A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Economy NOT looking better in 2011.

Posted: Nov 24, 2010

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmQPno2aRwKq-kJecOUpMoETcg-A?docId=2471df065e9045afb61de42418efb6ac

;

Do you plan to edit that? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

In comparison to Bush years, it is absolutely GREAT! - Growth is not enough for you?

[ In Reply To ..]
The economy is growing, unlike your Bush years where the number of jobs LOST WAS 2.6 MILLION in 2008.

You are so so so wrong!! hahahahaha.. get real. - Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
Bush's economy was doing fine until dems took over in last 2 years of his term.

Really? is that supposed to be a funny joke? It sure - isnt funny where I live -more like sad.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

No surprise, but gee, what would we have done - without Obama saving us.. NOT !.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Continue the pub policies and you would be down - another 8 million jobs.

[ In Reply To ..]
Based on the trajectory of 2008.

Wrong! Without Os policies, the economy would - recover faster.. he is the worst.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Well, thats what you get when you hire a clueless pres. - who has NEVER run anything!.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Unemployment was much lower in 2008 than you think - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
In October, 2008, it was 6.9%, or 2.3 million unemployed. In Decmeber, it was 7.4%.

It went up every month after that in 2009 and in 2010, it's been holding steady at 9.7% and 9.6%; i.e., 14.8 million unemployed in October.

Yes, Republicans tanked it - Bush's war, tax cuts for rich

[ In Reply To ..]
Hard to catch a falling knife.

Private-sector payroll employment rose by 159,000 over the
month; since December 2009, employment in the private sector has risen
by 1.1 million. Yay, Democrats!

Are you so party line obedient that you just buy everything - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
the democrats say sink and line without checking the facts. Republicans did not tank anything. The democrats were in congress and they are the ones who voted on things.

This was not Bush's war. This was the congress' war. No president (no matter what party) has the authority to start a war. Congress has to approve it. So the correct term would be "This is the congress' war".

Tax cuts for the rich? What a crock! Guess what? Those rich that are getting tax cuts are also getting tax cuts under Clinton, Carter and every other president.

How about Clinton proposing the highest tax hike on middle income in history when he was president.

Your numbers are also incorrect. It's not nice to just make up numbers you want.

More jobs have been lost under Obama than any president ever.

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/2010/01/more-jobs-lost-under-obama-last-year-than-any-president-ever/

I read another article that said 3 million were lost under Obama and another article that said over 2 million.

If you think jobs lost are a "yay democrats" that's just really sad.

Bush declared the war. Without the declaration....hmmm - what do you think?

[ In Reply To ..]
So, yes, it was declared by Bush and could be called Bush's war.

Try again - Congress approved it - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
Some good articles (that is if you want to know the truth).

In October of 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114. This resolution, which was not a formal declaration of war, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. A review of the resolution shows it was Congress that determined Iraq had "nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them." It was Congress that determined Iraq posed "a continuing threat to the national security of the United Statesâ�¦by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability". It was Congress that determined Iraq was "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." It was Congress that determined "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United Statesâ�¦areâ�¦in Iraq." It was Congress that determined Iraq was "in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions." And it was Congress that determined that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions would be enforced--"through the use of force if necessary."

As a result of these determinations, Congress inserted a provision that authorized the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Critics of President Bush claim that since weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq, the President mislead the American people concerning the reasons for the war. As shown above, it was Congress that made the determination that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since a president is merely the arm of Congress when it comes to the use of military forces in an offensive capacity, any blame for the war, good, bad or otherwise must be laid squarely on the shoulders of Congress because a president is powerless to act without authorization and direction from Congress.

One of the biggest problems with our political system is presidents get too much blame and too much praise while Congress gets off scot free when something goes wrong. Since it was Congress that determined Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that body, including Senator John Kerry, authorized the president to attack Iraq to protect the security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions, the American people should blame Congress for the war in Iraq. (full article below)

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/11/26/greenslade.htm

"The decision to go to war is exclusively that of Congress"

Nonetheless, The New York Times reports that the President may, when he returns from his vacation, seek support from Congress. And the Senate Armed Services Committee has announced that it is going to hold hearings on a war in Iraq when the August recess ends. (see full article below)

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. (full article below)

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Many more articles out there. Those are only three.

The President of the United States no matter what party they belong to does not have the authority to go to war. That authority lies with the congress.

I didn't say congress didn't approve it. Any gradeschooler knows - how it works.

[ In Reply To ..]
I said Bush declared it. Why do people go off on a rant to prove things wrong that no one said in the first place?

Bush declared the war, therefore, you could call it Bush's war. That's it, that's all.

See above. President cannot declare war....and it was not a declared war anyway. - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
I will stop short of the gradeschooler comment.

Bush declares war - ....

[ In Reply To ..]
Some gradeschool education for you.

It takes an act of Congress in order for the US to officially be at war. This happened on prior request of the president. The president then formally addressed the public. This formal address is no longer required; however, take a look at the headlines. Sorry.....this is just how it goes.

President CANNOT declare war. ONLY Congress can. - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
Iraq was not a "declared" war. A declared war has a resolution from Congress that states that a state of war exists between the United States and another country. That was not done in Iraq. Bush presented the intelligence to the Congress that he had received, and they were convinced, as he was, as many other countries were, that force should be used in Iraq. Congress approved "use of force."

Number one, there was NOT a declared war, and number two, if there had been, it can only be declared by Congress. NOT by the President. Read the Constitution, and after you have done that, check out the War Powers Act...passed when Nixon tried to circumvent the Constitution and keep fighting in Viet Nam without authorization from Congress. It reiterated the fact that authorization to use force OR declaring war can ONLY be done by Congress.

It was NOT Bush's war. Congress could have stopped it cold. They chose NOT to, and not all the Dem spin in the world is going to change that. The Dems who voted yes are just as responsible as the Republicans who voted yes.

By prior request of the President, war was "Declared." - Got it?

[ In Reply To ..]
Do you get it yet?

And Congress could have said NO. GOT IT? nm - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

They didn't - GOT IT? Do you even get the point? It doesn't - look like it.

[ In Reply To ..]
This is an incredibly simple example, but it appears simplicity is sorely needed in order for you to understand. It probably won't work, but here goes.

You asked your mom and dad if you could plan a trip and if they would go with you and finance it. They said yes. It could be called "sam's trip" because you asked for it. Got it?

Now, if the trip was a good one and everyone had fun, you wouldn't mind it being called "sam's trip." But, if it turned out badly it would probably bother you when people call it "sam's trip." Got it?

Ok....call Iraq Bush's war. Call Somalia Clinton's war.... - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
call Viet Nam Johnson's war...what happens when the incoming President does not stop the war? Does it then become Obama's war?

If Iraq had gone well the Dems would be breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for their part in it.

I guess what you are saying it is "semantics." But the fact remains...you call it anything you want. Iraq war, WHOEVER asked for it, would not go forward if the Dems had not voted for it.

And I would not have gone on the trip if my parents had not funded it.

Got it?

So, you blame your parents when things go wrong. - It figures

[ In Reply To ..]
and you would be happy to take credit if things go right.

By the way, you're the one who is offended. You can call any war by any name you like.

I'm into reality, you are obviously in the - Right-World Echochamber

[ In Reply To ..]
A very scary place.

No, you certainly are not in reality - You bought the dems party line too

[ In Reply To ..]
You have bought into their bull. It's very sad (and scary) when people just agree with them and don't do any researching or even critical thinking on their own. It's the attitude of "if the democrats say something it's true, and if they republicans say something it's a lie". There are good and bad on both sides.

You really need to research who is responsible for starting the war - and not from any of the left-wing hateful blogs. Find someone who is independent and doesn't have the absolute hatred for Bush that they blame things on him that aren't his fault. There are some articles below written by CNN.

Your reality is very scary. No thanks. I'll stay on earth.

What do you mean, no president can start a war? That's exactly where they - start

[ In Reply To ..]
Your post...oh my. Where you gettin' this stuff?

Um....keep forgetting congress has to approve it - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
Once again let me repeat, and very slowly so you'll understand.

Congress must approve any war that happens. A president alone cannot start a war NO MATTER WHAT PARTY. If there was no reason to start this war, then congress would not have approved it and we would not be at war. I'm sure if it was a republican congress you be the first to jump on board blaming them, but since its a democrat you want to take blame off of where it belongs. Sorry, but you cannot change facts. Both republicans AND democrats approved for this war to begin.

Selective memory you have....oh my.

What is the matter? - The

[ In Reply To ..]
war started when the President declared it. NO ONE said congress did not have to approve. What in the world is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Here's the thing.... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Everyone is calling it Bush's war. Yes of course the war was stared under Bush. Nobody is arguing that fact. However, quit acting like nobody approved of the war and Bush started it on his own without approval from anyone. You know Bush is not all that bright to be able to orchestrate this whole war on his own. It's a war that was started under his presidency. He is just like every other president who felt the need to go to war. But the facts were presented to the congress. The congress looked at all the facts and in a vote unanimously voted yes to invade a country we had no business (IMHO) being in. Innocent people have died over there both in their country and our own troops for what...nothing! Bush sat in the seat and did what he was told to do. Chaney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc (and in my understanding daddy Bush too) were involved and making decisions...they were the ones running the show...not Bush. Daddy's boy just sat there and did what he was told. I blame congress for the war. They should have voted no and then there would be no war. They approved it, hence they should own it. You know we didn't call the invasion in Somalia Clinton's war, we didn't call the war in Kosovo Clinton's war. When FDR declared war on Japan on December 8th, we didn't call it Roosevelt's war.

War is a war. Yes of course the president declares a war...nobody is arguing that, but everyone seems to forget that congress approves it. It's congress' fault we are at war there where we should not be. They could have stopped it. They could have said no and we would not have gone. Junior did not do this all on his own without anyone's approval. Congress decided with the facts presented to them that Iraq had NBC weapons and the means to deliver them. Congress had determined that Iraq was a threat to the US and it was congress that decided that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire and other UN resolutions. Therefore it was congress that approved this war. Their war, not Bush's. He presented the case, they approved it.

We don't call Clinton's invasion into Somalia "Clinton's war" (which by the way he left our troops to die there). No, we call it The invasion of Somalia and all the Clinton-lovers try to ignore that Clinton/congress was even involved. Then there is Clinton's invasion into Kosovo. We don't call that Clinton's war. It's called the Kosovo War/Kosovo Conflict. And again the Clinton lovers try to forget Clinton/congress was involved in that too. Therefore, this is not Bush's war (or more correctly congresses war), but is simply The War in Iraq/Afganistan.

Bush certainly is no genius, but putting the blame on him when it's congresses doing is just not right. I don't care how much you hate someone.

This is simply a war. Just like all the other wars/invasions that were started under past presidents.

The US has formally declared war five separate times, each upon request of the President of the US. - ..

[ In Reply To ..]
Yes, Congress must approve it. It seems you are trying to say that the war Bush requested cannot be called "Bush's war" because congress had to approve it????

That's just silly.

Then are you okay about Clinton's war? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

If you call any war by the President's name who called for it - it's fine

[ In Reply To ..]
by me. It's silly to get upset about such things.

No its not - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
No it's not okay to call a war under any presidents name their war. What is wrong with people. It is the War in Iraq/Afganistan. It was the War in Kosovo or the Conflict In Cosovo. It was WWI and WWII, it was the Vietnam war. No president starts a war on their own, hence don't blame them for something a bunch of other people (congress) approve. War is war. It's not anyone's war, it's just a war.

Get a grip people!

lol, so it's not okay with you. - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
okay.

Talk about silly....there would be NO war if.... - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
Congress had not approved it. Without Congress, no war. All they had to do was say no. So, if you are going to label it, at least be fair...It was Bush and Congress' war (including all Dems and Repubs who voted FOR it). List ALL their names, as they are ALL responsible. Is it just physically impossible for a Democrat to take responsibility for ANYTHING without trying to blame it on somebody else??

Not correct. The public got angry over the war and voted - dems in his last 2 years, thus, tanking it.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

So pathetic. The rich STILL pay majority of taxes. - What is your problem?nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

I think they would be happy if the rich.... - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
paid 100%. They should not be rich. They should not work for what they have. They should be made equal. Didn't you know that? After all...how dare someone work harder, longer hours, or invest in the right things to make some money. How dare anyone want a better life for themselves and their family and children. Everyone in America should be equal. What I see is they want National Socialism.

The rich don't need you to defend them - they already have Fox and the echochamber

[ In Reply To ..]
If you are one of the rich or thankful that the rich trickle on you, why are you hanging out on this board?

How about taking a look at some facts - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
Here is my perspective on this issue (and unless you consider 24K a year rich, no I'm not rich). You have bought into the democrats party line of that republicans are going to give the "2% wealthiest a break in taxes" bull. Why not do some independent research of your own and not buy into the lies being perpetuated by the democrats. Here's a helpful hint...they are lying to you.

An article written in 2006 states that the IRS data (and I don't think the IRS is politically affiliated) for 2004 (I'm sure it has not changed that much since then) showed that the rich paid 96.7% in taxes. (article below)

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/9

So my question is why do people hate the rich so much and want them to pay more than 96% in taxes. Would you want to pay 96% in taxes? Newsflash... They DO pay their fair share in taxes. The democrats have seemed to turn this into something political. Convincing the weak-minded that republican are bad and there are those "2% wealthiest that don't pay taxes". Yet in reality, the same people have paid the same amount whether a republican or democrat president is in. So the sames statement can be said to the democrats about their 2% of wealthiest friends. And for some reason the democrats have also convinced the weak-minded that they care about them and they'll fix those rich white nasty republicans and tax them more, but if your a democrat you'll be safe.

If you were in the "real" world you would know - that Bush tax cuts a huge factor in deficit

[ In Reply To ..]

In order to help the economy - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
you need to cut taxes AND decrease spending. Bush didn't decrease spending and Obama has spent much much more and now wants to let the tax cuts expire. Bush got 2 thing right...tax cuts. Obama is getting 2 things wrong. Wanting them to expire AND spending like crazy.

Raising taxes isn't going to give the govt more revenue if it forces companies to let more employees go. With less people working, you are going to have people paying less in taxes. Duh...simple common sense people.

Besides, more revenue in taxes isn't going to make our deficit go down because obviously politicians don't understand the concept of not spending more than you receive to begin with.

If you or I took care of our finances the way the govt does....we'd have already lost everything we have and be totally bankrupt. What don't you people get about that?

Today must be my day for typos - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I meant to type that Bush got 1 thing right...not 2. Sorry.

Bush 2 intended for the tax cuts to be - temporary. Must have been a

[ In Reply To ..]

reason for that. And if granting the tax cuts to begin with was designed to make things better, it didn't work. Things have only gotten worse.

I agree with you about the spending that Obama is doing. Other than the fact that he inherited a tremendous deficit (which means Bush 2 approved of a lot of spending on his own), maybe Obama's plan is to get things accomplished in his first term and then work on the deficit in his second. I hope so. But I sure agree he is spending too much.

Because regardless of you and O, its still - A FREE COUNTRY to speak..God Bless ya.

[ In Reply To ..]
...and I happen to work for a rich person, you know, the evil pub-type who hires workers. Your judgement is pathetic here, actually kind of shameful.

That is an excellent point - - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
Rich people hire workers. In fact one day I hope to be rich.

They still have never answered the question of why they hate the rich so much when the rich have done nothing wrong except make a better life for themselves and their families. AND they give people jobs. Nothing evil about rich people. Just don't know why they hate them so much.

You need to ask some questions - Is someone cheating?

[ In Reply To ..]
Think about this for a minute: 64 percent of all income growth since 1979 has gone to the top 10 percent.

Does the playing field sound even somewhat fair and balanced? How was this accomplished?

Oh good God! Get over it.. nothing is presumed fair - in life, but I was hired by a rich guy!!.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Oh, just wait until they rob your retirement savings - send your job overseas, and cancel your health ins

[ In Reply To ..]
and devalue your house. Then, just get over it.

What rich guy did that to you? A rich guy hired me - and gave me health insurance, however

[ In Reply To ..]
may have to cancel my insurance coverage due to Obama's disastrous HCR!! The premiums are skyrocketting now. Thanks to Obama and the other dems robbing me.. they must be really really rich and evil, huh?

That is an excuse by your rich boss - Didn\'t you notice

[ In Reply To ..]
That the premiums have been going up and up over the years, at a faster rate than ever? Do you think they will quit going up without the HCR? Don\'t worry, if health care reform is appealed, your rich guy will find a way to cheapen it up. Maybe you can make it to Medicare without needing a doctor--oh wait a minute--Republicans want to cut that too. Well, good luck to you.

You are full of baloney and hot air. My family who - purchase their own -skyrocketed too.

[ In Reply To ..]
Were specifically told their rates are increasing due to Obamacare. Clueless much? Also, because its going to screw up Medicare reimbursements so greatly, many doctor practices are predicted to go out of business if it is not corrected next year. You really have no idea what you speak of.. .none.

Ha! Told that by the insurance company? - Guess what? They lie!

[ In Reply To ..]
Did they say why they increased before HCR? Clueless, yes you are.

Apparently, you have nothing to lose - s/m

[ In Reply To ..]
My retirement savings dropped by about 50% in Bush's crash, (the second time the rich cleaned my account this decade), the company I worked with used Indian workers and our wages and benefits were cut, cut, cut, while the Republicans encouraged companies to make profits by getting cheaper labor. When I was between jobs, I could not find a private insurer as I am now in the age group where almost everyone has a "pre-existing" condition--thanks to the greed of the insurance industry's love affair with big profits and bonuses. The housing crisis caused by the greed of the banks and the Republicans refusal to regulate them has made the value of my house drop about a third. I am glad a rich person hired you. I hope you are making a decent wage, have health insurance,and don't have to work 12 hours a day for what you used to make in 8 hours fifteen years ago. I hope you have enough freedom, that someday when you want to change jobs, that there will be good-paying jobs, and you won't be afraid to do it because you will lose your insurance.

You have a lot to learn.

Totally crazy! It was the DEMS who refused to do - anything about Fannie and Freddie,

[ In Reply To ..]
even though Bush begged them there would be a problem. Idiots like Barney Frank are on tape saying it was fine. When Clinton was pres, no bank was allowed to turn anyone down for loans, so all the people who could not afford houses that they KNEW they could not afford? -well, it all came back to bite us, every one of us, even those who DO pay our bills! So, go look at some facts before spewing your garbage all the time.

Your replay seems to be stuck - complete control by Republicans 2001-2007

[ In Reply To ..]
And then Bush with veto power.

2001-2007
White House - GOP
The House - GOP majority
The Senate - GOP majority

Some would argue that the Supreme court leans slightly to the right with the appointments of Alito and Stevens.

Suck it up and take responsibility. By the way, my bills are always paid and have never collected the "welfare" you are so worried about. I bet you are worried your neighbor might be getting something you are not. Part of the Republican psychological profile.

that must be why in 2008, everything went downhill.nm - LOL!! .. try again! and think next time!

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Think: Filibuster, Veto, Do you know what that is? - Can't fix clueless, I guess.

[ In Reply To ..]

Dems had control in 2006! duh, do you not know this? - gee.. its useless arguing with this poster.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Election 2006, Sworn in 2007 - Election 2010, Swear in 2011

[ In Reply To ..]
Do you detect a pattern? You are a waste of time and effort. Must be a tp.

Because it is a basic tenet of socialism. - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
And judging by the posts on this board, there are several who have bought the class warfare thing hook, line, and sinker. However....if THEY were among the rich...with this kind of attitude...do you think they would be all for spreading their wealth...

LOL!! Not no, HE double hockey sticks NO. Soooo transparent.

Old right buzzword - socialism - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
x

That's what keeps people stupid - hoping

[ In Reply To ..]
to be rich one day. The odds are far from with you.

New left buzzword....echochamber. - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
We will be hearing that one for awhile.

Tell me please, why do you think that it is honesty or shows any integrity to think that someone who has more money than you should be forced to pay more of a share than you do? Why do you think the "rich" owe you anything? You really think it is okay to take from them and just give to you when you have done nothing whatsoever to deserve it?

In my world they call that a thief. What do they call it in your world? Oh yeah...a socialist.

Bet if YOU were one of those rich folks you would be singing a different tune. Can't see you standing on the balcony throwing money down to the "less fortunate."

You really think only Republicans are rich? Seriously????

Similar Messages:

Apr 29, 2011
Seems this board is just rife with links to conservative blogs and OPED pieces. So, here's one to balance out the blather from the TPers and RWers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunch/donald-trump-obama_b_855383.html ...

Jul 29, 2012
I've been suffering with glossitis since before I had my baby back in November of 2011. It comes and goes but it's starting to really piss me off because it smarts like heck. After suffering with it for 6 months and having no home remedies cure it, I finally went to my PCP. She was like, "Yep, it's glossitis. I don't know why you have it, but you do. You can try Mylanta and rinsing your mouth with it and if it doesn't help, call me." S ...

May 08, 2013
Firearm Violence, 1993-2011 Michael Planty, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D. May 7, 2013 NCJ 241730 Presents trends on the number and rate of fatal and nonfatal firearm violence from 1993 to 2011. The report examines incident and victim demographic characteristics of firearm violence, including the type of firearm used; victim's race, age, and sex; and incident location. The report also examines changes over time in the percentages of nonfatal firearm crimes ...

Nov 09, 2011
Not too shabby. MI - Over-reaching personhood measure rejected 58% to 42%. A similar agenda was rejected in Colorado in 2008 and again in 2010. OH - Senate Bill 5 referendum soundly reversed Kasich's anti-union efforts 63% to 37%. Impressive numbers. KY - Steve Beshear scored a 60%-30%-%10 margin over GOP and independent opponents. Dems also won in Secretary of State, Treasurer and Auditor races. Evidently, Palin's endorsement of the GOP contender ...

Jan 29, 2017
Where was all the liberal outrage, wailing, and gnashing of teeth when Obama banned Iraqi refugees from entering the U.S. in 2011?! MORE HYPOCRISY: Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011 – Liberals SAID NOTHING! Jim Hoft Jan 28th, 2017 1:40 pm 110 Comments Protests erupted at JFK’s terminal 4 on Saturday after incoming refugees were detained by customs and border patrol agents following Trump’s executive order temporarily banning refugees from 7 ...

Mar 03, 2011
Just so you know a little of where the libs are coming from. Paranoia 2011: Beware of the Koch behind every bush By: Mark Tapscott 03/02/11 8:05 PM Editorial Page Editor William F. Buckley Jr. struck a blow for reason and truth when in 1962 as National Review editor he effectively excommunicated John Birch Society founder Robert Welch from the conservative movement. Welch had for a decade been telling anybody who would listen that President Eisenhower was a "dedicated, conscious ...

Nov 20, 2015
had infiltrated the US via the refugee program. So why he is currently refusing to pause the Syrian refugees? ...

Sep 25, 2012
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/ From Factcheck.org: "Health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans jumped a startling 9 percent from 2010 to 2011, and Republicans have blamed the federal health care law. But they exaggerate. The law — the bulk of which has yet to be implemented — has caused only about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in premiums, according to several independent experts. The rest of the 9 percent rise is due ...

Aug 08, 2017
It's absolutely disgusting that people think "they" care about us. ...

Apr 25, 2010
Let's take away the tax-exempt status from religious organizations. Imagine how much revenue that would provide! Problem solved! ...

Sep 08, 2010
Is President Obama ever going to stop blaming the Bush administration for the mess we are in. I don\'t care who caused it, it needs to be fixed. Besides, I thought we had a democratic congress??? I just wish he would stop the blah, blah, blah, Bush, Bush, Bush, and get on with doing his job to the best of his ability. He does not give the American people enough credit. We are smarter than he thinks. November will be a landslide. I actually wish ...

Nov 02, 2012
Great question!! CRS report: Obamacare increases welfare spending even after economy recovers http://washingtonexaminer.com/crs-report-obamacare-increases-welfare-spending-even-after-economy-recovers/article/2512457#.UJQ3iKDa5Bl ...

Jan 30, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy unexpectedly shrank from October through December for the first time since 2009, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles. The drop occurred despite stronger consumer spending and business investment. The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That was a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in t ...

Jul 07, 2013
Has anyone changed their lifestyle to accommodate the downturn of the economy? Just wondered if it was just me. I don't drive as much. My thermostat is switched on to 79 in the summer and during the winter I don't have the heat on at night. Haven't had a new car in years, driving a 2001 Toyota that should be replaced. Buying generics at grocery if brand names aren't on sale. What if anything have you done to spend less? ...

Aug 17, 2011
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149042/New-Low-Approve-Obama-Economy.aspx ...

May 12, 2011
I hope he's happy. Things are getting worse now that we have Obamacare. ...

Mar 03, 2010
It's now legal in DC, woot! Check out the last paragraph for the immediate economic impact. NJ ...

Jul 15, 2011
20 Ways The Economy Has Gotten Worse Since Barack Obama Became President By almost any measure that you can think of, the U.S. economy has gotten worse since Barack Obama became president. Unemployment is higher, the cost of food and gas are skyrocketing, the number of Americans living in poverty has spiked dramatically, the housing market is in nightmarish shape and our national debt has absolutely exploded. Meanwhile, Barack Obama continues to prance around the countr ...

Oct 02, 2010
We knew it wasn't pretty; these are the gruesome details: To view clip http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/p...h-economy.html Notice Bush's list at about 1:05 of the clip — the cuts will help "businesses that create jobs," those at the "low end of the economic ladder," and "small businesses." The first isn't true unless you replace jobs with profits. The second is just a lie. And the third isn't true unless you replace small businesses with billionaires. ("Repl ...

Jun 29, 2011
Most to Blame for the Economy Now 3/2010 Bush Admiistration ...

Oct 03, 2012
x ...

Oct 10, 2012
(Reuters) - Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent President Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed. Democrat Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither". The result was different among respondents in the United States, where a slim majority thought Romney would be better for ...

Jun 15, 2013
IMF Says Sequester Hurting U.S. Economy, Delaying Recovery As much as half of U.S. economic growth this year has been slashed due to tax increases and indiscriminate federal spending cuts known as sequestration, according to a sobering new forecast by the International Monetary Fund, which urged lawmakers to repeal the cuts. Risks to U.S. growth are "modestly tilted to the downside," the IMF said in its annual report on the nation's economy, as a reduction of $85 billion in government exp ...

Aug 04, 2013
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/congratulations-democrats-obamacare-will-kill-off-at-least-2-of-us-full-time-workforce/ In fact, it is already happening where I live. Employers are terrified... and for good reason. ...

Jun 25, 2014
Spin this. Third and final revision. They were hoping for good news the first time. HA! ...

Jun 25, 2014
As usual, the Henny-Penny-sky-is-falling republicans are insisting that the economy is in the tank because of a weak GDP. Most economists have already recognized that the terrible winter we had is the cause. Last Friday the Dow and S&P 500 closed at new all-time highs and the Nasdaq hit a 14-year closing high. In my neck of the woods, there are billboards on the highways with job advertisements. Just last week there was a job fair where 400 jobs were available. Rea ...

Jul 05, 2017
http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/12322126/220-cities-losing-all-passenger-train-service-per-trump-elimination-of-all-federal-funding-for-amtraks-national-network-trains Gosh, he's swell. Really good at building infrastructure---as promised???? Lies and con...smoke and mirrors. ...

Oct 26, 2009
Don't know if any of you have ever watched the "Morning Meeting" with Dylan Rattigan on MSNBC (9:00 a.m. Eastern time), but I would highly suggest watching it. He is very angry about what's going on in the economy (from banks "too big to fail" to the "public option"), but instead of bashing Obama, he refers to the culprit as "the government," since we all know when this really started and how many administrations are really involved. Rattigan used to be on CNBC but is now o ...

May 04, 2010
By MARJORIE CONNELLY A growing number of Americans think the economy is improving and three-quarters of them approve of President Obama’s handling of the economy, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Forty-one percent said the economy was getting better, up from 33 percent about a month ago, while 15 percent described the economy as deteriorating.Of that 41 percent, 75 percent approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy. Another 43 percent said the economy was s ...

May 31, 2012
Voters are a lot smarter than the democrats wish. Glad they get it. Good article: First since Bush: Half of all voters trust GOP on economy For the first time in five-and-a-half years, half of all likely voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the economy, the number one issue in the upcoming fall election. ...