It is obvious this is their sole concern.

W-A09a_gHJc

Its Obvious the DNC's sole priority is to finish bankrupting the country... Obama already has a done a bang-up job wrecking it so far...

And your point is what?

I'll go with the top comment on YouTube:

"Your top political agenda over the next two years should be to serve the American people, and to show some respect for a President who has put up with your obstructionist viewpoint for way too long."

The fact that some people see no fault with the stated top priority make them part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Dude, nothing's going to get better as long as this amateur is in office, that's why the top priority is making him a one term president. We can't afford a second term.

So your thinking is that the Republicans will right the ship? You had 8 years of that and it only got worse... much worse.
Why can't the parties do what they are supposed to and serve the american people that elected them?

So your thinking is that the Republicans will right the ship? You had 8 years of that and it only got worse...much worse.
Why can't the parties do what they are supposed to and serve the American people that elected them?

It was WAY better under Bush than its EVER been Under Obama... and nothing has improved, nothing... unless you are a Government leech... err "worker" that doesn't create a dime of wealth... only suck the actual productive 53% of the public that pay federal taxes dry.

The video was uploaded in Dec. 2010. So the GOP decided then that this was their top priority. Not jobs, not the economy, not the shrinking middle class, or education, or infrastructure, but political ideology.

You mean like the DNC has done for years? If its been fine for the Obama administration and his supporters... then they have nothing to complain about..

Obamas entire agenda the last 3 years and 6 months has been blaming it all on Bush... he has nothing else... nothing at all.

I'll go with the top comment on YouTube:

"Your top political agenda over the next two years should be to serve the American people, and to show some respect for a President who has put up with your obstructionist viewpoint for way too long."

The fact that some people see no fault with the stated top priority make them part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Lol ,the only purpose of a political party is to gain power ;to win elections and to get their agenda enacted .What McConnell said is one of the most self evident duh comments I can imagine. It also happens to be the correct position to take given how ruinious the Obama Presidency has been .

Wow you guys are screwed if that's how you accept your politics. I guess you deserve what you get.

And you political parties don't exist to win elections ? Give me a break !

and you political parties don't exist to win elections ? Give me a break !

Of course but there is a bigger picture, are you telling me the GOP has a true social agenda other than treading down the democrats?

a Government leech....err "worker" that doesn't create a dime of wealth...only suck the actual productive 53% of the public that pay federal taxes dry.

Hi Smoothy

Are we also talking about the managerial class as a whole. The bankers, technocrats (management and administration) consultants? You know the same types that are found overly represented in both government and private industries.


Tut

lol ,the only purpose of a political party is to gain power ;to win elections and to get their agenda enacted .What McConnell said is one of the most self evident duh comments I can imagine. It also happens to be the correct position to take given how ruinious the Obama Presidency has been .



Exactly. This is what non-representation is all about. When you get elected the bottom line is that you have to pay the pipers. Applies to both sides of politics. Time for a wake-up call or are we content to play the bitter courtiers?

Tut

Yes non representative politics for the mindless majority

Hi Smoothy

Are we also talking about the managerial class as a whole. The bankers, technocrats (management and administration) consultants? You know the same types that are found overly represented in both government and private industries.


Tut

Big difference between a private sector worker (where if you continue to lose money you go out of business) vs. a government drone (where if you lose money... they give you a bigger budget next year, it is only tax dollars after all, not like its real money or anything).

Even if they do similar types of work.

I differentiate them from the peons that have essentially no skillset (or value) outside of the one little task they perform.

Not saying there aren't clueless managers... there are.. I've actually worked for a couple over the years... but if the peons knew half of what they think they know about everything... why don't they start their own business? (yes a few actually do)

and you political parties don't exist to win elections ? Give me a break !Hello tom:

There should be SOME governing in between elections, no?? I guess not.

Would it piss you off if/when the Democrats BLOCK everything President Romney tries to do? Have you considered that possibility? You know, what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

excon

Even if they do simular types of work.

I differentiate them from the peons that have essentially no skillset (or value) outside of the one little task they perform.



I see.So, even though they do similar jobs the private sector manager has a better overall understanding of the relationship between what he/she knows and what the company should do. In other words, the private sector manager can see the bigger picture. Whereas, the public sector manager only knows what they know in their area of expertize.

When it comes to managers in the private sector they have an expertize in most areas. Even though their background might be engineering they understand the legal side of operations. When it comes to finance their expertize in accounting would also come to the fore.

Would it not be the case that the modern large corporations require people who have expertize in specialized knowledge? Would it also not be the case that in order to benefit the company their job would be to exercise this expertize in that narrow area to gain a maximum result?

Modern organization are highly complex and involved. Gone are the days when 'the manager' goes around to each section and gives them the wisdom of their experience based on the fact that built the company from the ground up.

Tut

Hello tom:

There should be SOME governing in between elections, no??? I guess not.

Would it piss you off if/when the Democrats BLOCK everything President Romney tries to do? Have you considered that possibility? You know, what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

excon

Dude, Obama is our very own Baghdad Bob...

Dude, Obama is our very own Baghdad Bob...
C'mon, grow up!

C'mon, grow up!

What, you don't think Obama is just like Baghdad Bob? How's this, better?

Dude, Obama is our very own Baghdad Bob...Hello Steve:

I don't think my post was about that stuff... But, I understand your need to post tripe, so you picked my question to do it. That ain't cool.

excon

yes non representative politics for the mindless majority

We will naturally include the Aussie parties in this mix

Hello Steve:

I don't think my post was about that stuff... But, I understand your need to post tripe, so you picked my question to do it. That ain't cool.

excon

Tripe? Come on, those were funny - and spot on. Or do you think the private sector is doing just fine?

Ok, so to answer your question I'd just as soon Congress and the White House both take a few years off. But don't think we've forgotten that a few years back the congressional Democrats "top priority" was obstruction. In fact on nearly every GOP initiative since 2010 the Democrats have declared them DOA. Oh, and the Senate still has not produced a budget for 1142 days. So if you want to discuss obstruction I'm up for it.

Ex it's not that the Republicans won't work with Obama. They have passed budgets ;the Dems have not even bothered seriously trying to pass the President's budget. So if there is a noncooperative group in the government ;it's the President's own party. You really want to talk about governing ? The President did not even govern when he had the majority in both houses . The plans that were passed came from the mosh pit of Democrat constituencies forged by Reid and Pelosi while the President honed his golf game and played celebrity President.

Or do you think the private sector is doing just fine?.Hello again, Steve:

Obama said that the "private sector is doing fine," although the political snafu was not too far from the truth.

The fact is corporate America is doing fine. Corporate America is making record profits while sitting on nearly $2 trillion, and the income of the wealthiest Americans is soaring. So, capital in the private sector is doing fine. Workers, not so much. But, I'm glad to hear that you care about the workers.

excon

Ex it's not that the Republicans won't work with Obama. Hello tom:

You can believe that fantasy if you wish. Personally, I believe Mitch McConnell.

excon

What about ALL the legislation passed by the House that Prince Harry wouldn't even let hit the floor in the Senate the last 3.5 Years?

After all.. there is this thing called co-equal branches of government... Obama isn't a King... or a god. And they aren't below him... or his underlings.

We're just taking Bill Clinton's advice (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/bill-clintons-words-could-haunt-obama-today/1#.T9oHZVKQPKd) from 2 years ago on what our priority should be.


"The Democrats are saying something like this: 'We found a big hole that we did not dig. We didn't get it filled in 21 months, but at least we quit digging,'" Clinton said at the time. "'Give us two more years. If it doesn't work, vote us out.'"

Seems like sound advice to me.

This Trumanesque blame it on the do nothing Congress and Roosevelt like blame it on the rich only worked when the Dems had complete control of the message.

There are 2 ways he could've handled an opposition Congress .Show strong leadership and get Congress to act like Reagan did ,or triangulate like Clintoon did when he announced the era of big government was over . This guy expects Congress to roll over and play dead ;and then blames them for his failure to make them do so.

Here you go all you whiners about 'do-nothing' Republicans. Here's John Boehner today, standing in front of jobs bills the House has passed that the Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't offered a budget in over 3 years has refused to consider:

If you look closely you can see the tears in his eyes .

LOL, I wouldn't doubt it.

But the real problem isn't Congress . It's the American consumer . Face it ,we aren't buying enough thingamajigs .

I don't have money to buy thigamagigs.

I've been waiting for the price of thingamajigs to come down.

"under my plan ,the cost of thingamajigs will necessarily skyrocket "

I don't have money to buy thigamagigs.
That's because the middle class buying power has shrunk. But the rich still get richer.

Well, the same old clichés aren't going to fix anything.

P.S. Yet another Democrat has had a rare moment of candor. DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse said the Bush tax cuts did good for the middle class.


Broadly speaking, Republicans and Democrats don’t want to see, especially at a time where the economy needs all the fuel it can get, don’t want to see us raising taxes on the middle class. So for example, some of the Bush tax cuts did some good things for the middle class, and certainly don’t want to see, this time, tax increases on the middle class.

How long before he's out of a job?

That would be the reason why Bill Clintoon said the Bush tax rates should be extended .

I find this very strange I live in a place where no tax cut in recent years has been repealed but there has been tinkering at the edges such as thresholds so that some people get a very small tax cut, like no government would be insane enough to put through a tax cut with a sunset clause.

like no government would be insane enough to put through a tax cut with a sunset clause.

That was Bush "working with the Democrats" .

That's because the middle class buying power has shrunk. But the rich still get richer.

That's because OUR money is being taken from us to subsidize the 47% that pay no federal taxes... yet they consume most of the social programs and they demand even more... how about they get a second job... or give up their cell phones and unlimited data plans that cost way more than I can afford... and gasp... give up some luxuries.

What's wrong with living within your means anyway? You aren't entitled to more than you are able to provide yourself.

The rich got rich by working hard... making sacrifices and making the right choices... the poor stay poor because they can't or more like won't do the very same things.

After all Obama claims the private sector is doing well... that means there is no excuse for them not going out and getting a better job or a second job. Or gasp... maybe even a first job.

Thats because OUR money is being taken from us to subsidize the 47% that pay no federal taxes...yet they consume most of the social programs and they demand even more...how about they get a second job...or give up their cell phones and unlimited data plans that cost way more than I can afford....and gasp....give up some luxuries.

Whats wrong with living within your means anyway? You aren't entitled to more than you are able to provide yourself.

The rich got rich by working hard...making sacrifices and making the right choices....the poor stay poor because they can't or more like won't do the very same things.

After all Obama claims the private sector is doing well...that means there is no excuse for them not going out and getting a better job or a second job. Or gasp......maybe even a first job.

I think that is called austerity, the public have been educated to get everything on credit it is not only the me society it is the now society. The rich got rich by skimming the poor, that cell phone plan is an example, make the cell phone accessible and everyone has to have one. Doesn't matter that they don't need one. You can't just say get a second job, that is like Marie Antionette saying let them eat cake. You have to have a first job before you get a second job. What would you rather have full employment or half the population with second jobs.

Obama admitted the gaff, the private sector is not doing well it is slowly improving but is far from being back to where it was before the GFC. Sometimes the glass half full people get ahead of the statistics, they really should be asking who drank the other half, the answer might surprise you

I think that is called austerity, the public have been educated to get everything on credit it is not only the me society it is the now society. The rich got rich by skimming the poor, that cell phone plan is an example, make the cell phone accessable and everyone has to have one. doesn't matter that they don't need one. You can't just say get a second job, that is like Marie Antionette saying let them eat cake. You have to have a first job before you get a second job. What would you rather have full employment or half the population with second jobs.

Obama admitted the gaff, the private sector is not doing well it is slowly improving but is far from being back to where it was before the GFC. Sometimes tthe glass half full people get ahead of the statistics, they really should be asking who drank the other half, the answer might suprise you

The rich didn't get rich by TAKING it off someone else... that applies the Economy is a zero sum araingement.. when it is anythign but that. For someone to make a dollar... someone doesn't HAVE to have a dollar stolen off them.

Obama claims the Private sector economy is great... thus there is no excuse to get a second job... if they are too lazy to get a second job... then they need to learn to do without something.

Obama has said that more than once... and he has implied it far more... And the Economy is NOWHERE near what it was the day he took office... and Obama has his anti business and anti success tactics, actions and retoric to blame for it.

You don't NEED a cell phone for everyone in the house... when a landline is FAR cheaper.

You don't NEED to eat out if you don't have money for other things... you don't NEED cable TV if you don't have money for other things... you don't NEED junk food if you complain there is no money for things you need.

Spend some time around the poor... and you will see a multitude of repeated poor choices, and that they think they are ENTITLED to things they can't pay for themselves.

Most crime is a result of that... many of them lack the integrity needed to do the right thing... or the responsibility to accept responsibility for their own bad choices.

Yes I CAN say they need to get a second job... because if they want something, THEY have to work harder to earn the money for it... I get more disgusted by the day by the lazy bums that expect me to pay for what THEY should be paying for... Nobody HANDED me what I've got now... I busted my butt for decades to earn it...

The middle class has voted itself a slice of the safety net . That is why the whole system is imploding .

The rich didn't get rich by TAKING it off someone else....that applies the Economy is a zero sum araingement..when it is anythign but that. For someone to make a dollar....someone doesn't HAVE to have a dollar stolen off them.

...

Pure cynic all the way, it doesn't bear repeating.

In order for someone to make a dollar someoneelse must be willing and able to give them a dollar otherwise put your money in the bank and earn a pittance called interest.

The rich get rich exploiting an idea either that or they inherited it. The economy is a zero sum arrangement, growth comes from two sources, natural organic growth and selling to other economies, without these there will be no growth just stagnation. That is what you have at the moment; stagnation with a little organic growth

Spend some time around the poor....and you will see a multitude of repeated poor choices, and that they think they are ENTITLED to things they can't pay for themselves.Hello smoothy:

Then you'll probably appreciate this Tea Party joke (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/06/14/black-dialect-joke-a-hit-with-ozark-tea-party).

Michael Cook at Talk Business reports on the warm reception a speaker received at a recent Ozark Tea Party rally June 9 in Mountain Home for telling this "icebreaker" joke in her approximation of black dialect:

A black kid asks his mom, 'Mama, what's a democracy?'

"Well, son, that be when white folks work every day so us po' folks can get all our benefits.'

“But mama, don't the white folk get mad about that?'

“They sho do, son. They sho do. And that's called racism.”

excon

pure cynic all the way, it doesn't bear repeating.

In order for someone to make a dollar someoneelse must be willing and able to give them a dollar otherwise put your money in the bank and earn a pittance called interest.

the rich get rich exploiting an idea either that or they inherited it. The economy is a zero sum arrangement, growth comes from two sources, natural organic growth and selling to other economies, without these there will be no growth just stagnation. That is what you have at the moment; stagnation with a little organic growth

Really... the Economy is NOT a zero sum gain arrangement... if it was there would not be one single dollar MORE in circulation today than there was 100 years ago.

Someone does NOT have to get poorer for someone to gain more wealth. And most of the rich... didn't steal it... they earned it. At least those that didn't inherit their wealth who are a minority of the wealthy.

I'm rich by some liberals standards... in reality I'm barely middle class where I live... and I've stolen NONE of it. I've earned every dime of it... unless you count the coins I find on the street... but I found those... I didn't beat and rob a poor person to get them.

Really... the Economy is NOT a zero sum gain arrangement... if it was there would not be one single dollar MORE in circulation today than there was 100 years ago.

No doubt you have heard of inflation and quantative easing, this is what puts dollars in circulation, the reality is growth with the sources I have already explained adds to the money supply over time as does the government spending more than it earns


Someone does NOT have to get poorer for someone to gain more wealth. And most of the rich... didn't steal it... they earned it. At least those that didn't inherit their wealth who are a minority of the wealthy.

If your theorum were true you would not have a growing number of poor people. The reality is for wealth to grow it must either come from growth or those already in the economy


I'm rich by some liberals standards... in reality I'm barely middle class where I live... and I've stolen NONE of it. I've earned every dime of it... unless you count the coins I find on the street... but I found those... I didn't beat and rob a poor person to get them.

Reality is, by your definition, you are not rich, not part of the 1% but part of the exploited class like everyoneelse

Look I understand. I also have sufficient having gained what I have from work but that doesn't mean someone didn't make money off my back and much more than I did.

No doubt you have heard of inflation and quantative easing, this is what puts dollars in circulation, the reality is growth with the sources i have already explained adds to the money supply over time as does the government spending more than it earns



if your theorem were true you would not have a growing number of poor people. the reality is for wealth to grow it must either come from growth or those already in the economy



reality is, by your definition, you are not rich, not part of the 1% but part of the exploited class like everyoneelse

Look I understand. I also have sufficient having gained what I have from work but that doesn't mean someone didn't make money off my back and much more than I did.

I don't know where you learned these things... but by your reasoning... the poor in the USA would be worse off than the poor in subsaharan Africa... while conversely the so called poor in the USA are far better off than the rich in many third world countries.

Here the Poor have air conditioning... cars.. Cell phones, TV electric, heat, running water, and computers... proof the rich don't steal from the poor. If that was the case... who are the poor stealing off here?

Don't tell me all the rich in Australia got that way by stealing the wealth off the Aborigines?

Didn't happen here like that either.

Even the poor today have a higher standard of living than the middle class had even 30 years ago. Not lower.

Well of course we did that's why the aboriginees want their land back. It is said that each generation should be doing better than the last but the reality is right now that isn't so. Statistics in the US has indicated that average wealth has declined about 10%. This of course hasn't happen here in fact our average wealth has grown. So without drawing a long bow, something must be going wrong over there because the theory and the execution is not working to generate wealth for the average person.

I learned these things from a study of economics and some of your people may very well be worse off than sub saharan Africa a much misunderstood region. But your middle class is much larger than you want to admit

You say your poor are better off but it is a question of definition, the poor in different places are defined differently your poor are someone earning less than $40,000 and that is ridiculous. Poor by my definition is someone who can't put food on the table, who lack basic shelter. Poor by your definition is someone down to their last Cadillac or someone who is forced to buy a Ford. By your definition we should be included among the poor because we can't afford a $500,000 house and a $500,000 house is a very ordinary dwelling in some places. There are very few poor where I live but the ranks are growing and I imagine that the same is true of where you live and the reason is that prices are increasing

well of course we did that's why the aboriginees want their land back. It is said that each generation should be doing better than the last but the reality is right now that isn't so. Statistics in the the US has indicated that average wealth has declined about 10%. This of course hasn't happen here in fact our average wealth has grown. So without drawing a long bow, something must be going wrong over there because the theory and the execution is not working to generate wealth for the average person.

I learned these things from a study of economics and some of your people may very well be worse off than sub saharan Africa a much misunderstood region. But your middle class is much larger than you want to admit

You say your poor are better off but it is a question of definition, the poor in different places are defined differently your poor are someone earning less than $40,000 and that is rediculous. Poor by my definition is someone who can't put food on the table, who lack basic shelter. Poor by your definition is someone down to their last Cadillac or someone who is forced to buy a Ford
Blame that on Obama and his bashing business the people who hire people and have the jobs to offer... that wasn't true until HE got in office.

But it was you that said the rich only get that way by taking off the poor. I proved that's not true because the poor of today are far better off then the poor of just 30 years ago were... and they were far better off than the poor of 30 year before that.

That could not be the case if what you said was true.

Most of the poor are that way because... they were just too dumb (they can't help that). Made stupid choices... or are just too lazy, (they ARE responsible for those). Not because ample opportunity to make a decent living is not there.

I know too many poor people... I grew up around them ( grew up in the poorest part of Pennsylvania and know the Appalachian Culture well, I grew up in it)... I speak that from personal observations and direct knowledge... not what I saw on TV or read in a paper.

If I remember right... we discussed Appalachia some time in the past.

Most of the poor are that way because...they were just too dumb (they can't help that). made stupid choices....or are just too lazy, (they ARE responsible for those). Not because ample opportunity to make a decent living is not there.




I apologize for being too dumb, too poor and too lazy for the first 30 years of my life. I aspire to reach your level on intelligence.

Blame that on Obama and his bashing business the people who hire people and have the jobs to offer.....that wasn't true until HE got in office.

But it was you that said the rich only get that way by taking off the poor. I proved thats not true because the poor of today are far better off then the poor of just 30 years ago were....and they were far better off than the poor of 30 year before that.

That could not be the case if what you said was true.

Most of the poor are that way because...they were just too dumb (they can't help that). made stupid choices....or are just too lazy, (they ARE responsible for those). Not because ample opportunity to make a decent living is not there.

I know too many poor people.....I grew up around them ( grew up in the poorest part of Pennsylvania and know the Appalachian Culture well, I grew up in it)....I speak that from personal observations and direct knowledge.....not what I saw on TV or read in a paper.

If I remember right...we discussed Appalachia some time in the past.

You and I have spoken about you sitting on a pedistal before and you are still doing it. The people are jobless because they are lazy, WRONG! The people are jobless because the shiftless rich won't risk their money to provide jobs. The people are jobless because they are untrained and uneducated and this is because the rich won't pay their fair share of taxes and the wages they pay aren't enough for people to do more than subsist. It was the rich not the poor who exported the jobs for profit. The way I hear it you have 14 million unemployed, the way you tell is there are 28 million jobs going wanting because the unemployed can afford to find not one job but two, but wait they must be a lot more jobs because you are suggesting everyone can work two jobs. What sort of fools paradise do you live in?

Every nation has its share of unemployables, but they are not representative of all unemployed. If we could employ the aboriginals we would have no unemployment, at least that is what the statistics tell me, you say your statistics tell you that if you could employ the
Appalachians you would have no unemployment. I think statistics are what the politicians want them to be

But it was you that said the rich only get that way by taking off the poor. I proved thats not true because the poor of today are far better off then the poor of just 30 years ago were....and they were far better off than the poor of 30 year before that.

That could not be the case if what you said was true.



What Clete said may be true or false but you example proves nothing in relation to the truth or falsity of the claim.




Most of the poor are that way because...they were just too dumb (they can't help that). made stupid choices....or are just too lazy, (they ARE responsible for those). Not because ample opportunity to make a decent living is not there.

I know too many poor people.....I grew up around them ( grew up in the poorest part of Pennsylvania and know the Appalachian Culture well, I grew up in it)....I speak that from personal observations and direct knowledge.....not what I saw on TV or read in a paper.



I see. So you know many poor people based on experience. Experience in relation to a particular and a certain number of people. In other words, a limited sample pertaining to a small geographical area. Somehow this translates into a generalization about the nature of poor people as a whole. Is this what you are tell us?

Is this the same type of limited experience that tells you that all European hospitals are exactly the same? Or have you experienced the hospital systems of most European countries?

Your experiences don't constitute the total of human knowledge in these areas.

Tut

His generalizations are similar to Clete's "shiftless rich " comments.

Whose generalisations do you speak of? We are all users of generalisations Tom including no lesser person than yourself, however the solution to your economic problems lies not in the hands of the poor but in the hands of those captains of industry you advocate for. They need no further incentives to make money they merely need to get off their shiftless buts

His generalizations are simular to Clete's "shiftless rich " comments.

Hi Tom,

My criticism was in relation to the first part of his post. In other words, it was not a criticism of generalizations. It was actually a criticism of so called, 'evidence' presented by Smoothy. What Smoothy has provided is not evidence to support or deny the proposition one way or the other. Generalizations may well be a issue, but I wasn't addressing that.

My criticism of generalizations related to the next part of his post.

Tut