New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie is the object of intense devotion among some on the right (Glenn Beck in particular). No surprise, then, that he’d get a lot of attention for going to Washington and delivering a stern lecture about how to fix the deficit. And no surprise that he’d talk about Social Security. It has nothing to do with the deficit, but that’s another matter.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank was on hand to cheer on Christie’s message (2/16/11). Christie pokes fun at his weight, which apparently makes his truth-telling even more appealing:
But his physique also works to his advantage by reinforcing Christie’s appeal as something other than the blow-dried politician who says whatever the voters want to hear. Christie isn’t pretty, and he tells ugly truths.
And what was this ugly truth? The need to cut Social Security benefits. As Milbank put it, Christie is brave enough to “to scold both parties in Washington for their failure to talk about what must be done to solve the debt crisis. “He writes:
Christie, however, is talking about it. “You’re going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security,” he said. “Whoa-ho! I just said it, and I’m still standing here. I did not vaporize into the carpeting, and I said it.”
Now for this to be any kind of truth—ugly or not—it has to be, well, true. As Matthew Yglesias pointed out:
Closing the projected actuarial gap in Social Security requires some combination of more immigration, higher taxes and lower benefits. Relative to higher taxes, lower benefits tend to be preferred by richer people. And of all the different ways to reduce benefits, raising the retirement age is the one that does the most to punish the poor and demands the least sacrifice from the rich.
Robert Reich, who was once a Social Security trustee, wrote a column laying out a much easier fix—raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax, which in 1983 was designed to hit 90 percent of income. It no longer does that, because rich people have gotten substantially richer. Reich writes:
If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.
Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.
So there’s no reason even to consider reducing Social Security benefits or raising the age of eligibility. The logical response to the increasing concentration of income at the top is simply to raise the ceiling.
If Christie’s “ugly truth” isn’t true, why does Milbank think it is? It might be because he has a record of Social Security scaremongering, writing a column in 2007 warning that Social Security was going to be “insolvent”due to the retirement of the Baby Boomers. His response to FAIR’s criticism was that he was writing about the combined effects of Social Security and Medicare—which is problematic on an entirely different level.
Chris Christie wasn’t speaking the truth.But he was sending the same kind of message that people like Milbank want to hear: that workers should get benefit cuts in order to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s ugly, but it’s not the truth.
The above has been common knowledge for a long time – Social Security is doing just fine. But the liars and cheats want their hands on that huge pot of cash, so they´ll keep scaring the public with their made-up stories about Grandma (and me) having to eat cat food in their home under the bridge.
Why give them coverage of their fantasies over and over? Just call them out on it everytime the canards fly again. Just keep bringing Social Security up in every conversation, just keep harping on checkable facts, just laugh at folks when they parrot the b.s.
It was the same with health care. First, voters fought tooth and nail against it. Now, it´s popular. Look at the idiots railing against “government takeovers” of all kinds and – in the same sentence – warn the same government to “keep your hands off my Social Security”.
Reich is correct! SS is not in a crisis state. SS Trust fund money is currently a sizable $2.6 trillion , fully invested in Treasury securities seated in the “Intragovernnmental Debt” portion of our $14 trillion national debt account.
When the SS Administration redeems these securities (by using General Fund money) to satisfy any shortages in SS payments, the value of SS Trust Fund is reduced by that amount. Obviously the money taken from the GF could contribute to the deficit, but the effect of these transactions would be a wash, i.e., reduce the “Intergovernmental Debt” and increase the “Debt Held by the Public” by the same amount.
All this right wingnut idiotology is a paid for ad from your local rich investor association.
The most important job, to get the attention off the tax cuts to the super rich. There is absolutely no need to pay any more attention to the amount of money the feds lose to this rediculous concession.
If the majority of the trained monkey reporters can show some scarey (doesn’t matter how rediculous, or illogical, as long as it is scarey) fantasy to blame on anybody but the rich bloodsuckers.
The Right’s–and the bootlickin’ “journalist” class’– puppy love infatuation with the Floating Fatman is funny, but also disturbing. Christie can get up before his admirers, lie his ass off, and be praised for “truth-telling.” Milbank is apparently beyond self-parody now, a true man of his peculiar time and place. An awful, low, crawling fraud.
What these guys don’t like about Social Security is that the “buisness community” is not able to get their hands on the equity as easily as the do with the “private” IRA account.
Reich’s solution is certainly a better way to go, but isn’t the fairest path ending the program as “insurance”, and making it a benefit, payed for by progressive taxation?
Remember, Social Security was initiated almost eighty years ago, and structured under the political pressures of the time, which didn’t allow for entitlements, a word that’s a political epithet, but should simply reflect our society’s commitment to each person’s right to a life of dignity.
It’s analogous to the “public option” in healthcare. It’s certainly better than a swift kick in the cojones, but true universal care is what we really need, and deserve, don’t we?
The Social Security Administration has already been reducing benefits by tying cost-of-living increases to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index, which understates inflation by 4-8% every year (see: Kevin Phillips’ “Bad Money”, shadowstatistics.com). The SSA kept benefits flat in 2010 and 2011. This amounts to a 4-8% reduction in real benefits each year. Meanwhile, local “rent control boards” (quotation marks indicate farcical nature of said institutions) are allowing 3% increases to landlords.
I am thankful that my employer offered a 401(k) plan, even though it was the insurance company which ran it that made a financial killing from it. When I retired, my salary was about $70,000 per year. My SSA benefits currently pay me $19,250. Taking out Medicare payments brings it to $17,800. Had I not put away the maximum 15% (and my employer matched 5%), I would be eating cat food now. And my story is one about a dedicated saver.
How come nobody ever talks about raising the percentage of a workers salary that is paid into Social Security.
Nothing sacred about taking ONLY 6.2% of a person’s pay (matched by 6.2% from the employer).
Why not raise it to 6.5% or 6.8% or even 7%.
I would favor that, rather than increasing the age of eligibility.
SS is/ was a self-funded payroll tax. Congress and Presidents have robbed our funds leaving iou’s in the vault. Now they (congress) don’t like the idea of refunding their past action. This is the driver for reducing SS, increasing retirement age, or privatize to program… Congress is the problem, nobody ever follows the money… remember the locked box, it came and went…
Wow so now Christie is lying?Look he knows that Social security is simply checks written on I OUs.So does Obama.And pretty much everyone else.LIsten to his speech couple days back at the American Enterprise Institute.WEll done.He is tough,honest,and does not mince words. Everything our president is not.Dont think he will run(wish he would).A debate between he and Obama would be worth the price of the ticket. Personally I think he’d mop the floor with the president who is peddling voodoo economics as fast as he can write the checks.
We are in a period where nothing is funded. We are effectively broke.It is really as simple as that.
Tim …you call Christi”the fatman”.THat puts you right in the class that calls Obama the N word.Clean it up my man.No room for this culture of personal attack.Lets address his ideas.
Never listen to a man who cant control his waist line! you want your belt to buckle,not your chair.
christie is, of course, lying. there are lots of ways to fix social security without raising the retirement age.
raising the age is one more way to make the system deliver an additional benefit to the already better off.
SO–SO–SO–SO– WHAT — HE AND NO ONE ELSE SAID STOP OVERSEAS SPENDING —– ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE ( THEY GOT US HERE AND YOU ALL KNOW IT AND ARE AFRAID TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT IT CHICKEN SHIT JOURNALIST ). —– STOP BUILDING MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, TO NEVER LEAVE THE REGION —- STOP GIVING BILLIONS TO SECRETE INTELLIGENT GATHERING SPYING ON AMERICANS—– STOP BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH ( POLITITIONS ) WHICH ARE ALL MILLION ARES NO WOUNDER THEY WONT BRING THAT UP.
Alvin Willingham – – you forgot to address your posting directly to ‘michael e’ (see above), as it’s obvious you two are on the same wavelength with your literary styles, though opposite political views (as best I can decipher). He recently learned how to use capital letters, so maybe he can teach you how to use lower-case letters. Who knows – something semi-coherent may arise from your collaboration?
BIG EM DO YOU HAVE A POINT ON THE ARTICLE ,OR ARE YOU FEELING THE LIB TODAY AND YOU ARE LOST IN PERSONAL ATTACKS?Isnt it amazing that at a time when people elected the first black president, when profiling is cursed, that it is the Dems that immediately attack on the basis of a persons looks?Oh well lets remember its Ok with him…..he is a conservative.Bloody lot of hyppocrates.
Neanderthal…..Good joke.But Im not laughing anymore at Obama jug eared jokes.Or his wife’s excessive size.Or the one daughter who walks with a limp(short leg?)Maybe Christie will make us feel better with success, and we will be able to laugh at ourselves again.Right now though I dont like Obama jokes.Nothing funny to see here folks.
Woodward and Bern.You are smart enough not to call people liars that have never shown that to be a part of their character. Christie may be wrong. Anyone could be.But when have you caught this man in a lie?You may not give the decency to Palin to listen to her views(after all she has an accent).What is your reason to dismiss Christie?Dont tell me….his weight?
Alvin.I understand you.Clear as day,and wrong as rain.Goes to show that wether you spit it out or pontificate ,and bloviate your all part of the hate America first crowd.
It’s good to know Mr. Christies brain is smaller than his belly.
Michael e.:
I believe it was Christie who called himself a fat man. The problem with your comparison of Christie as Fatman & Obama as Nigger is that Christie can do something about his “problem” & he might lose some of the fat between his ears as well. Obama, on the other hand, can not change his color.
Missed another lie Christie told at AEI and it’s a whopper “I NEVER WORKED IN TRENTON BEFORE I WAS GOVERNOR”
Demonstrably not true. http://tinyurl.com/4pq9nc5
Mainstream media once again missing the real story.
Dennis- yeah and plenty of blacks call themselves nigger. Doesn’t make it right…. And as far as Barry not being able to change his color- why sure he can.Obama can change his color with a wave of the pen….and call himself a white man…which he is!!!!!!As far as reasoning when it is OK to call people derogatory names…..Lets not OK?The rule is simple today. Libs can…….. conservatives cant.No one would think is funny to tell ‘Michelle is so ugly jokes on these blogs”Or how many would laugh if I wrote ” what is black and tan and would look good on Barrack?….a doberman!So again i say it is all Ok if you are a lib. Because you write the rules for insulting people right?
DSW your kidding ?THAT is what you come up with?That is not even a one, on a scale of 100. Why don’t you read “deconstructing Obama”.If one tenth of that is true ,then you have a president who doesn’t know where the truth begins he is so lost in a web of lies.
The faux concern over racial epithets and apt movie references (The “floating fatman” comes from the movie “Dune,” in which the fatman in question floated around his lair, sucking the life out of nice-looking young boys–perfectly apt, since Christie is doing that to everyone in New Jersey) occasions more laughter and scorn for You Know Who, who just a week or two ago used a racist false allegation to slur Egyptians. Loser.
And guess what? Another floating fathead, Rush Limbaugh, in referring to Chris “The Floating Fatman” Christie, said: “Is it wrong to love another man?” Well, no, big man. But you’ll be putting unnecessary strain on your fourth marriage when you and the Floating Fat Man consummate your love, no?
Where can i find the facebook like button for this post?
This whole bullcrap about America being broke and everybody especially the poor and middle class has to sacrifice to address the problem. The US debt accumulated is 14 trillion dollars. There is a 1.3 trillion dollars debt in 2010.
The total net worth of the population is 54.6 trillion dollars. The top 5% owns 62% of that net worth, of which the top 1% owns 35 % of that net worth. 1%=3 million people; 5%=15.5 million people. So 3 million people have 19.1 trillion dollars; 12.5 million people have 14.7 trillion dollars; 294,500,000 has 20 trillion dollars. That breaks down to the top 1%, 3 millon having 6.3 million dollars each, the next 4% has 2.2 million dollars each, and evenly proportioned the lower 95% has $70,000 dollars each. So the lower 95% has about 12,000 times less than the top 1%.
If the top 1% paid just $500,000 dollars, there would not be a 1.3 trillion deficit and they would still be millionaires. Not fair you say? Okay, then let everybody in the population pay $5000 dollars, would that be fair? No, because to the lower incomes $5000 is a lot of money.
So, what would be fair? I say, pool the money for the good of us all. So, 54.6 trillion dollars divided evenly across 310 million people would give each one $177,000 dollars. And let each one pay $55,000 dollars to cover the debt of 14.7 trillion dollars plus the 1.3 trillion dollars. That leaves each of us with $122,000 dollars a piece. The most I have ever lived on was $46,000 dollars, so I would be sitting in cotton.
This scenario doen’t take into account billionaires, it just takes the net worth and distributes it according to current allotments.
We as a nation do not have a fiscal problem, we have an inequality problem in which some are left to survive on $20,000 annually, the working poor, and others are privileged to live on 2 million times that which the working poor live on. The wealthy and corporations are not paying their fair share. 83 out of 100 companies have tax havens in other countries and pay no tax. Google, do no evil, a 24 million dollar company put 2 billion dollars in Bermuda to keep from having to pay it as tax. Exxon/Mobile received 150 million refund from the taxpayers. Bank of America paid nothing.
In Britain, 200,000 people who were using subsidies for their housing were kicked out, while a successful cellphone company evaded paying their 6 billion dollar tax bill. Evading tax to the government is a favorite pastime for the rich and wealthy corporations in Britain, at the urging of their politicians. Rupert Murdoch’s, News International is known for its egregious tax dodging. Ultraconservatives and conservatives came to the rescue with apologetic arguments amounting to statements like: tax avoidance is legal and therefore fine; some said a crack down on these tax evaders would drive them out of the country(which is where their money is in tax havens anyway);also the rich evaders would just leave the country en masse if they were forced to apy their share of taxes; and after those arguments were blown away, the moral argument emerged, which is that a rich person earns his money on his own through his ambition and talents, well, the next time the rich person gets burglarised, the cops should not come, and if their house catches fire, don’t send the fire fighters, let their garbage pile up, don’t send anyone to collect it, when they want to drive somewhere, block them because the roads are not theirs and they did not pay for them, when a rich person gets sick, don’t treat his illness. The fact is rich people do not getn that way in a vacuum, they use the benefits of the society they live in therefore should pay their fair share. And it is not impossible to get them to pay, after 9/11 al qaeda’s accounts were frozen and they had no access, so it could be done the same way until the tax evaders pay, freeze their accounts.
In the US, there is this push in the states for governors to “slash spending in a time of recession, often at the expense of their most vulnerable citizens”…..50 Herbert Hoovers is what they are acting like because that was what he mistakenly did in his time, to the detriment of the nation. Much of the cuts could be elimunated if the rich and the wealthy corporations would pay their fair share, as mentioned 83 of 100 companies have money in tax havens, invisible to the IRS. Warren Buffett pays less a per centage than his secretary in taxes. The US is a tax haven for most of the rich people, 30% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 1%. Wikileaks to the rescue, they are about to release details of the bankers and corporations usage of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, in which one building there has 12,000 corporations registered.
When will we wake up to just how little most of us have in the scheme of things, while the rich have it all. And damn the argument about rich people being so special, like they are the job creators, or they earned their money, or they somehow deserve more than any one else. Billionaires should be outlawed, nobody should be able to have so much more than others, in which say if you have a billion dollars, you would have to spend $1 dollar every second for 31.7 years before you would be broke. It has been demonstrated that people can survive on much less than a million dollars and it is pure greed to want so much at the expense of the whole of us. The USA has 5% of the world’s population, but squanders so much of the planet’s resources at the expense of the population of the world. Yeah we really are exceptional.
There is no fiscal problem in the US. 54.6 trillion dollars net worth, 35 % to top 1%, 27% to next 4%, therefore 62% to the top 5%. Broken down thusly, top 1% is 3 million people with 6.3 million dollars, next top 4% 12.5 million people with 2.2 million dollars. While the other 95% 294,500,000 with $70,000 dollars.
We’ve been told we have a debt of 14 trillion dollars, plus 1.3 trillion debt of 2010. How to pay this? let the top 1% pay $500,000 dollars and that would take care of the 1.3 trillion deficit of 2010 and they would still be millionaires. Not fair you say? Okay then have each of us pay $5000 dollars. But that is not fair either for there are the lowest paid that $5000 would be a lot of money. So, what to do?
Take the 54.6 trillion dollars and distribute it to each of us evenly. In that case, there would be $177,000 dollars a piece. Then take $55,000 from each of us and that would pay the debt of 2010 and the accumulated debt of 14 trillion dollars. Which would leave $122,000 dollars left for each of us to live on. The most I have ever lived on was $46,000 in one year.
This is really a screwy situation which if there was the will, then the debt could be paid off. But it would require more sacrifice from the rich than they are willing to give. Exxon/Mobile made big profits last year but was given an extra 150 million dollars in their tax filing. And this does not include the gas and oil subsidies they get. Bank of America paid nothing. Google, do no evil, a $24 billion dollar company sheltered $2 billion dollars in Bermuda that was not collected in taxes.
A parallel to this country and the austerity going on in the world. Britain’s cellphone company, Vodaphone, owes 6 billion dollars tax that they are actively evading. 200,000 people who were living in subsidised housing were put out of their houses. Fees for going to the university are going to triple. Children’s hospitals are facing 20% cuts to their budgets. All this amid a tax dodging company making record profits while evading their tax obligations. It’s been alleged that the finance minister urged people to invest in Vidaphone by sending their representatives on a taxpayer funded trip to India where Vidaphone is also skirting their tax liabilities. In 2007 the National Audit Office found that 1/3 of the 700 corporations paid no tax at all. Sir Phillpi Green was one of those tax dodgers; he is the ninth-richest man and claims that his wife is the income earner and she lives in Monaco, a tax haven for the rich and corporate world. In 2005 Green earned $1.2 billion dollars dodging $300,000,000 dollars in taxes. But the government instead of cracking down on Green, gave him an appointment as an adviser to cutting waste in the government. Cameron , the Prime Minister closed kids sports partnerships that provided millions of schoolkids exercise engagements. If Green had paid his taxes these partnerships could have continued with $120,000,000 left over.
Of course, this notion of the corporations having to pay their taxes brought out the apologists. Rupert Murdoch’s empire, News International, famous for egregiously evading their taxes, paying nothing in taxes to the treasury. The Sun wrote an article villifying a group that was going after these tax evaders, but had to retract the article after complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. Others have said tax evading is legal and is therefore, fine. Then the idea that cracking down on these tax evading corporations and the rich would drive them out of the country to the detriment of the nation. But for all intents and purposes these corporations are already out of the country, they pay nothing to Britain. After the empirical arguments were blown away, then there was the moral argument, which is that people like Green earned all the monmey on his own through his ambition and business skills and should be able to keep it instead of giving it to the rest of the people. So the next time his house catches on fire, do not send the fire fighters, when his garbage piles up, don’t send anyone to collect it, when he is burglarised, dont’ send the police, when his business needs use of the roads to carry out his business, block him and then let him say that he made his money all himself. During 9/11 al qaeda’s accounts were frozen and they could not get funds, so do that with these tax evaders, freeze their accounts until they pay up.
So, in the US, Americans are facing severe budget cuts, some state governors are acting like “50 Herbert Hoovers… slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense of the most vulnerable citizens….” Cuts could be prevented by having the superrich and the corporations pay their fair share. 83 out of 100 corporations have tax havens hiding in other countries and even without the tax havens they are sheltered(30% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 1%). Warren Buffet found out that he paid a lower proportion of his income than his secretary. America is a tax haven for the rich. But Wikileaks to the rescue, they are about to release details of corporations and bankers using tax havens in the Cayman Islands which has 12,000 corporations in a single building that use the same address. Known tax haven companies: Apple, Bank of America, Best Buy, ExxonMobil, FedEx, Kraft Foods, McDonalds, Safeway, and Target. If most citizens pay their taxes, why shouldn’t the superrich and the wealthy corporations? Why should the ones who can afford it pay the least? The top .000129 per cent of the population 400 families has 14 trillion dollars, which means they each have 35 billion dollars. Taking just half of their fortunes pays off the deficits and accumulated debts and leaves them with 17.5 billion dollars. That means they would have to spend $1 dollar per second for 17.5 times 31.7 years, or 554 years total, to go broke. The richest have it sooo bad.
“Hope is not a lottery ticket you can sit on the sofa and clutch, feeling lucky…. Hope is an ax you can break down doors with in an emergency.”
Sorry for the double post.
Hitler ABOLISHED Unions in 1933! – Sound Familiar?
On May 2nd, 1933, the day after Labor day, Nazi groups occupied union halls and labor leaders were arrested. Trade Unions were outlawed by Adolf Hitler, while collective bargaining and the right to strike was abolished. This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting with unions, liberals, socialists, and communists using Himmler’s state police.
Fast forward to America today, particularly Wisconsin. Governor Walker and the Republican/Tea Party members of the state legislature are attempting to pass a bill that would not only severely punish public unions (with exception for the police, fire, and state trooper unions that supported his campaign), but it would effectively end 50 years to the right of these workers to collectively bargain.
Collective bargaining is a process of voluntary negotiations between employers and trade unions aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. -wiki
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/02/20/may-1933-hitler-abolishes-unions/
(IS THAT WHY GOP GOT RID OF MANUFACTURING JOBS TO WEAKEN UNIONS?)
Ed from MSNBC did a piece on Rove where he was interviewd on Fox showing their playbook on how to get rid of the Unions. I wish Ed would put that video on his blog.
angellight , whoever is putting this together knows the Nazis very well.
Angellight
Unions are dying because on the whole people don’t want to unionize, or be a member(according to polls and union rolls)That aside ….teachers once had bad pay ,and great benefits. Now they have both.At a time when there is no money left, the idea that unions wont pay more into retirement and benefits is simply ridiculous. Taxpayers don’t want to pay dime one for others retirement(at 45 years old at times)when they must carry the responsibility for there own as well. Collective bargaining is often little more than extortion at times.The open vote little more than a mask for strongarm thuggery. Does it not seem obvious now why unions pay so much into Dem leaders re-election campaigns?Unions are needed, and wanted for there skill sets.But their leaders are living in a ga ga land.
Raymond I loved your creative math.Seriously I love that kind of over view where simplistic confiscation of wealth and redistribution would solve all problems.THere are some math computations done at MIT that indicate that if all the wealth,and all the land,and all things worth anything in this country were sold at auction ,and than times it by five……. it would not pay the real dept.IF you took all the wealth(100%) it would not pay the interest on the debt.And of course if you just took 50% of the money of the wealthiest(and they retaliated by closing all their businesses because economic war was being waged against them putting 87% out of work…………well we could go on all day with this right?Actually what you are describing is communism.And how has that worked????
Tim stop with the racist crap…it was a mistype.And gosh I apologize…..I thought you were calling Christie or Rush(who is thin)fatmen because of their appearances. Now i see You were just quoting that horrific movie Dune in a vague political symbiosis(in a pigs eye).Well i only called Obama Dumbo because he flys around dumping on everyone, and smiling a cute smile.
oddly enough, i’ve never written anything about palin’s accent or christie’s weight.
nor do i believe that the nj governor has a predisposition to lie. i’m simply saying that when he stated “You’re going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security,” he was lying.
Well actually saying that”your(as in Obama)going to have to raise the retirement age.”…IS probably a lie …..so your right.Christie knows that Obama will not ,and can not act in any meaningful way on entitlements.Now if it were Christie at the helm….
Rush made a few comments about Michelle’s weight.What goes around comes around in a world where this is what we are going to talk about……as i said last week.
Thanks, angellight. Today some other right-wing fascist congressperson (a woman), using the Fox/Corporate approved lingo, declared that since Ohio was “broke,” they (the republicans in Ohio) needed to . . . break the unions. The entire country is reeling in an economic recession wholly created by sociopaths on Wall Street and their enablers, the Republicans (and truth be told, a few Democrats), Fox network, and various nefarious “businessmen” like the Koch boys. That the most ridiculous lies are told with straight faces by airheads who don’t know a goddamn thing about labor history (or any history for that matter) is bad enough. At least the Nazis never tried to tell their victims that it was all for their own good.
How about the Indiana legislators bowing to union thugs and actually running out of state yesterday en masse to avoid voting on an anti union vote.Good job there Demacratic party.THAts showing em.
Tim this recession will start to ease when conservatives move in and bring sanity with them.I know you dont believe that ,and i wont try to change your mind.But it will happen as surely as the sun rises.Then you will need to figure out how to spin everything getting better -as something other than it is.And so it goes.
The recession ended in June of 09.
September 2010 was the 9th straight month of private sector job growth in the midst of a devastating recession caused by Republican economic policies. There has been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created so far in 2010, exceeding the total created under Bush/Cheney.
When Obama came to office, GDP rate was negative 6.5. It is now positive. We were losing around a million jobs a month. We are know creating jobs, albeit slowly.