. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

    Speaking of “up to speed”….., oh OK…”Carl” was a typo, right?

    Now, saying that Rove isn’t running a PAC is like saying that Frank Vandersloot is a donor to Romney’s campaign.

    Next subject – Newt got $5 million, then $5 million again. Donated to his “campaign”??? Of course not silly. A PAC is created in moments to filter the money, thanks to Citizens United.

    Now, we can play rhetoric games all day long or act like grown ups. I’ll take the grown up part since rhetoric roulette is your specialty.

  46. “Since 2008, Obama has accepted more campaign money from Wall St. and Big Oil than any other politician. FACT.”

    Actually, it is not a fact.

    “The actual amount from “Wall Street” is less than half that.

    In 2008, Obama received $15.8 million from executives working in the securities and investment industries, such as those at Goldman Sachs, and $3.4 million from commercial banks, which includes heavyweights such as Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase.

    So far in the 2012 campaign, Republican Mitt Romney has out-raised Obama by roughly 3-to-1 among individuals in both the securities and investment industries ($8 million to $2.8 million) and the commercial bank industry ($1.5 million to $500,000).”

    http://factcheck.org/2012/05/peddling-innuendo-exaggerations-on-obamas-wall-st/

  47. “Does Obama have a Super PAC run by Karl Rove that cultivates the biggest givers of all political history?
    Yes, and no. Look up Priorities USA – it’s not run by (insert The Imperial March – Darth Vader’s theme – here) Carl Rove.”

    “American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s Super PAC, has raised $56 million since its inception in 2010. And three Texas business moguls—Harold Simmons, Bob Perry, and Robert Rowling—have collectively given $30.5, more than half of that total, the Hill’s Cameron Joseph reported.”

    It’s nice to know that Sandy hasn’t lost her touch on rhetoric roulette

  48. tuddo….get ready, soon they’ll be saying “but in Kenyan dollars, Obama has more”

  49. averageJoseph says:

    Wow. LarryP., remember to raise your legs 3′ over your head every now and then. Wouldn’t want you to have a DVT episode.

  50. Lynnwoodfats says:

    LarryH
    Who said anything about Democrats?

  51. And, as far as big oil goes, there is no contest. For 2011 and 2012, 88% of donations by big oil has gone to Republican candidates, 12% to Democrats.

    I wonder why the cutoff at 2008 in the statement? Could it be that George Bush received about 100 times more money in his last term than Obama has since 2008? Sitting presidents do tend to get contributions while other non-elected officials do not, so I am not going to try to add up donations during 2008-2011 before campaigns began. Gifts to private individuals are not generally reported unless they have declared for an elecgtion.

    btw, Rick Perry received the highest total amount 2011-2012, but Romney is catching up and I am sure will far exceed Obama during the run of the election.

  52. averageJoseph says:

    No link Tudds?

    That;s kooky, huh, LarryP.?

  53. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Larry, I was merely answering your rhetorical questions (ironic, ‘eh) in the literal sense. It doesn’t make you look any more informed by walking them back now. We get it – you can cut the wiggle.

    You just make this stuff waaaay too easy. But then wallpapering the page does leave one routinely open to such sloppiness.

    And yes, “Carl” was a typo.

    Have you looked up Priorities USA yet?

    Didn’t think so.

  54. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    George Bush received about 100 times more money in his last term than Obama has since 2008?

    Except that the original CFI study I linked for you clearly stated “Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors“. You do know the definition of (all) “predecessors”… right?

    But I’d love to see a link to support that – verbatim. Because I have no idea what George Bush would be doing raising campaign re-election funds “in his last term”.

  55. Tuddo, good points, and for larry-vox-Jo the rest of the story is;

    In 2008 it was Obama who bailed out Wall Street while the Rpots wanted to let them fail (imagine what that would have done to our national credit rating)

    In 2012, Obama supports re-regulating wall street – the rpots support total deregulation.

    Conclusion – Wall $treet $upport$ tho$e who $upport$ it.

    aJo – try elevating your head above your backside.

    Vox – what’s the matter – did you get stung by a couple of facts.

  56. Lynnwoodfats says:
    May 17, 2012 at 1:55 pm LarryH
    Who said anything about Democrats?

    Uh…..you did:

    Lynnwoodfats says:
    May 17, 2012 at 8:49 am Democrats-Republicans…two sides of the same coin.

  57. xring – I was a stroke patient back in 2007. JoeyDeepends is obsessed with me and thinks that posting information about cardiovascular health is funny. Obviously I doing great now. My paralysis was minimal and I’ve recovered about 95%. This is the quality of people you have when dealing with conservatives.

    I think obsessive/compulsive is more his problem than rectal/cranial.

  58. I wasn’t talking about “Priorities USA”.

    As usual, I demonstrated how you were wrong, again, and you are trying to…well….truthfully, I don’t know what you are trying to do…LOL

    Oh..I almost forgot :)

  59. “But then wallpapering the page”

    You know, since a small collection of monikers (imagine THAT!!!) is obsessed with “wallpapering the page”, I need to ask….

    Is my computer the only one that scrolls all the comments on the thread? It seems that some people (guess who) are worried about multiple posts in a row. I guess their computer is a single page format and they have to print it out before moving to the next one.

    Either that, or it’s just another silly little infantile complaint.

    Rather than sit in front of the computer all day, I prefer to address several comments and then walk away and go outside and enjoy the say, or practice some music or watch some TV and then return to address more comments.

    If my style of commenting bothers some of the people (guess which ones) they need to consult my complaint manager, Helen Waite. In other words, if you have a complaint, go to Helen Waite. :)

  60. Looks like the right wing has been proven wrong…..yet again.:D

  61. Vox, the topic was big oil donations. Try to keep up.

  62. concernedtacoma7 says:

    All BHO does is campaign in hollywood and NYC. The same people he blasts for being rich he sucks up to for donations. The rich guys fell sucker to his message in 2007-08, opened their wallets and got him elected. They have seen the light. They know he is terrible for America. They are successful for a reason, follow their lead.

    Organized labor donates near 100% to dems. What is the point of pointing out industry, sector, demographic, etc? To answer my own question, it is only relevant when the dems (lead by BHO) bash the rich and WS. The left then repeats the lies that grassroots got/will get him elected. Nope. He is reliying on the old dem machine. Best part is his policies and rhetoric have hurt his biggest donors- unions and Jewish-Americans. His war on the economy has the middle class working man fed up with the admin.

  63. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I’d apologize, tuddo, except that your post doesn’t read as though you were only addressing big oil. Other than the first paragraph, you don’t mention “big oil”again. The next two paragraphs are very general.

    I wonder why the cutoff at 2008 in the statement? Could it be that George Bush received about 100 times more money in his last term than Obama has since 2008? Sitting presidents do tend to get contributions while other non-elected officials do not, so I am not going to try to add up donations during 2008-2011 before campaigns began. Gifts to private individuals are not generally reported unless they have declared for an elecgtion.

    Just big oil? Okey-dokey.

    And you still have not explained why in the world George Bush would have been taking money from anyone “in his last term”.

    Violation of federal law much?

    Nice try though.

  64. “concernedtacoma7 says:
    May 17, 2012 at 5:40 pm All BHO does is campaign in hollywood and NYC.”

    Someone was asleep when Obama was in Seattle about a week ago.

    “Organized labor donates near 100% to dems”

    DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “Best part is his policies and rhetoric have hurt his biggest donors- unions and Jewish-Americans. His war on the economy has the middle class working man fed up with the admin.”

    And your proof of that malarky is??????????????????

  65. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Okay, Larry, take – your ADD meds and re-read the following:

    Has anyone handed Obama’s campaign $5 million…and then $5 million again?

    Uhhh, no… that would be as illegal for him as it would be for Romney.
    (Nice try, but Gingrich is no longer relevant – hasn’t been for months. But even if he were, the money was donated to his super pack, not him. Think… Bill Maher.)

    Does Obama have a Super PAC run by Karl Rove that cultivates the biggest givers of all political history?

    Yes, and no. Look up Priorities USA – it’s not run by (insert The Imperial March – Darth Vader’s theme – here) Carl Rove.
    (Do I reaaally have to tell you the name of 0bama’s super pac?)

    Gee Larry, you’re really up to speed on this topic, ‘eh?
    (That would be sarcasm, not rhetoric.)

    HTH

  66. concernedtacoma7 says:

    BHO starts his average workday in the WH at 1000. Bush and most previous presidents started at 0700. Fraud, waste, and abuse.

    Look it up Larry before you spaz.

    Unions have bashed his failed budget. Keystone. Jews=Israel. Failed Arab spring and war on Zionists. Working class white men have abandoned BHO. Look that one up too. Fact.

    When the economy flatlined we all suffer, no matter how many groups the dems try to carve us into.

  67. Lynnwoodfats says:

    LarryH-OK let me get this straight, you don’t find the Demos to be the lesser of two evils, so you are going to vote Repub.

    Ok so far? So do you find the RepoS the lesser or greater of the two evils?

  68. SwordofPerseus says:

    CT7, you are obviously mistaking Bush for Obama. Mr Obama starts work about 8 or 9 in the morning. I am sure that you would not intentionally lie. You are just getting your information filtered through some BS filter like faux newz or rust lintball. You should quit doing that it makes you look uninformed.

    Bush took more vacation time than Clinton, Carter, and Obama combined. Which left more time for Darth Cheney to f*&k up the world.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-37440325/how-president-obama-spends-his-other-8-hours/

    http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/

    The rest of you comments are just to stupid to comment on…

  69. Vox, I am old fashioned and learned about thesis sentences. Sorry you were educated after that became passe.

    Bush tokk money like any politician takes money – to pay for election expenses, which never seem to go away. Bills keep rolling in, long after an election. Bush also took donations for his library and to pay expenses for campaigning for other candidates.

    I haven’t looked up what he did with the money, but any excess can be given to PACs, to other campaigns, to charity and to any expense related to his official or political duties as president or head of the party.

  70. concernedtacoma7 says:

    SoP, if you really care click on the links and find BHOs daily schedules.

    http://pecancorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/presidents-work-day-or-not.html?m=1

    Yes, it is blog, with links that lead to his published schedules.

  71. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Sop, that article was his routine 4 months after taking office. That was during his short honeymoon period before his main focus was campaigning.

    2009. You kids are desperate.

    Now I know not to waste my time on your crap.

  72. averageJoseph says:

    Rather than sit in front of the computer all day

    LMAO… the time stamps say different.

    btw, I had no idea you had a stroke. Kooky huh?
    Don’t say I didn’t warn you. It can happen again. Gravity is friend and foe… ya know.

  73. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Bush tokk money like any politician takes money – to pay for election expenses, which never seem to go away. Bills keep rolling in, long after an election. Bush also took donations for his library and to pay expenses for campaigning for other candidates.

    Actually, both George Bush and Kerry had surpluses of cash remaining in their respective coffers following the ’04 elections. And since their have been no complaints filed to the FEC, we can assume those funds were legally disbursed in the manner you describe subsequent to the above paragraph. And I can find nothing that states that Bush continued to raise funds to pay off any campaign debts that may have somehow exceeded his “surplus”. Can you?

    The fact is that George Bush could not have legally taken in any more campaign money after the election of 2004 unless had outstanding campaign debt (which he did not), or if he intended to run for some other office after his presidential term was up (which he has not). In such cases he would have created a pac to handle the cash since he was term-limited. I’ve done a cursory check and can find no such pac which existed for George Bush after the elections of 2004.

    And again, if he had been using his office to raise money for any other political or personal purpose while in office, that would be in violation of federal law and would have had the liberal press screaming!

    As to his library, according to bushcenter.com, fundraising for the facility at SMU began in 2009.

  74. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Close bold – sorry.

  75. Fats – I’m not going to explain what I very clearly posted. Either you get it, or you don’t want to get it. Regardless, I don’t care.

  76. “BHO starts his average workday in the WH at 1000. Bush and most previous presidents started at 0700. Fraud, waste, and abuse.”

    Brietbart Media?

    How can Obama start his day at 1pm (I’m not military) EST and be on TV live at 7AM PST?

    What else do they fool you with????????

    You remind me of someone that sits on the computer, complaining about someone sitting on the computer.

  77. Vox, as late as 2006, Bush received $3,312,474 that year in contributions. In 2008, he received $27,097 (and was still paying bills).

    For individual donors, the candidate has to offer to return excess funds and a few people do ask for a refund, but not many.

    http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/george_w_bush.asp?cycle=06

  78. “the time stamps say different.”

    downright creepy

  79. “Look it up Larry before you spaz.
    Unions have bashed his failed budget. Keystone. Jews=Israel. Failed Arab spring and war on Zionists. Working class white men have abandoned BHO. Look that one up too. Fact.
    When the economy flatlined we all suffer, no matter how many groups the dems try to carve us into.”

    Let’s open this comment with – I”m sure glad that Mr. Sensitive isn’t throwing out any personal insults. Now, that being said….

    Unions haven’t “bashed” anything. That’s a plain lie.

    “Israel”? Who cares, other than Conservative Jews in America? How much more money would you suggest we provide to Israel? I thought we were broke.

    Working class white men – You mean conservatives that believe one day, they’ll be rich if they just vote Republican?

    Finally, if the economy is so bad, why have so many people made so much money in the stock market from January 2009 until today? The economy is bad for working people, because the people with the money are holding us hostage. Want proof? Were are the jobs that the “job creators” were supposed to provide with their tax cut money?

    It doesn’t take rocket science to understand this:

    “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”– Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell

    Gee, Mitch, and we were hoping your prioritize “running the government” over your personal issues.

  80. Oh geeeeeeeeez…..

    I just clicked on the “blogspot” blog and it’s “link to the President’s schedule, only to realize that they created a fake website. LMAO.

  81. From the “Dossier”….

    10:15 am ET || Delivers remarks at the Symposium on Global Agriculture and Food Security
    11:00 am ET || Bilateral meeting with French President Francois Hollande
    6:00 pm ET || Departs White House
    6:30 pm ET || Arrives Camp David
    7:30 pm ET || Greets G8 Leaders
    7:50 pm ET || Begins reception and working dinner for G8 leaders

    From the White House’s website on the President’s schedule:

    7:30 am The President greets G8 leaders
    Pooled Press
    10:15 am The President delivers remarks at the Symposium on Global Agriculture and Food Security
    Open Press
    (In-Town Travel Pool Final Gather 9:25AM – North Doors of the Palm Room)
    11:00 am The President holds a bilateral meeting with President Francois Hollande of France
    Pool Spray at the Bottom
    Pool Spray at the Bottom with Statements (Gather Time 11:45AM – Brady Press Briefing Room)
    6:00 pm The President departs the White House en route Camp David
    Open Press
    (Final Gather 5:30PM – North Doors of the Palm Room)
    6:30 pm The President arrives at Camp David
    Closed Press
    7:50 pm The President hosts a welcome reception for G8 leaders
    Closed Press

    The faked website leaves out the first three hours of the day.

    Fools gold for fools.

  82. “BHO starts his average workday in the WH at 1000. Bush and most previous presidents started at 0700. Fraud, waste, and abuse.”

    Liar. Shame on you.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule

  83. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Good work, tuddo.

    However, suspiciously missing from your data are any contributions from “big oil”. Further, it shows all “contributions” to be negative – meaning those were funds that were returned to individuals and pac’s.

    For a better understanding, follow the link on that page to Bush-Cheney ’04 Inc – that would be their pac. Or just click the following:

    http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/bush-cheney-04-inc.asp?cycle=06

    Please note that all “Itemized Contributions for George Bush” for the year 2006 read either “0”, or negative – indicating they had been returned.

    Then kindly notice that under the category “Top 100 Donations/Contributions in the ’06 Election Cycle to
    BUSH-CHENEY ’04 INC.” it clearly states “No Itemized Contributions Reported”.

    It also states in the last category that Bush-Cheney ’04 Inc. did not contribute to any other candidates pac’s in 2006.

    I rest my case.

  84. “CT7…….The rest of you comments are just to stupid to comment on…”

    You can say that again!

  85. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Larry, great catch!

    I will attempt to contact the website.

    As to BHO starting his day late, it is a matter of fact. See SoP’s link. He exercises then sends the kids off to school. Cute, but not working.

    Another little fact you are ignoring is the insane amount of campaigning he does.

  86. There are none so blind, deaf, and dumb as a conservative with a talking point on their lips.

  87. Vox, I don’t know what case you are resting, since I proved every one of my points. I had purposely refused to show the link to the big oil page, because I want someone to argue against my point and then I will deliver the zinger. (I am like that sometimes.)

    Here is the original statement I was responding to:

    “Since 2008, Obama has accepted more campaign money from Wall St. and Big Oil than any other politician”

    In 2011-2012 so far, Obama has received $182,000 and is in 12th place. All the other politicians in the top 20 are Republicans. In 2009-2010, Obama did not campaign so you have to look at the updated totals for the 2008 campaign that includes later contributions. Obama received $884,000 from the oil and gas industry for the 2008 campaign, more than any other lawmaker except his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain. Several Republicans have already topped Obama’s total for the 2012 elections.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01#contribtrends

    I never said Bush held on to the donations or used them illegally, I just argued that it is not against the law to receive them after an election, which you were claiming. You can follow the links to other years and see that very few donations were returned, so Bush gave them to charity, spent them on election costs or donated them to the party or other candidates (they don’t have to be donated to PACs, and election law back then requitree PAC donations to be itemized, so he most likely gave directly up to the $2,500). Donations to the party did not need itemization.

    We know that Bush gave money from the excess to his library, because he said so, but we don’t know how much, since presidential libraries do not have to itemize the sources of their funds and election alw just requires a statement that it was given to a nont-for-profit charity.. Clinton only did it because his wife wasnominated for Sec of State. Bush’s was hurting right up to the deadline for donations to try to get the minimum $300 million needed to break ground.

  88. averageJoseph says:

    Hey, the less Barry works the better for all of us.

    What’s creepy about a time stamp?

  89. “As to BHO starting his day late, it is a matter of fact”

    No, it’s a matter of fact that you got rubed again by a right wing lying website.

  90. RLangdon says:

    Regardless of unverifiable work hour comparisons betweenBush and Obama, we do know at least one thing for so that makes them different. By this time in his presidency Bush had taken almost 3 time more vacation days that President Obama has.

    So, now that that is settled, let’s deal with this lie about The Democrats being the real party of “the rich.” That is such hogwash!!!

  91. “we do know at least one thing for so that makes them different”

    We also know that at the same point in their administrations, the Obama administration has overseen the creation of jobs, and the Bush administration had overseen lost jobs.

  92. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Where are those jobs, ehill? Look at the size of the workforce today and in 2009.

  93. averageJoseph says:

    … are you better off today than you were 2 years after Nancy and Harry started writing the budge?(2008 for all you bedwetters)

  94. “Where are those jobs, ehill? Look at the size of the workforce today and in 2009.”

    Number of jobs in February 2009 (Obama’s 1st full month in office): 132,837,000
    Number of jobs in April 2012: 132,989,000

    For those of you who are math (or reality) challenged, the number of jobs in April was more than the number of jobs when Obama took office.

    Number of jobs in February 2001 (Bush’s 1st month): 132,529,000
    Number of jobs in April 2004: 131,051,000

    Once again for the math (and reality) challenged, the number of jobs in April 2004 was less than the number of jobs when Bush took office.

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

    Facts. They trump wrong wing lies every time.

  95. “all you bedwetters”

    Ahhh. More projection.

  96. The job decline in Bush’s first 3+ years in office was despite all those “job creating” tax cuts.

  97. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Wow, statistically flat after a trillion dollar stimulus.

    That is not exactly a booming recovery. Population grows, employed flat. Nice.

    And is Bush running?

  98. Lynnwoodfats says:

    LarryH- Huh?

  99. “Another little fact you are ignoring is the insane amount of campaigning he does.”

    True, mittens has been running for President since he won his only campaign, which was for Gov. how many years ago now?

  100. Wow, statistically flat after a trillion dollar stimulus.

    Statistically flat is a plain lie as is “trillion”.

    “The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion”

    What’s $169 Billion dollars give or take, right Francis? I forgot you are among the same people that could ignore $9 Billion missing in Iraq

  101. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Deflection.

    We are spending a trillion+ a year we do not have. Employment and economy flat, debt up, dollar being devalued (until the recent euro implosion).

    Go to Iraq and find that money. Or shut up and stop deflecting. Past mistakes do not justify today’s nightmare of no budget and huge, crippling, dangerous deficits and debt.

  102. “Wow, statistically flat after a trillion dollar stimulus”

    Wow. Millions of jobs lost after not one, but two tax cuts. Tell us all again just how those tax cuts created millions of jobs.

  103. “Employment and economy flat”

    Number of jobs in 2010: 129,244,000
    Number of jobs in April: 132,989,000, an increase of almost 4 million jobs in just over 2 years. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

    Stock market almost double its low point.

    GDP up eleven consecutive quarters.

    Fail. Try again.

  104. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Odd, I thought BHO took office in 2009? Nice cherry pick.

    GDP barely outpacing inflation. Workforce (as a %) at the lowest point since Reagan’s first term, after which his policies led to huge economic boom. Rebound is natural after a recession. What is different about this one is how slow it is, due to BHO, Harry and Nancy. You like historical comparisons, how does this recovery match up?

    And do the unemployed care about the stock market?

    The left wing PR machine is telling us the economy is doing so much better, but it is obviously not.

    I do like the effort, though. Keep it up!

  105. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    tuddo says:

    Here is the original statement I was responding to:

    “Since 2008, Obama has accepted more campaign money from Wall St. and Big Oil than any other politician”

    Okay… but here is the original statement you made in regard to that:

    George Bush received about 100 times more money in his last term than Obama has since 2008

    Your subsequent walk-back got us onto “big oil” when you claimed that was what you… meant(?).
    And now your… uh-hum… “zinger” mentions absolutely nothing about George W. Bush, other than “the oil and gas industry could not win support for repealing bans on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” from Bush and Cheney.

    If you’re trying to confuse me here, tuddo, at least you’re doing a good job of that. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to back up your first claim, or to show that Bush took any money from “big oil” during his second term. Heck, I’ll concede he may have accepted donations from them to some sort of 501 that was set up to help fund his library. But I have not seen anywhere that he had outstanding campaign debt – not that I doubt it, just haven’t seen it.

    And you have already articulated the legal parameters for accepting donations in the second term of a presidency, as have I, and we’ve both provided links. So are you saying he violated the law? If so, and you can prove it (sorta” – with the MSM “proof” is a highly subjective word), you’ve got a hell of a story to sell the Ney York Times, Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC…

    So… going back to the original statement by you, to which I was responding – “George Bush received about 100 times more money in his last term than Obama has since 2008″ – I think we can agree that all of the evidence that you and I have provided proves that statement is hogwash.

  106. Republicans love to tout job numbers as dismal, but they don’t make the distinction between public and private jobs. Their mantra is that government must get smaller and private business must grow.

    So lets look at Bush’s first term, which Republicans like to boast about and leave off the absolutely devastating job loss numbers of his second term.

    In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! The only thing that saved the overall employment picture was the huge increase in public-sector jobs. The Bush big government era created about 900,000 public jobs.

    In Obama’s first term, the trend has been just the opposite. About 607,000 public sector jobs have been lost since Obama took office.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/05/04/bush_vs_obama_jobs/

    The net number of private sector jobs is small, about 35,000, but the hole that Bush’s policies had dug kept getting deeper and deeper until Obama’s policies could take effect. It took a while to change the course toward destruction of private jobs that Bush had installed. When they did start, the number of private jobs created turned into well over a million.

    It amazes me that Republicans don’t like Obama and still defend Bush. Obama is producing exactly what Republicans say they want – smaller government and more private-sector jobs.

  107. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Is anyone really defending Bush? By saying he is not the devil, not the root of our current woes, not the reason for ever ill in life, are you defending Bush?

    He inherited a recession just like BHO. He had 9/11. He did not blame anyone. He tried to solve problems. He spent too much, and just about every conservative will tell you the same. You do not hear much talk of the ‘Bush recovery’ as an example of good policy (because it really was leftist/keynesian). You hear about Reagan.

    This election is not about Bush, as much as the left would like it to be.

  108. concernedtacoma7, if you are not defending Bush by repeating the false statement that he inherited a recession, then what do you call what you are doing?

    The official date of the recession as dated by the Republican economist in charge of such things was March, 2001. Using indicators that usully signal a recession, July, 2001 is generally the date most economists place on its start. And, by any stretch, it was a mild recession that hiring about a million government workers with middle class wages pushed us out of.

    Conservatives are some of the loudest proponents of blaming Obama for the economy and saying we can’t blame Bush for anything after the day Obama took office. So, let’s apply that to Bush.

    Defending Bush like that is part of the mythology that harms any real dicussion of what works and what doesn’t work to bolster our economy.

    You can skip any commentary in the link you don’t like, but look at the facts developed by Republicans it links to.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200405010002

  109. concernedtacoma7 says:

    So even if we accept Mar 01 as the start, Bush was still unpacking.

    That is pure semantics. And there was negative growth one quarter before.

    Minus a couple quotes from Cheney and pundits, Bush and his admin did not go for years blaming Clinton. BHO, Biden, etc still blame Bush daily for everything they can dream up that is not working well for the country.

    Once again I do not see anyone on the R side using Bush policies as a template for the future.

  110. “You like historical comparisons, how does this recovery match up?

    Lets look at the recessions in the last 50 years:

    The recession of 1960-61 lasted ten months (April 1960 – Feb 61). The GDP dropped 1.6%. Unemployment went up from 5% to 7%, and didn’t drop back down close to where it started until July 62, 17 months after the recession had ended.

    The recession of 1969-1970 lasted 11 months (Dec 69 – Nov 70). GDP went down by a scant 0.6%. Unemployment went up from 3.5% to 6.1%, and NEVER dropped back down to where it started. The closest it came was 4.6% in October 73, three years after the recession had ended.

    The recession of 1973-75 lasted 16 months (Nov 73 – Mar 75). The GDP declined by 3.2%. Unemployment went up from 4.8% to 9%, and never dropped back down to where it started. The closest it came was 5.6% in May 79, four years after the recession officially ended.

    The recession of 1980 lasted 6 months (Jan 80 – July 80). The GDP dropped by 2.2%. Unemployment went up from 6.3% to 7.8%, but didn’t drop back down to where it started until August 87, seven years after the recession officially ended.

    The early 1980’s recession lasted 16 months (July 81 – November 82). The GDP dropped 2.7%. Unemployment went up from 7.2% to 10.8%, and didn’t drop back down to where it started until July 84, two years and four months after the recession officially ended, despite those “job creating tax cuts”. Thanks, Ronnie.

    The early 1990’s recession lasted 8 months (July 90 – March 91). The GDP dropped a meager 0.3%. Unemployment rose from 5.7% to 6.8%. But it kept on rising even after the recession officially ended, peaking at 7.8% in June 92. It didn’t drop back down to where it started until October 94, three and a half years after the recession officially ended.

    The early 2000’s recession lasted 8 months (March 2001 – November 01). The GDP dropped a scant 0.3%. Unemployment rose from 4.0% to 5.5%. But, like the preceding recession, it kept on rising after the recession was officially over, peaking at 6.3% in June 03. It didn’t drop back down close to where it started until December 06, more than five years after the recession officially ended, despite two different tax cuts. Thanks, Dubya.

    The Great Recession lasted eighteen months (December 07 – June 09), longer than any recession in the last 50 years. The GDP dropped 4.1%. More than any recession in the last 50 years. Unemployment rose from 5% to 9.5% (more than any recession in the last 50 years), but, like the preceding two recessions, it kept on rising, peaking out at 10.1% in October 09. So far, it’s dropped back down to 8.1%.

    So if you or anyone expected unemployment to have completely recovered by now, dream on. Unemployment always trails in a recovery. Always. Given that this is the worst recession in the last 50 years, this recovery is on par with the others.

    You wanted facts. You got ‘em. The fact is that this recovery is on par with previous ones.

  111. “So even if we accept Mar 01 as the start, Bush was still unpacking.

    And Obama was still unpacking in March 2009, fourteen months after the official start of the recession. Were you trying to make some kind of point?

    “Odd, I thought BHO took office in 2009? Nice cherry pick.”

    4 million jobs created since the low point of the recession, which in terms of the number of jobs, was in 2010. That’s a pretty good recovery.

    But since you want to whine about it, the number of jobs in February 2009 (Obama’s first full month in office) was 132,837,000, when the economy was in free-fall. Or have you forgotten that? The number of jobs this April was, as I said, 132,989,000. That’s a net increase in jobs since Obama took office.

    “He inherited a recession just like BHO. He had 9/11. He did not blame anyone.”

    Bovine byproduct.

    1. He and the GOP and their sycophantic supporters spent seven and a half years blaming Clinton for 9/11. Some morons are still blaming him.

    2. The recession didn’t start until several months after Bush took office. Quit deflecting.

    3. The recession of the early 2000’s was, as I’ve already documented, much less severe that the one that Obama inherited. So no, Bush didn’t inherit a recession, and the one you’re referring to was much milder. And unemployment didn’t recover until more than five years after the recession officially ended.

    So, if Obama is only as bad as Bush was, unemployment won’t recover until 2014 or 2015.

  112. “I do not see anyone on the R side using Bush policies as a template for the future.

    ROFLMAO – do you just make this crap up and expect anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size to believe you? Just how many Republicans are calling for tax cuts?

  113. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Several months or less then 2?

    Once again only the left is talking about Bush. He used Keynes, and of course it did not work very well.

    History guy- look up the 1920’s. Recession, cut budget, booming economy. Slashed the budget. Private sector exploded. Govt got out of the way.

  114. concerned, why do we call them the “Bush tax cuts” that Republicans are defending so much?

    The tax cuts are the cause of much higher percentage of the deficit than anything Obama has done (except compromise by allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue for a while).

    So what’s that nonsense again about no Republican is trying to continue Bush policies?

  115. concerned, your reference to Keynes shows how little you know about economics. Tax cuts during a recession are not Keyensian.

    Extreme and sustained unemployment during a recession, Keynesians argue, results from a decline in demand in the economy. When the economy is knocked off balance by serious economic shocks, the government can help restore normalcy by increasing demand through government spending. And because the influx of government spending drives businesses to hire and consumers to spend, its impact is multiplied.

    Keynesian economists have agreed that the multiplier effect of government spending is larger than that of the other approach to injecting demand into the economy — cutting taxes — because money from tax cuts is as often saved than spent, and more often saved if the tax cuts are aimed at a group that already has sufficient income.

  116. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Tuddo- Bush coupled tax cuts with increased spending, hence the debate with Bush fiscal policy. It is the increased spending and increased spending on social programs that fiscal conservatives take issue with.

    One can also argue that monetary policy during his time was also too loose, cutting rates so low that when a deep recession hit, the fed lost their biggest tool.

    I understand Keynes. I also understand that theory was established when debts were not as large (as % of GDP) as today. Much of today’s policy (like huge regulation changes in a downturn) are in direct violation of what he recommended to FDR.

  117. “Several months or less then 2?”

    Fact. The recession started after Bush took office. He didn’t “inherit” anything. nice job of trying to move the goalposts. Failed, but nice.

    “History guy- look up the 1920′s. Recession, cut budget, booming economy. Slashed the budget. Private sector exploded. Govt got out of the way.

    1937. Federal cuts in spending caused an economic downturn topped only by the crash of 1929.

    2001 – 2003. Tax cuts followed by a net decrease in jobs.

    “monetary policy during his time was also too loose

    Oh yeah. There was a recession because there was too much money freely available. Riiiiight. Good lord. Do you have any idea just how silly and uninformed you sound?

  118. “Once again only the left is talking about Bush.

    Of course the wrong wing doesn’t want to talk about Bush. Who can blame them? After all, the wrong wing is embarrassed at what utter failures their policies were. All those “job creating” tax cuts followed by a net loss of jobs. LOL

    To hear you wrong wingers talk today, not one of you supported him. Of course, spin is all you’ve got. When “the uniter” was President, all the division in the country was caused by those who opposed him. But now, all the division is caused by the President, and not by those who oppose him. Do you get dizzy from all that spin?

  119. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “You will never hear a Keynesian economist mention the depression of 1920-1921, or accurately explain what brought America out of it.  The facts don’t fit the Keynesian narrative.  President Warren Harding cut the federal budget 48% from 1920 to 1922.  The economy boomed.  President Calvin Coolidge continued Harding’s fiscal prudence, spending less in 1928 than Harding did in 1922.  America enjoyed nine years of budget surpluses and arguably the best national economy in the world, post-World War I.

    As World War II wound down, the United States cut spending by 75 percent.  Spending as a percentage of GDP plunged from 44 percent in 1944 to 9 percent in 1948.  Horrified, Keynesian Paul Samuelson, later a Nobel Prize-winner in economics, predicted “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.”  Other Keynesians foresaw violence in American streets.  Instead, Samuelson advocated a gradual spending drawdown.  Washington ignored him.

    The post-war U.S. economy thrived.  There was no mass unemployment despite rapid demobilization of the armed forces.  It’s true that the numbers of unemployed increased, but with a civilian labor force of 60.1 million, the 2.3 million unemployed people calculated an unemployment rate of only 3.8 percent, far superior to today’s 8.1 percent.  President Harry Truman said, “This is probably close to the minimum unavoidable in a free economy of great mobility such as ours.”

    Keynesians dismissed the postwar boom as an outlier.  But the economy boomed again after the Cold War ended and overall federal spending fell from 22 percent of GDP in 1991 to 18 percent in 2000.  During the period, real GDP grew by 40 percent with an average annual growth rate of 3.8 percent.

    Recently, on Europe, Dr. Barro wrote, “Two interesting … cases are Germany and Sweden, each of which moved toward rough budget balance between 2009 and 2011 while sustaining comparatively strong growth — the average growth rate per year of real GDP for 2010 and 2011 was 3.6% for Germany and 4.9% for Sweden. If austerity is so terrible, how come these two countries have done so well?”  And: “… there is nothing in the overall [European] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data since 2009 that supports the Keynesian view that fiscal expansion has promoted economic growth.”

  120. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Sorry for the long post. I know if I just posted the link many would freak out at the source and ignore it.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/m-economists_are_not_historians.html

    Thanks tuddo, I did learn something through your posts/link.

  121. The *real* story of the 1921 depression and recovery: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

    Try again.

  122. concerned, we had that discussion before about the period of time that was originally called a depression, then a recession in 1920-1921. Many economists now call it a post-war readjustment since it doesn’t fit a recession as we generally know it. Krugman does explain the different types of recessions well in ehill’s link.

    If we were in a period of recession brought on by high inflation with sound banks, more money for investment available than needed, solid capital expansion and infrastructure development by private enterprise, then we wouldn’t need the Keynesian stimulus approach.

    The trickle down, low-taxes, starve-government approach has not worked for the state our economy is now in and will not work now.

  123. “You hear about Reagan.”

    He out spent every President before him combined! (with raygun that statement is true, with Obama, it’s NOT)
    He raised taxes 11 times.
    He wanted to raise taxes on the rich, and did.
    His so called ‘recovery’ took over 6 years. (you want Obama to do it 6 months)
    He de-regulated, trucking, now you can’t find a decent LTL nationwide carrier, safety is in the tubes and the hyways are far more dangerous and drivers are earning less and working more.
    He de-regulated airlines….need I say more?
    He de-regulated savings and loans, that cost the taxpayer a bundle.
    He bailed out Chrysler!

    In short he did EVERYTHING you are now whining and crying about, claiming it will bring about the end of the world.

    What is wrong with you people?
    Don’t you even bother to find out the facts?

  124. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Larry attacking the source, nothing to do with substance at all. Cute deflection. Go back to your crappy LTE and try to defend one point.

    Ehill- nice anti Reagan talking points. In the end of the day he lowered taxed rates significantly, the economy expanded rapidly, and millions of jobs were created.

    Tuddo- one cannot ignore the debt. If we were China, we could try some Keysenian experiment. We are broke, and every round of “stimulus” or “investment” is being charged to the next generation.

    http://blog.american.com/2012/01/11-stunning-revelations-from-larry-summers-secret-economics-memo-to-barack-obama/

    On top of the nightmarish debt, our economy is too large to easily stimulate with ‘shovel ready’ jobs and the like.

  125. “Larry attacking the source”

    All I did was post links to three stories. If that is “attacking”, then maybe “the source” had better take a look at their content”.

    This gets easier and easier.

  126. “nice anti Reagan talking points”

    Someone needs lessons in what a “talking point” is

  127. Here’s another Reagan fact – he increased the debt 260%.

  128. concerned, the thing is, we are not broke. The Bush tax cuts cost much more than any stimulus or spending increase we have done. There is a very simple answer, but Republicans refuse to budge. Obama proposed massive spending cuts with only a slight tax increase, and ideologues won. No compormise. The several committees lookinga t this proposed modest tax increases and spending cuts. The answer from Republicans – they would rather see our country fall completely apart than have any tax increase. No compromise.

  129. concernedtacoma7 says:

    So where is BHO’s proposal for massive cuts on paper? Not in his budget proposals.

    Why wasn’t this addressed when he had a near super majority? Could have passed the increases through reconciliation.

    As a nation, no, we are not broke. At the treasury? Broke.

  130. “nice anti Reagan talking points. In the end of the day he lowered taxed rates significantly, the economy expanded rapidly, and millions of jobs were created.”

    My gawd, how wrong can you get??
    Were you even alive then?
    He raised taxes, the economy was stagnate at best and you couldn’t BUY a job!
    Crack a history book for gawds sake!

  131. “nice anti Reagan talking points. In the end of the day he lowered taxed rates significantly, the economy expanded rapidly, and millions of jobs were created.”

    After unemployment rose to almost 11%.

  132. One more thing. I didn’t mention Reagan. But why let the facts get in the way of a nice rant?

  133. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Deflect. Compare the recoveries.

    Try again

  134. There are filthy rich folks on both sides of this. That’s not the question. The question is HOW the rich go about living the mandate to love our neighbors. Dems want the government to operate as a sort of overseer, insisting that each person puts money into kitty and then the master of the plantation and his cohorts will decided how to distribute it. The rest would prefer to donate charitable dollars to well-vetted organizations who make sure it goes for food, water, medicine, and education.

    If all the rich folks who rally around Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” ideology simply made it their business to feed and educate the poor, and all the bellicose conservatives did their part as well, the government could stay out of it. HEY! There’s an idea worth voting for — a government that stays out of it!!

  135. “Deflect”

    I didn’t bring Reagan up. You did.

  136. sozo, I would much better have an impartial government setting up processes that do not discriminate against people than a group of socialites on charity boards deciding who is “worthy” and who is not for the pittance they might deliver.

    I have been on the boards of many non-profits and have resigned from several. I have worked with many “well-vetted” charities who discriminate based on religion, race, looks, marital status and other non-relevant issues.

    Junior-League women with a air of superiority about them abound on many such boards. The programs can change on a whim. There is nothing like a do-gooder with an attitude, biases and no knowledge of human behavior.

    I also don’t think people should have to attend religious services outside their faith in order to get services, something many charities require.

    You forget that I lived before most of the programs we have today were developed and when people had to beg and play games for the rich to get any services.

    Please, sir, may I have some more?

  137. “Compare the recoveries.

    Reagan took office in January 1981. As of February (his first full month in office) unemployment was 7.4%. In April of 1984 (i.e., at the same point in Reagan’s first term as we are now), unemployment was – wait for it – 7.7%.

    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp?fromYear=1981&toYear=1989

    That’s right. Despite a recession that wasn’t as bad as this one, despite two rounds of tax cuts, and despite the fact that the Democrats were cooperating more with Reagan than the GOP is with Obama, unemployment was UP.

    Facts. They trump wrong-wing hyperbole every time.

  138. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Weak. Compare it from the end of the recession, apples to apples.

    Try again.

  139. Nice. You can’t refute the facts, so you mischaracterize the response.

  140. concernedtacoma7 says:

    You are selling snake oil. Everyone knows this recovery is painfully slow. You can debate the reasons, but stop lying.

  141. This recovery is from the worst economic downturn in 80 years. And the economy is recovering at a faster pace than the prevoius, very mild, recession. In case you’ve conveniently forgotten the FACTS, that revession was shorter and MUCH shallower. And yet it took unemployment FIVE YEARS to recover after the end of the recession, despite two rounds of “job creation” tax cuts.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0