Can You Imagine if a Republican President…

romneymccainYou can’t turn on Fox News without hearing about how “horrible” President Obama is.  Since January 20, 2009, it’s been an endless attack about how terrible he is and how awful his policies have been for Americans.

Which I always find laughable considering the terrible state our economy was in following 8 years of disastrous Bush policies–someone they elected twice.

Now I know many people have short, and often foggy memories, as it relates to politics.  Hell, even I have to go back and read dates and information to remember exactly what happened and when certain events occurred.  But the extent at which Republicans have attacked President Obama (often blaming him for events that happened before he even took office) has been at best delusional, bordering on insanity.

Then I decided to ask myself, “What if many of these events over the last 4 years happened while a Republican was in the White House?”

So, take a moment and imagine if a Republican president inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, and 2 wars, then:

  • Ended the recession less than six months after taking office
  • Cut job losses by more than 50% less than 4 months after being elected
  • Ordered the successful killing of Osama bin Ladin
  • Ended the war in Iraq
  • Saved the American auto industry
  • Presided over record growth in corporate profits
  • Increased domestic oil production to levels not seen since the late-90’s
  • The stock market increased by about 120% from it’s 2009 lows
  • The Dow Jones industrial average shatters previous record highs
  • Ended record job losses less than a year after taking office
  • Unemployment dropped from 10% to 7.6%
  • Created over 6.5 million jobs for 38 consecutive months of job growth
  • Helped aid in the liberation of Libya and the death of dictator Muammar Gaddafi
  • Championed the largest deficit reductions since World War II
  • Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than the combined totals of their predecessor
  • Was given Israel’s highest civilian award, the Medal of Distinction–the first sitting President to receive the award

Just imagine if all of that happened while a Republican was president.  They would be a hero, a legend, one of the greatest presidents ever to grace the oval office and spoke about in Republican folklore for decades to come.

Instead, it was a half black Democrat—therefore he’s a socialist, not a “true American” and the “worst president in history.”  Funny how that works, right?

And let’s not forget, that list doesn’t even include giving homosexuals the right to finally serve in the military, allowing women to serve in combat, passing the Affordable Care Act, the expansion of the Pell Grant program to help Americans receive a college education, credit care reform, being the first president to endorse same-sex marriage or the push for equal pay for women in the work place—events and actions that most conservatives don’t support.

But the truth of the matter is, if a Republican was president these last 4 years—none of that would have happened in the first place.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Scott

    I’m an Obama fan and campaigned for him, but in all fairness, the killing of Osama Bin Laden was the collective effort of some 2,000 people across a broad spectrum of CIA, foreign governments and our elite armed forces, and was also the result of intel gotten by some pretty spotty policies of light torture. It’s up to each ‘mercan to decide how they feel about that, but Romney, if elected, would have likely been afforded the chance to pull the trigger on Bin Laden too. Just keeping it real.

    • Matt J

      Indeed you are correct Scott, but had it been a Republican President at the time are you saying they wouldn’t have taken credit for it? (i.e. Mission Accomplished!)

      Imagine how Fox News would have just run that story into the ground at how McCain got Bin Laden…

      Just one time I’d like to hear Fox say that Obama did something well. Seems something a Fair and Balanced news network might actually do eh?

      • dylan

        Fox News is only fair and balanced toward conservative tea-party republicans. All others are crap and destroying America.

      • Just like MSNBC is the white houses’ bitch and CNN is owned by foreign holders which influence their coverage of the area. All the mainstream news sources are garbage. FOX is just the only right wing one.

      • So, Jared, you’re just going to conveniently ignore that a Saudi Prince is #2 investor in Fox News?

      • Linda

        Or that the Republican Party owns a percentage of it as well?

      • Randell Cinnamon

        Andy! Jared would have to get a someone to remove his head that has been shoved so deep up his ass to see the fact you posted.

      • Kmc

        You clearly don’t watch MSNBC or CNN.

      • Janice Woods

        Fox is the only that sued for the right to lie under the 2nd Ammendment-and won. At least MSNBC fact checks, except for, possibly Morning Joe .

    • dylan

      No…someone had to have the balls to green-light the raid which Obama did. Romney has gone on record saying he wouldn’t “move heaven and earth to get one man” I seriously doubt Romney would allow for the resources to get Bin Ladin–he’d rather prolly start a third war with Iran to make Cheney and the boys happy.

      • That is such a BS answer. I personally hate both parties and their puppets but saying the Romney wouldn’t have had the chance or pulled the trigger is asinine. The quote you used referred to the past 12 year of war in the Middle East. Not the last three Obama had to find him. He would have started a war but have you taken a look at Bammy, the asshole is conducting shadow drone wars across the entire region.

      • Drone strikes WITH the cooperation of the governments where the strikes take place. That is a MAJOR difference from lying us into the unplanned quagmire that was the Iraq war.

        I think the supposition about Romney is correct: The quote is a virtual carbon copy of the things Bush II said about his not aggressively pursuing Bin Ladin, and there’s plenty of evidence that Bush II let some pretty good strike opportunities slide.

        The raid Obama approved was hardly a sure thing and came VERY close to falling apart when a helicopter went down…shades of the Carter’s embarrassing Eagle Claw failure. That took guts to order such a risky (at many levels) operation. It worked, and he should get credit for that…just like his predecessor should get “credit” for nor having accomplished the same in many, many more years.

      • Sym Smith

        So, Jared….we should send in the Troops…. I suppose. When will you enlist for the undertaking..?

      • debzp

        I guess you’ve forgotten about the foreign policy debate between McCain and Obama when McCain called Obama “naive” for insisting that he would go into Pakistan to capture Bin Laden. And that Obama opposed the war from it’s inception. Looks like Obama’s not the asshole after all.

    • David

      You mean like Bush took credit for ‘Mission Accomplished?”

      • When was this? I certainly do not recall where he accomplished… Anything. Except for turning over Prescriptions to Insurance companies. If indeed his goal was to destroy our ability to be able to actually GET the prescriptions given to us by our Doctors – Then his “Part D” was successful!

    • margaret buccini

      You may be correct, but remember that information was there for GWB. He just didn’t use it. Romney said that was not important to him. Intelligence data doesn’t matter if you refuse to use it. The intelligence was telling GWB the WMD weren’t there. Just keeping it real.

    • Sym Smith

      Mr. Obama promised to get Bin Laden while he was a candidate for the Presidency, and while Bush was still President.. Bush did not get him….how do you make that stretch to Romney..??. If you recall, that is why we went into Afghanistan. Bush even forgot about tht…and went “High-tailing” into Iraq…on Chaney’s quest for ……OIL. They neither got Bin Laden nor Oil..!!

    • Yes, 2000 people were involved – But the basic CREDIT goes to the administration which was in power at the time. If Bush had used 2000 people to kill Bin Ladle, which he did not do, his administration would have SCREAMED if anybody had suggested that he in fact did not get the credit for it. But instead, the people who supported his lame administration are pi44ing because Obama is INDEED the one who brought the death of the guy who was “officially credited” (I still do not really believe the guy had anything to do with it at all) for the 911 thing which caused bush to do what – INVADE a country that had nothing to do with it, basically destroying the existing balance of power in the middle east, by removing IRAQ as the counterbalance to IRAN. Now, Iran has NO Middle eastern countries which can hold them in the checkmate they were in while Iraq was still a power.

  • AMEN TO THAT – I shudder to think of how bad things would be had McCain won – But when Palin opened her Big Fat Mouth, she didnt tell us how she wold Fix these problems – She kept telling us how BAD Obama was, is, and would be. That changed my vite instantly. So we can Thank Sarah Palin, I want to thank her, if she hadn’t opened her mouth, Mccain would have been president.

    • Ignorant.

      • No – It’s ignorant to not consider the DAMAGE that would have been irrecoverably done. McCain himself had said he would have let Palin deal with a bunch of issues, issues we know now she was far from qualified to handle. I SHUDDER at this prospect, and I thank God that it didn’t happen.

      • Nick

        McCain isn’t President. Why not focus on the man in the White house? I won’t call you a racist if you criticize him. Just a patriot. As for qualifications, have you ever heard your president speak without his teleprompter? I remember one incident in which he visited wanted to visit 57 states with one left to go, Alaska and Hawaii! Are you comfortable with drone strikes killing civilians? i am not! Are you comfortable with sending money to te Muslim nations that mutilate women and kill homosexuals? i am not! Obama is not a God, he is a traitor!

      • jerry roberts

        And you sir, are a real bumbass.

      • Ilona Ladouceur

        Yessiree

      • Ilona Ladouceur

        What the hell are you talking about?? One of the first things we learned in American History back in high school and again college is that our forefathers came to this new world to, among other things, is to escape religious persecution. A nation was fought for and won by them to be of the people and for the people. So after us white people, kidnapped and enslaved people of color, Africans mainly and then wiped out most of the actual people of this country, (the indians), by lying and cheating them, killing them with guns or our diseases. We NOW can chase away Mexicans who are stealing oyr jobs,…you know the farming jobd picking our lettuce and other crops for us to eat that we really don’t want to do. But we will not tolerate those who choose another faith. That’s a bunch of stupid. And 57 states, WTF are you talking about? One thing I do know, if Obama was NOT a BLACK president, he would of never been subjected to so backhanded racism.

      • Sam Brosenberg

        Actually, 90% of people who came to the American continent prior to 1750 were looking for gold. The Puritans (the Mayflower group that landed at Plymouth) were seeing a place to freely worship, but nearly everyone else who came to America was trying to earn a quick buck.

        I agree with your point, but this is one of the big things that is dishonestly taught about American history; we weren’t a nation of refugees, we were a nation of treasure hunters.

      • Greg Post

        Nick you are absolutely ridiculous. You are the kind of delusional that this article is talking about. The sad thing about you is you don’t, and never will, see how disconnected you are. You mention all these lame GOP talking points while completely ignoring everything mentioned in the article. The 57 states, the teleprompter, blah, blah. It’s always funny to me listening to people like you disrespect the President for a slip of the tongue, he had been to 47 states at that point and was talking about his plans to visit all 50 and combined the 50 and 47 hence 57, I’ve personally had very similar slips of the tongue. What’s so funny about this is George W. Bush had books written about his “Bushisms” for saying things for which there was no reasonable explanation. So listening to you disparage Obama is just comical. The teleprompter?? LOL!! Since teleprompters were invented President’s and politicians have been using them. And yes… Obama has at times not used them, and to be honest, it’s when I feel he’s at his best and most honest. Remember… there was no teleprompters in his Presidential debates, ya know, those debates he won?? LOL. None the less… having a teleprompter and being prepared is precisely that… being prepared… maybe the Republicans should try it some time. Not preparing a speech for a teleprompter to effectively communicate to me is just being lazy.

      • Donald Berghuis

        Quit with the teleprompter foolishness. What is wrong with using technology to enhance what you are saying. For that matter, President Obama frequently speaks were there is no teleprompter. But then, he could write his notes on his hands like Sarah did.

      • Debbie Gross

        Lol! You’re funny!

      • Anita Delgado

        As far as the teleprompter, only an idiot would say that. I have never heard one president speak without a teleprompter or a written script in front of him, but again just like the article said, because he is a half black democrat all of a sudden it is a problem.

      • louis

        I know, he was just a constitutional law professor, a senator, and was raised from a single mother which meant overcoming tremendous obstacles. god i wish this guy would finally do something constructive with his life……(sarcasm)

      • Swissre

        Nick, my company had our
        Christmas party at the Reagan Library last year. There is a entire room set up with a podium and teleprompters that visitors can stand behind to see just how Reagan used teleprompters when he made speeches. So you attack Obama for using teleprompters but not Reagan?

      • john

        Yes, after everything he has done, the fact he writes intricate speeches and has a teleprompter display it is clearly makes him the worst president in history…. and he’s black.

      • BillC

        At least he doesn’t write his talking points on his hand as does Caribou Barbie. And as for the 57 states thing, I find it gratifying that you folks can only find one solitary mistake Obama’s ever made… and he said that before he became your president!

    • Right on! I was an Obama supporter from the start. That’s why I CHEERED when McCain chose Palin. His choice guaranteed an Obama win!

  • Joe from Arizona

    I used to be a Republican when they knew Jesus and were conservative, I am still both of those things, but I voted for Obama proudly…..

  • No Scandel Here

    If he was so terrible why didn’t there guy win hmm ?

    • Hear, Hear! I suggest to anyone who thinks McCain would have been a good president, to watch “The Drumhead” – An Episode of Star Trek: Next Generation. It’s only about 2 bucks on Amazon for an instant video. It is a clear view of what happens when Rampant Paranoia takes over a formerly good official, and they change a minor breach in security into a huge “Commie-Hunt” and Pogrom. Vigilance is our lot, we cannot allow these people to come into positions of power over us.

  • Ended the recession less than six months after taking office. He didn’t end the recession

    Saved the American auto industry. He didn’t save it the American publics tax dollars saved it.
    Presided over record growth in corporate profits. He promotes corporatism and crony capitalism
    Created over 6.5 million jobs for 38 consecutive months of job growth. It’s more like 4.5 million and bush had 54 consecutive months of job growth.
    Helped aid in the liberation of Libya and the death of dictator Muammar Gaddafi
    Championed the largest deficit reductions since World War II. If you call ballooning the deficit to 15 trillion in one term and a new budget that will top the deficit out at around 25 trillion a reduction you might want to get your eyes checked.
    Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than the combined totals of their predecessor
    Half of all the jobs created since 2010 in the private sector have been low paying jobs.

    • Without Obama advocating for the Auto Bailout, it simply wouldn’t have happened. The Tea Party movement was really getting traction at the time, and opinions were polarized on the auto bailout. People felt like they took a bath on TARP and didn’t want any more bailouts. Obama pitched it as an issue of patriotism and jobs; that got it through Congress over the vociferous objections of the right wing and emerging Tea Party. His stimulus package passed weeks after inauguration was smaller than he wanted but jump started the economy on a path to a slow, but sustained recovery despite the party of “no” fighting him the whole way (and doing NOTHING since then to stimulate job creation). Much of the debt Obama inherited was due to the Bush tax cuts (that he made and maintained during a healthy economic period…exactly what you’re NOT supposed to do), unfunded wars, and interest on those debts. He also inherited an thoroughly gamed tax code, the worse recession since the Great Depression, and attendant GDP problems that made it impossible NOT to balloon the overall debt even while he was decreasing the annual deficit…which IS being reduced faster than any time since WWII…you don’t have to like that, but it’s still true. You’re $15T is debt, not deficit; they’re different, and you should know the difference. I agree that we’re creating too few middle-class jobs: I thought your side contended that government doesn’t create jobs. So, maybe you should ask business leaders what happened to all the good working class and management jobs. What’s going on is business taking advantage of the depressed labor market to pay lower wages and have lower wage employees do the work that used to be performed by their supervisors or supervisor’s boss. If Republicans would allow a little investment in science and research, or a public works project or two, we probably COULD employ more scientists, engineers and skilled tradesmen, but they’re not.

      Though it’s impossible to know what might have happened, I feel certain that a President McCain or Romney would have gotten us bogged down in a ground war in Libya, would probably have us clashing swords with either or both Iran and North Korea, and likely inescapably entrenched in another war in the Mid-East for which there is no feasible exit strategy (i.e., Syria).

      Go ahead and dream your impossible dream, but this country is MUCH better off for having Barack Obama in the White House than any of the viable alternatives.

      • Government doesn’t create jobs per se they only reduce regulation so that entrepreneurs and startup businesses can be profitable. I see it as a circle gov de regulates making the market environment ripe to start profitable business and people in the private sector create the new wealth in that environment. Government doesn’t create wealth it consumes it that’s different from ” I thought your side contended that government doesn’t create jobs.”. You’re correct I should have said debt not deficit. According to the figures I have seen Obama inherited 6.369 trillion from bush. Bush increased the debt from 3.339 trillion to 6.369 trillion between 2001and 2008. So bush increased the debt by 3.03 trillion dollars over two terms as president or 1.515 trillion per term on the average. Obama got 6.369 trillion in 2009 and by mid 2012 the debt under Obama was 11 trillion dollars. That a debt increase of 4.631 trillion dollars in four years. That’s more debt than bush created in eight years. 56% of obamas debt came between 2009 and 2011. As for science and tech budget wise they get a minuscule portion of funding compared to national defense, health, Medicare, and income security spending in the budget.(not entirely sure what income security actually is). And that is across both parties not just republicans.

      • Surveys of small business owners indicate that demand for the business’s product is the biggest driver of hiring, not regulatory environment.

        Your figures about debt are still skewed because you’re stopping Bush’s responsibility at the end of 2008, but it was his budget in effect through 2009. It is also totally expected that the deficit would be MUCH higher during the Great Recession than it would have been in years prior. Moreover, a good section of the debt you’re attributing to Obama is a result of wars financed “off the books” in special appropriations. We’ve also had to accept keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for an entire decade (including Obama’s entire first term). Without those cuts, we’d have seen better revenues. Finally, the economic downturn meant there was massive demand for food stamps and TANF…demands not caused by some overly liberal change in policy, but pure demand because SO many people fell on hard times.

        Meanwhile, the annual deficit which more accurately and quickly reflect current policy, has been dropping like a rock due to Obama’s cut backs in government jobs and other inefficiencies…that’s not me claiming that, it’s OMB figures. I agree that even $3T over one term is out of hand, but so were the conditions handed to the current POTUS by the last. I strongly assert that he’s made good decisions and guided us out of the worst of it at the lowest cost possible.

        Oh, and, BTW, government is perfectly adequate at creating jobs: just ask air traffic controllers, IRS agents, FBI, TSA, DOT, Veterans Affiars, etc employees.

      • Demand is not the only factor in starting up a business. Cost in starting up or moving into a market is also a factor and if regulations are financially prohibitive people won’t start a business or expand into a market area. By your logic the budget surplus Clinton is famous for originated as a result of bush seniors and Reagan’s economic policies. Not sure what you are getting at in regards to tang and welfare.

      • I didn’t say “only factor” and we’re not necessarily talking about STARTING a business…just new hires whether a new or existing business. Regulatory and tax policy “shopping” is definitely done in the modern business world (and I hate it…it’s ALWAYS asking the host area to subsidize the company in some way…that’s corporate welfare), but it IS a reality in a START UP, but it’s NOT a major factor in existing businesses where most new jobs are created.

        Just like Obama shouldn’t be judged for 2009 figures, Clinton can’t take credit for whatever he oversaw in 93. That hardly would give credit for both of his terms to the prior two Presidents. I don’t understand your conclusion in the “By your logic…” sentence.

        I wouldn’t give Clinton all the credit for the economy during his terms, but he did have the benefit of (I can’t believe I’m saying this) a relatively sane (by current standards) bunch of Republicans to work with in Congress (at least until the Gingrich Congress). Anyway, they worked together, sometimes contentiously but always productively, during a period of economic expansion for which none of them can take credit (unless someone wants to dubiously tie DARPA research to one party or another)…the initial tech boom. That massive expansion, reasonable governance, and a workable tax code gave the government enough funds to do its job without accruing excessive debt. When times were thin it spent/stimulated the economy with moderate deficit spending. When things were fat, we reduced deficits and curtailed stimulus measures.

        Reagan’s first rounds of tax cuts worked because rates were above the Laffer curve. HW Bush actually had to back OUT a tax cut (and took the political hit for it) because, by his term, we had cut rates enough that we were below the point of diminishing returns (i.e., below the Laffer curve). At that point, supply-side economics was tapped out, and the tax environment hadn’t really changed THAT much compared to the three decades prior when we decreased tax rates from astronomical nominal rates from WWII. In other words, I also don’t give much credit for the Clinton expansion to the Republicans…they hardly moved the needle before their economic theories collapsed in practice

        The harsh reality is that, being able to manipulate only regulation, budget, and tax policy, the POTUS had limited influence on the economy. POTUS can influence things somewhat with “leadership”, and I’ll give Reagan props (much like Clinton) for having real-deal skills in that area, but he’s limited and his options are often less influential than externalities (like a disruptive technology change).

        In re: to TANF and Food Stamps: The Right usually calls out some inflated debt figure to blame on Obama then points out how much of that is due to the wild increases in the costs of these programs during his terms. What they fail to understand is that those increases are not due to more liberal policies that lead to increased benefits or enrollment but are due to the Great Depression and the massive, attendant increase in poverty. Costs went up because people needed these services, not because these services were mismanaged or really changed in major ways from the Bush II years.

        In other words, Obama has decreased the annual deficit while working with an obstructionist Congressional GOP, the worst recession since the Great Depression, paying off two wars he didn’t start, a Federal Reserve who had already expended all of its ammunition to stimulate the economy (another power massively abused during Bush II), and a tax structure that had been thoroughly undermined by neo-liberal economic voodoo that was just a slight rebranding of classic supply-side economics. Revenues were WAY down, costs were way up, and the very foundational institutions of the economy were crumbling around his ears. Sorry it cost a few trillion to get out of that quagmire, but that’s what your guys’ policies left us, brother.

        Now we’re on the right track in some areas with a booming stock market, record corporate profits, and unemployment down 2.5% from it’s high just after the stimulus was enacted. But we haven’t fixed the structural problems with the TBTF Banks or their clear overinvolvement in the highest levels of government — if there’s a NWO, look there, not the UN. We haven’t gotten the economy to work for the average person, and (related) we haven’t created an economy that generates new, well-paying, middle class supporting jobs. Why? Because corporate America can do it cheaper elsewhere, or simply not invest in new business at all. They get tax advantages for all manner of dirty tricks to avoid taxes including tax havens and actively off shoring jobs (and getting to both expense those costs here, then book any profits in the country where they move)…literally government subsidized divestment of our own country — self cannibalism. Anyway, all that stuff is out of control, and most if not all the worst tax structure is stuff implemented by the neoconservatives from Gingrich to Bush II.

        We need to clean house with the Banks. We need to take back control of our financial system and either audit or eliminate the Fed (in favor of a National Bank). Sorry that this threatens accountants, but we need to massively simplify the tax code while retaining socially valuable tax breaks for that stimulate broad shared wealth and a well-working society: mortgage and student loan interest deductions, education deductions and credits, Child Tax Credit and, yes, the EITC (although I’d “give” that we should roll it back to where it requires you earn some income to qualify); but eliminate the stuff that isn’t working like the change to the EITC, all the special business tax rules enacted during Bush II and the tail end of Clinton…accelerated and special depreciation rules, all the BS that allows one business to legally act as three, lending and renting crap to each other on paper so that payroll and property, assets and income can be juggled to present a faked overall profile to the IRS. (Yeah, I know all that stuff is currently legal, but it’s all bullshit to look less profitable on paper, only for tax purposes, than you really are…to avoid the original intent of the tax laws.) All the tax incentives only available to mega, multi-national corporations: gone. They aren’t good for the citizenry and amount to their subsidizing profits of these multi-nationals. We need to re-institute a Wall Street transaction tax; nowhere else do we have any untaxed markets in our economy…nowhere…and we had this tax before, and the sky didn’t fall.

        We need to get out of NAFTA/CAFTA however the hell we have to, and we have to avoid this new Pacific Trade Agreement nightmare…no more submitting our sovereign power to external agreements! If other countries want to sell stuff to us but won’t get up to reasonable international standards on environment, human rights, and basic working conditions, we need to reintroduce import tariffs to protect American wages; screw this modern day aversion to tariffs and the concern that it’ll anger other countries! We’re still the biggest consumer economy on the planet; they will still want to sell their crap here. Moreover, we don’t seem too concerned with how our foreign wars of aggression are pissing off other countries; so, I’m generally calling bullshit on that argument anyway. We need Citizen’s United overturned by Constitutional Amendment.

      • I don’t think so. Yes business that already exist can move into an geographic area be cause they already have the capital to do so. New start ups can’t even enter the market when they can’t comply with regulation be cause of cost that come from hiring extra people that are dedicated to dealing with the red tape of regulations. And multinationals get breaks from government that kill the small and new business and stop them from entering a market. Competition is an essential function of the free market and government and big corporations have killed the free market with corporate subsidies and political funding of campaigns.

        As to welfare I think it’s been destroying the family unit since it was started. I believe that government has no place handing out welfare to citizens. I think those things should be taken care of by private individuals and charity organizations like they were previous to the introduction of the welfare state.
        I do not believe we have any business in Libya we have no business offering anything other than humanitarian aid in those sorts of situations and we defiantly do not need to be giving weapons to other countries like Saudis Arabia or other places. Like wise we should not have bases and consulates in places where we were not invited.
        The tax codes are as bloated as our government bureaucracy even Milton Friedman who helped write the original codes thought they were a debacle

        Don’t even get me started on the fed they are probably the biggest problem with our economy because they print money that has no value and the more they print the less value our dollar has because of inflation. Not only that but they made the Great Depression worse by sucking the monetary supply dry between 1929 and 1931. And several president were vehemently opposed to central banks and did everything they could to thwart their inception. Even Woodrow Wilson who signed the bill to start the fed later remarked in his biography that it was the worst thing he ever did to our country.
        Quantitative easing is a big crock of shit it’s doing what the fed did in the depression in the 30’s in reverse.

        In my opinion government has a very limited scope and size. They are there to protect the citizens, provide a system of laws that are conducive to liberty and happiness of the citizen and to provide a system for adjudicating disputes between citizens and between citizens and the government.

      • From bottom to top:
        I disagree with your limitations applied to the scope of Federal government. I believe that the establishment clause provides clear justification for its current makeup and function.

        No arguments on the Fed: This is an area where I’m in almost complete agreement with libertarians.

        The tax code is an intentionally complex nightmare, but I caution in advance against suggestions we should have a flat tax. A progressive tax code is part of what created the prosperous middle class in the first place, and we need to keep that.

        In a Utopian society where only the best in human nature was nurtured and flourished, I agree that social welfare systems would no be needed. However, in that Utopia, private donations to charity, public works and the like would actually be sufficient to address the poverty problems we have. The reason we started these programs is that, in reality, people simply don’t give enough voluntarily, and Churches and other non-governmental institutions all too often only perform charity within their narrow constructs of what they’ll support or within a framework of evangelism and conversion. I agree that, to a very limited extent, where there were successful villages of inter-dependent and other-supporting citizens, social welfare may have served to break down those pre-existing institutions. That is a very minor side effect that is dwarfed by the massive gains in overall welfare created by these programs everywhere that “village” concept wasn’t working or everywhere people were considered “other” (and did not benefit from the village).

        I’m not seeing where we disagree on regulation and its various impacts on new/existing small business vs big corporations. Small business has been punked by modern, pro-business tax changes just like the average worker has; too many small business owners haven’t yet figured out that the GOP doesn’t consider them the “in crowd” either. Small business owners aren’t the 1% either.

      • Please expound on why the establishment clause provides justification for big government.

      • The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party gained a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

        For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault,” think about this:
        January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
        The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
        The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
        The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
        George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
        Remember that day…
        January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
        The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
        BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
        THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5% GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

        (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)

        And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

        And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
        OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

        So when someone tries to blame Bush…
        REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”

        Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.

        Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

        Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

        In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

        For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

        Andwhere was Barack Obama during this time?He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

        If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

        If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

        In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th, 2009.”

        This is not my research but I checked the main information and it seems to be correct.

      • The crash did not happen only due to bad loans by F/F…yes, the Democrats share culpability in letting F/F go so far over the cliff…but by the derivatives gaming that took place in the investment markets. If it had just been bad loans, the system would have absorbed it, and any socially shared costs would have been categorically smaller (by several factors of 10).

        Yes, there was a battle between the Democratically controlled Congress (never a super-majority in the Senate, btw, IIRC) and Bush II. Please take a look at total # of jobs created under Bush II…that 54 month figure is massively misleading…most jobs created in four years under Obama than all eight under Bush II (again…IIRC). GDP figures from just prior to the crash are also misleading as they don’t account for the massive bubble (that created those gains) bursting. In fact, most of the figures from Bush II are distorted because all the war spending was kept out of the budgets; special appropriations and omnibus spending bills were the order of the day…and NOT by Democratic choice, by POTUS fiat.

        That bursting was a result of GOP-fueled de-regulation of the investment markets, not so much F/F or Fed or even Congressional policies the Right likes to try to amplify. The bust and crash were direct results of de-regulation.

        Meanwhile, since then the stock market is at record highs, we’ve cut unemployment about 3%, and treasury actually recorded a surplus (more revenue coming in than going out) in their most recent report. Budget deficits are dropping fast. Those are purely as a result of Obama actions as an executive because the legislative branch has been inactive since passing the ACA.

      • Icanadd

        Government doesn’t create jobs per se they only reduce regulation so that entrepreneurs and startup businesses can be profitable.
        A talking point that is without merit, regardless of WHO says it. MY job was created as a direct result of Government alone. ALL defense related jobs, subs, and those that support them are ALSO created solely by government. All road construction, paving bridge repair the list is absolutely endless. You seen the private sector undertaking the building of a dam, for example on spec? Of course you don’t. But those that are building the dam are NOT government employees, but their job WAS directly created BY government. Lets put that demonstrably false talking point to bed, shall we?

      • Your job is a public sector job. I am talking about private sector jobs. Government public sector jobs only feed the government machine and consume wealth. Private sector jobs actually create wealth. As for it being a false talking point that your opinion and a way to dodge a real discussion. And I will take the word of Nobel prize winning economist on that subject over your opinion any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

      • Government jobs act exactly the same as private sector jobs; there is zero difference based on income source in how one average paycheck get spent in the economy. Moreover, even if you were correct, the wealth of which you speak is NOT being broadly shared; that is the essential problem with our current economy, that the social contract is broken and the masses are not enjoying the prosperity to which they have continuously and faithfully contributed.

      • So sort of the same way trickle down economics is absorbed by corporate executives shafting every one else in a company. When I talk about wealth I am not meaning money I mean inventions and new processes that make it cheaper and easier to make products.

    • Mico Collins

      Obama may have not ended the recession but he stopped it and created the reversal of recession. Republicans (Bush) started the recessions and allowed it to grow into a near collapse of our economy and did nothing to stop it.

      The American tax dollars are used for everything including the auto bailout. Obama made the decision in which his decision saved the American Auto Industry.

      Corporatism and crony capitalism is and has always been unbridled under Republicans. Republicans have a history of voting for and creating bills that allow for capitilistic corporate greed to the point of destroying our democracy or whats left of it. Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices ruled that Corporations are people yet they pay next to nothing into your American public taxes. That is why (we) continue to pay taxes and have a deficit that is out of control and less services to help the people. Are corporations helping us? No because Republicans refuse to tax corporations and the 1%.
      Obama’s job numbers are higher than Bush’s. The numbers you used to indicate Bush’s consecutive monthly rates are calculated by consecutive monthly growth. However that conclusion does not consider that the downward spiral caused by Bush had to be stopped by Obama and then turned around. When Bush took office the trend was not in a downward spiral like the one Bush caused. In the long run during Obama’s term he has fixed the damage caused by the Bush Administration and it has been shown that his monthly job growth rate during each month far surpass Bush’s.

      Helped aid in the liberation of Libya and the death of Gaddafi. At least Obama did something, Bush only waved the flag and put the American people into a war he created and that caused the whole problem for us to begin with and then had the audacity to claim “Mission Accomplished” by fighting a war with a country that had nothing to do with the alleged purpose of the war. They further ignored their own advisors and lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to go to war with Iraq. This was to gain a foot hold on Iraq’s oil production and mess with Saddam Hussien, little Bush’s daddy’s nemesis.

      Oh you want to talk about the deficit, you mean the one that Bush, a Republican caused. Due to his destuction of the surplus that Clinton amassed and his inability to make proper decisions by putting us into the war After Bush’s almost total destruction of our economy a new deficit had to be created in order to sustain mandated requirements like equipping our military, taking care of our elderly, and keeping our police departments and towns and cities from filing bankrupcy and collapsing our entire infrastucture. Of course the Republicans created this mess and will have the American citizens go hungry and homeless before they tax those corporations they allow tax loop holes for.

      Obama got the private sector to hire but he does not have the authority to make employers pay a liveable wage. The Democrats have always tried to help by increasing the minimum wage and guess who tries to stop that every time? It was not Obama or the Democrats. Of course maybe you are a 1percenter and do not wish the truth be told. Then again I think not.

      • So the auto industry couldn’t have filed a bankruptcy and worked to restructure and come out of it like other businesses? The sc declaring corporations people is a massive mistake in my opinion and really damaged the free market and it started the shift from free market economics to corporatism. No corporations now aren’t helping us when the CEO’s running them used bailout money to give themselves bonuses. I am most definitely not a one percenter far from it. I don’t really care who cause the problem because in the end politicians are out for themselves and no one else. We shouldn’t even be in Lybia I don’t care who was president. I was also just as disappointed that Iraq turned into such a shit storm. I also tend to agree with Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman on minimum wage.

      • Kameron Lewis

        You don’t care who cause the problem says it all buddy.

      • Does it really matter who caused the problem as long as whom ever caused it is punished? I fail to see the merit in your comment.

      • Yes, because you can’t have the latter without knowing the former.

      • We don’t know at th moment who was doing what with that IRS debacle. My point was we need to find out and it’s useless to go off half cocked. Once we find out the details those who are responsible should be made an example to others who might entertain such a notion to do some thing similar. I also mean I don’t care if its a republican or democrat thing.

      • Actually, we know enough: That these groups were targeted for review is well within the purview of the IRS. The rules for 501c4 are vague, and make the IRS’s job impossible. No conservative or libertarian or Tea Party groups were denied their 501c4 claim. Where’s the damage? This doesn’t even have standing in civil court because there simply is NO DAMAGE.

      • No, they couldn’t. That was Romney’s stated plan during the 2012 campaign, but he was ignoring that credit simply wasn’t available for the auto companies and neither was backing for bankruptcy reorganization. That was the whole problem in a nut shell, and it’s the ONLY problem we fixed…we floated them a loan…that’s it…a loan less than 1/10th the size of the initial TARP bailout (but not counting any of the quantitative easing continuous IV we give the banks).

        I’m glad you agree that CU is a disaster.

        Libya was going rogue one way or another. We could influence the process or let it go the way of most revolutions and get just another crackpot dictator, or, worse, total anarchy and tribal warfare. Not that it wouldn’t degenerate into a horrible, bloody war theater for who knows how long before Gaddafi fell. I’m more proud of how Obama handled that than almost anything else he’s done in office; it was a frackin’ master work of diplomacy in the UN and Arab/North African world coupled with JUST enough military investment to make the needed difference. Please, try to find any comparable achievement (where goals were met so quickly at such a minimal cost against such a long time, well entrenched adversary) in modern warfare or diplomacy; I think there are none.

        Iraq was a disaster from the day we asked Sadam to fight the Ayatollah for us: Thanks, Ron! It got much worse when the Heritage Foundation started dreaming about invading there after HW Bush didn’t finish the job they thought needed done (since Sadam had stopped obeying them, his rightful masters ). It became a shameful disaster when the intelligence got shaped around the pre-determined desire to go to war with Iraq. It was yet worse that we entered with totally deluded expectation (promised by our good friend, Dick) and no clear goals or exit strategy as well as no clear mandate or authorization to go to war…little and very reluctant international support. Then it degenerated into an unabashed, Greek orgy of a cluster fuck as everyone from GE to Shell to Halliburton and Blackwater to Lord knows who sucking off the hind tit of rivers of tax payer money flowing into the bottomless pit that was that interminable war…all the while Americans (and other UN forces) and innocent Iraqi’s were chewed up and spit out in that meat grinder of war. It was an inexcusable war crime from beginning to end. It didn’t go sideways; it was never good (well, as good as war can be).

        I don’t think there should be ANY discussion about the minimum wage that doesn’t start with raising it to the same constant dollars figure it was when enacted, then indexed to inflation. Beyond that, I’d enjoy a national conversation about how we handle it, because I don’t think either side is being reasonable about it: The Left ignores that major minimum wage increases will decimate restaurants and some recreation/hospitality businesses…places where failure is already high and margins are razor thin. Meanwhile, the Right tries to pretend that nothing at all needs to be done and that loss in the value of minimum wage in the face of continuous gains in productivity doesn’t need to be addressed in is totally fair to the American worker. In fact, they believe that employers should have more freedom to capriciously juggle employee hours over several weeks to avoid paying them overtime…destroying the 40 hours work week and overtime pay bulwarks of our employment environment.

      • I’m glad you agree that CU is a disaster.

        Could you explain what CU is as I am un familiar with it.

      • Citizen’s United SCOTUS decision

      • Campaign finance is a disaster and the whole elction process needs to be overhauled. I have a few ideas on that subject but the feasibility and efficacy of them are probably lacking.

  • Geronimo

    Charles Vincent! , You need to do some fact checking!!! Or maybe you’re just an out and out liar ?

    • Fact checking on what? And perhaps you should follow the discussion between Andy kinnard and myself.

      • I appreciate your decorum and attitude, Charles, but your talking points are pure right wing material and do not seem to be tempered by other views (or potentially countering facts).

      • I intend them to be countering facts, I searched around and I tried to find the most matching evidence pertaining to the numbers cause it seems to me that when you look for facts you should find the ones that are verifiable through credible sources. Not all my idea are right or left most are center we just happen to be discussing a topic I lean to the right on. On the contrary our discussion has swung my stance toward the middle if that makes sense.

  • You could copy and paste all of these in Google and find direct contradictions for each one. Who cares? The political parties are both corrupt figureheads for corporations and banks. This left vs right paradigm hasn’t done a damn thing but spiral us toward a black hole.

    • Sym Smith

      Jared Keller….what happened to you…lately..??. Please remove the “Blinders”…!!

    • It’s true that the banking and financial cartel has too much control of both parties, but there is a clear difference between them none the less. You’re casting false equivalencies that both partys’ platforms and actions are equally egregious. That’s not cool, different, outside the box or whatever kind of pseudo-intellectual neophyte you’re trying to be with your universal cynicism.

      • Huh?

      • Online dictionaries are widely available. My prose is not perfect, but, especially within context, the meaning is clear.

      • Your prose is plenty adequate – and I agree 100% – It’s bad enough to have the ignorant congress that was elected in 2010 on the basis of a lie – It’s worse when people who have slightly more intelligence will do NOTHING to stop it. It comes down to a CHOICE. We can elect Democrats, and hope they can get some work done, or pray to God that the Republicans who are in office now, are not able to change the United States into a 3rd World country as is their goal.

      • Greg Post

        Andy if you believe that completely you are very naive. There is more going on behind the scenes then just politicians being “corrupt figureheads” and you’re only saying it because it’s the “cool” thing to say about politics for people who simply don’t get what goes on behind the scenes.

  • The first thing that would have happened on Mitts watch is we would have been drug into a war with Iran. And it would have gone down hill from there!

    • Don’t forget the automatic return of trickle-down economics.

      • Crysta

        What about the fact that he would have cut the top end tax brackets down to 15%, removed taxes on “capital gains” (which he conveniently gets most of his money from) and to pay for it all, cut most of the social programs by half or more.

        Medicare, slashed
        Medicaid, GONE!
        Welfare, gone
        Anything else that “siphons money from the rich to the poor”, Gone!!!

        Public schools? Auctioned off to corporations.
        Hospitals? Sold to churches
        Toll Roads? Sold to the highest bidder
        Public utilities? Ditto

        Welcome to the Hunger Games…

      • James Donald Bishop

        Money doesn’t trickle down, it trickles up.

    • And you know this how?

  • disqus_IgeilsyjwG

    so very true, and where would this country be now- or in 4 years, had Romney actually won last November? Much worse off than we are right now. I personally believe this latest IRS problem is an attempt by Republicans to foist off a “Watergate” style scandal on Mr. Obama where one doesn’t actually exist. Can’t wait until it is determined that, in fact, the current administration had no involvement whatsoever, and the folks really responsible were- can you guess?- Republicans!

    • I don’t really care who caused the IRS debacle as long as they face the punishment any ordinary person would get in the same situation and as long as that happens I have not complaints.

      • The thing to remember here, Charles, is that no laws were broken on the part of the IRS. The profiling may have been a bit inappropriate, not politically ‘PC’, but certainly not illegal.

        It could even be successfully argued that the IRS was actually, truly, just trying to do their job.

      • I find their intrusion highly suspect either way and it should definitely be illegal if it isn’t already and it smacks of bias to target ones political opponents that way. And from the cspan coverage I have seen congress thinks its illegal.

      • As a 501(c), championing specific bills that protect the Alaskan White Wolf, or specific bills concerning Women’s Health, or bills for increased spending in order to dredge the Charleston Bay, all that is allowed. But to endorse a specific candidates, and to materially contribute to said politicians, THAT is overtly over the line.

        If because of these actions by those groups drew the attention of the department charged with monitoring and/or approving these same groups, even if it seems partisan, why would that be wrong? If the same blatant disregard for the ‘rules’ were being displayed by left leaning groups, I would demand the same kind of scrutiny from the IRS. But the left isn’t as obvious as the tea party groups, are they?

      • The IRS has the authority to track the money it has no authority to ask for some of the things they asked for and they only targeted republican 501c groups that’s the problem. Had they asked the same questions and denied democratic 501c groups perhaps the issue wouldn’t be a huge scandal like it is now.

      • Careful there, Charles…you issued a smack-down on Susan, but as far as I can tell (with her one line snipes and all), she is one of you guys. But I agree with you, she add nothing to the conversation, other than comic distraction.

        But you are wrong. Left leaning groups were also scrutinized, just not on the scale of the right leaning one, and that’s what got you guys in an uproar. Come on man, if you cloak yourselves in tin-foil, don’t be surprised that you draw lightning when you go out into a storm.

        The only group that was denied during that period was the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and did not participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan status apparently disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”

        I was involved in a discussion just like this one on Facebook, and one of you guys made the same claim about not endorsing candidates, and it took me about 10 seconds to cut ‘n paste a whole list of links to tea party websites that do just exactly that. Do it for yourself, you’ll be amazed!

      • You mistake my party offiliation as republican when in fact I am an independent. While it is true that I do not know the intracasies of 501c groups I am interested in the truth about what happened an whether or not the IRS over stepped its authority. And people that propagate useless rhetoric are part of the problem not the solution. You guys is a finger pointing move I have seen both republican and democrat congressmen showing their distaste for what the IRS did. I cut and paste as well but this site won’t allow links to be pasted.

      • All or most of that scale was due to the numbers of Tea Party groups applying for 501c4 during that period. Those applications outnumbered “leftie” groups by several factors of ten. So, the natural processes of selection SHOULD yield MUCH larger numbers of Tea Party groups being investigated, particularly since they are both partisan AND affirmatively anti-tax.

        Never the less, the method of selection amounted to profiling (just like the Arizona immigration law or application of “stop and frisk” in NYC). Maybe now the right wing will understand why we object to profiling so strenuously: It sucks and feels incredibly unfair being on the receiving end. It was that instinctive abhorrence of profiling that yielded condemnation from Democrats; I actually think they were premature in that and fueled the tempest in a tea pot. Bottom line is that profiling shouldn’t have been used; political/partisan ACTIVITY should have been the criteria, not the names of the groups.

      • Uuuughhh profiling is definitely a repugnant practice. It is a cesspool that breeds all manner of unsavory practices.

      • James Donald Bishop

        I agree with most of what you say ( commented above), but whouldn’t the IRS have been sceptical about the flood of Tea-Party groups that were suddenly going to do charitable work, and wanted tax-free status?

      • Anita Delgado

        I actually do not think it was a target against “republicans” I think someone gave them a list of people to target and that is what they did. Do you know how many people were audited just for claiming dependents? I think someone put new red flags in the system, and I believe it was the republicans so they could say that… how can they put such a conclusion together so fast unless they knew it was going to happen beforehand.

      • Charles Vincent

        well considering the new revelations in the IRS deal that’s highly unlikely

      • James Donald Bishop

        Actually, it’s coming out that they did question liberal groups. Fox News, of course, didn’t mention that part. My present reading (subject to change as more information surfaces) is that the IRS didn’t have a protocol for reviewing the 501(c) applications, and left it for the people doing the job to improvise. Any organization with a blatantly political title should be required to demonstrate their charitable, non-political purpose.

      • Charles Vincent

        My post time was over a month ago the information you’re talking about wasn’t available at that time.

      • jeczaja

        Does anyone believe that Karl Rove’s 501c’s are NOT political? Want to buy some beacfront property in Idaho? Fake 501cs are committing fraud and ALL should be investigated.

      • Charles Vincent

        You didn’t follow this discussion thread very closely did you.

      • Alex Peterson

        Not true. Liberal groups also targeted. 501 (c) (4) status is being used to avoid paying taxes and hide political donations. IRS WAS doing it’s job. This bullshit scandal that isn’t is just another attempt to try to discredit the black President that Rethugs have been working against, to the detriment of our country and great financial costs to us, since he was elected.

      • Charles Vincent

        Again I say my posts were made a month ago when none of this information was there to draw on for a decision. You need to look at post times. And democrats have ruined the economy in my state it isn’t just republicans that screw over the population of this country.

      • vwbtl99

        They did target liberal groups as well.I guess you missed the news that day. Or maybe you decided to ignore that part.

      • Charles Vincent

        Please keep up See this article;

        http://nbcpolitics DOT nbcnews DOT com/_news/2013/09/23/20663004-controversial-irs-official-retires?lite

      • vwbtl99

        It seems to me that you are the one that needs to keep up.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s not in dispute what is, is that they actively flagged conservative/tea party nonprofits and either denied them or prevented their 501status for extended periods of time, something not done to liberal/progressive groups according to recent( the last couple weeks) articles I have read.

      • Sam Brosenberg

        Charles, that would be a problem if you weren’t completely lying. They targeted just as many Progressive “Occupy” groups as they targeted TEA Party groups, and nearly all of the groups they were targeting were illegally claiming to be “social welfare programs” anyway in order to evade disclosing their donation sources.

      • Charles Vincent

        Old dead threads should stay dead. Learn2Read post dates this thread is a year old nubcake.

      • Please take your blinders off and get the facts.

      • You talk boldly of facts and yet you provide none of the facts you speak of. Brilliantly circular logic on your part.

      • Janice Woods

        Just google-Darryl Issa lied. You find volumes of proof!

      • Charles Vincent

        That would be great except the person I was talking to didn’t provide any information or counter arguments nor any evidence to refute what I had said please read all the comments

      • When you post some facts, your comments will certainly be considered. But since you have given us NONE, we must assume that you have NONE.

      • Randell Cinnamon

        Perhaps your myopic ass should heed your own advice. That is if you aren’t that deep in your indoctrination.

      • Janice Woods

        Darryl Issa gave implicit instructions NOT to investigate progressive organizations that were targeted so it would appear that ONLY conservative organizations were being targeted, and the only organization that was denied tax exempt status was a progressive organization. None of the so called whistleblowers were denied anything. The flags(of particular words) were simply a way to streamline inquiries because of the massive number of organizations seeking tax exemption as a result of the Citizen’s United ruling.

      • Charles Vincent

        Where’s the proof of that? You have any documentation to prove it?

      • Sean Jones

        A group that is ADAMENT about not paying taxes, had their tax exempt status looked at…… why are people shocked? It seems pretty straight forward to me. And I dont remember the outrage when the IRS went after the NAACP and their tax exempt status under Bush.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is why;

        http://nbcpolitics DOT nbcnews DOT com/_news/2013/09/23/20663004-controversial-irs-official-retires?lite

      • Really? Guess again! What fairy tale are you reading?

      • We are just wondering which Fairly Take world YOU are living in, Suzy. You’re a Jesuser, right? You ever read “The Silver Chair” by CS Lewis? You sound like Puddleglum the Marshwiggle – But he at least had some FACTS he stated in the book. You, have NONE. Therefore I give him, a fictional character more credibility than you, eh? 🙂

      • Donald Berghuis

        I know you didn’t mean it as an insult, but I wouldn’t see being called a “Jesuser” as a bad thing, although I don’t see Suzy as particularly on the money either. And you really ought to read the CS Lewis Narnia stories in the context they were intended—as a sort of parable or allegory on life.

      • vwbtl99

        The IRS also profile applications that showed the word progressive, liberal, etc. So, obviously it was not a thing to keep conservatives out but more of a things called… doing their job!

      • Laurie Moore

        I agree 100%

      • John E. Conway

        Actually, there was some illegal activity. They did give out information to the press that should not have been given (I forget the exact nature of the data), but as far as the targeting, no it wasn’t really illegal, and only 1/3 of it was directed at conservative groups, and in teh end, the only groups denied tax exempt status were liberal groups.

      • Anita Delgado

        that is true, anyway a person claimed exempt or credits they were all over it this past year. But I would suppose the super rich didnt realize how bad it was until it happened to them.

      • Johntheoldguy

        Remember that the “targeting” was on political entities that were asking for special privileges. Nobody was audited. People asking for the right to hide their donors were simply asked if they were really “social welfare” organizations, rather than political ones.

      • Ilona Ladouceur

        The ones that need to be tried by judge and jury and, if found guilty, serve lets say 1 day for each and every person that their lies and their greed affected negatively. put them into the prisons that they so happily build and run, (for a profit), with the same criminals that have done 1/100th at best to what they have done. The pompous dicks that have had everything and more all their lives; had the best educations and the best jobs. The ones that hide their money and have loopholes to not pay their share of taxes while looking down their noses at us. And while I have not needed public assistance, I have friends that have. Not because they are lazy bums but because the already rich and need to be richer ones cause the nearly collapse of our government and brought us to the edge of a depression,

      • Anita Delgado

        agreed

    • Ignorant. Get the facts

      • Facts? this is why Obama is in his Second term, because re-pukie-cans could not GIVE us any viable facts, only lies and distortions and mainly, reversals and projections of blame of the problems they caused onto this Administration. Facts? You certainly have demonstrated you have none, mainly by your lack of posting any.

  • Three scandals in a week? Benghazi, IRS, AP. The mainstream media finally picked up on some truth this week. This is because the AP phone privacy was violated and this irritated all of the liberal media. Hell hath frozen over. Even Chris Mathews lost the thrill up his leg. Also some enlightening news explaining why the media does not report any negative stories on the White House, it is because they are all related. There are so many reasons to be concerned about what is going on with govt. during this admin. For example, do you want the corrupt IRS implementing the new healthcare system?

    • Ok, wow. Please revisit today’s news before returning here in shame to delete this sophistry. All of your “scandals” went pppffffttttt today; they all amount to nothing.

      • Those emails are really suspect given that for almost a year the administration lied about Benghazi. Also if they had them why not post them as soon as possible instead of waiting a year. The whole of it seems dubious and smacks of the democrats trying to protect a potential 2016 candidate for president. Just my opinion though.
        Also fast and furious and the IRS scandals are still alive as far as I understand it. And the ap deal is still fresh. In any event they all happened under the Obama administration and he bares ultimate responsibility for them… Like Truman said the buck stops here.

      • Well, I suppose that IS one line of supposition…of course, that’s all you have there: suspicion without ANY proof whatsoever. What was the year-long lie to which you refer? I’m pretty sure that the administration stopped claiming this was about the video within a couple weeks.

        F&F was a disaster, but there’s no “scandal”. It was a dubious idea every time it was tried, but there was no cover up or anything. What’s the “scandal”?

        The AP deal appears to be requests for phone records to track down leaks of classified information. There were no wire taps. What’s the problem with that?

      • The video was a deflection to try and play down what happened. Then there were all the dodges by the White House. Think back to the Iran contra affair how long did it take for Reagan to go on national tv and take responsibility for the whole mess? I gaurruantee it wasn’t a year. He also didn’t blame it on anything. We know Clinton lied about some things in the congressional hearings and the list goes on. If they had the emails they should have released then on the spot and in there entirety. As it is it seems like there is a 67 hour gap in the emails. In short they provided zero transparency and did everything they could to add confusion to the proceedings. At least that’s my perception of Benghazi to this point.

        The IRS deal happened during an election cycle which doesn’t help matters because of how it appears but this may be unrelated. I did hear about on conservative group being denied and who subsequently changed their name and re applied and got the 501c status, this may or may not be true. And they did for the interim head of the IRS to resign. Also from what I can tell the push for this comes from both sides of the isle.

        Eric Holder should have been fired and prosecuted on the spot he has no business running the DOJ.

        The DOJ took the phone records with out a warrant and that’s why I think they are making a stink over it.

        Yes I do agree we share the same view on things like the fed and such. However I do not believe that the constitution grants the government title to things like the DHS, TSA, the military industrial complex, FDA the department of education etc… The fact is I think that government should be as small as possible and still be able to preform it’s assigned roll. That roll in my view is provide security for the citizens, provide for the common defense, have a set of laws everyone including the government follows and to provide a means for people to settle disputes through adjudication.

      • So, you don’t have a “year long lie” to which to point. There is none and never was; there was ample reason to believe the talking points were true at the time they were given. Um, Clinton??!! Reagan NEVER admitted to his roll in Iran-Contra, and the scope of it was never fully investigated. …and some email gaps and whatever other loaded question marks the Benghazi trolls can try to use as suggestion of massive wrong doing (of which there is no evidence).

        The IRS thing is…well, you don’t seem to have a firm opinion on what the IRS thing actually is.

        You don’t like Eric Holder.

        The DOJ took records legally, with the knowledge of Congress, without a warrant in pursuit of information leaks Congress has requested be investigated. What’s the problem again?

        That’s fine that we come from very different philosophical grounds on the proper role of the Federal Government. How do you think the average person or family or working class community be affected by your vision of the Federal Government?

      • You don’t like Eric Holder.
        Eric holder should be fired and prosecuted for f&f.

        Reagan went on national tv and took responsibility for Iran contra and it seems to me that it was the whole thing not some specific roll.

        The DOJ took records legally, with the knowledge of Congress, without a warrant in pursuit of information leaks Congress has requested be investigated. What’s the problem again?

        It doesn’t matter if congress wants the investigation they still have to have a warrant per the 4th amendment to the constitution. That’s the problem with the ap issue.

        Well I think that a return to small government would see average citizens having better mobility from the lower class moving up to middle and upper class much like Milton Friedman’s view mostly by allowing people to pursuit their own interests free from government interference. I also think that the family unit would prosper a bit better. Mostly because people would have to be personally responsible since the government wouldn’t be involved in things as much. I encourage you to look up Milton Friedman on YouTube he has quite a few videos some are quite long though. I guess fundamentally I don’t believe that more government is the best solution to our problems and from looking at our history it seems to me that the bigger the government gets the worse off the citizens are on the whole. The middle class is shrinking instead of growing and the lower class is growing instead of shrinking. And that seems to me that it’s the middle class now moving backwards to the lower class instead of up into the upper class.

        Edit: I would like to add that I have enjoyed our conversation and I have picked up a good amount of new insights and knowledge through them.

      • I see you assertion about Eric Holder; it’s an opinion and one which would make prosecution of Holder an exception to the rule since other AGs presided over the same program in the past (with similar results)

        Reagan totally glossed over the Iran-Contra affair and never admitted to any role in arms-for-hostages, secret negotiations with a terrorist state, arming Contra rebels (against the law and the specific legislation of Congress) or the trafficking of cocaine received as payment for arms. This was one of the most egregious scandals of the 20th century, and you’re totally missing it…totally.

        The DOJ took records in a process allowed under the Patriot Act and in a similar way to what the Bush II WH did many more times over (and MUCH more invasively). Moreover, Congress knew about the records requests and had no objections until it got scandalized. Now, if you want to argue that we should rescind the Patriot Act, I’m totally in support of that.

        Ah, Milton Friedman and his totally debunked economic theories. So, you’re a libertarian on economic matters, I see. You DO realize that his theories have been the undercurrent of fiscal and tax policy for decades and were part-n-parcel of the system that has led us to unprecedented wealth inequality and stagnation in financial mobility, right? You envision this outcome but offer no mechanism by which it would work.

        There is SOME chance that these policies DO force people to rely more on family, church and community. That’s all well and good for those for whom that works, but, historically, that has left a LOT of people on the “outs”. We had that system once, during the Gilded Age, and it let us down BIG TIME. Please, accept that the Gilded Age happened and that the New Deal saved our society from unregulated corporatism, rampant poverty and suffering.

      • I’ve never seen any of his theories debunked nor Thomas Sowell nor F.A. Hayek or even Adam Smith. Please show me those facts that debunk his theories. And as far as I under stand economics our country runs on Maynard Keynes theory of economics not Friedman’s and has since the 1930’s. It is true that Friedman helped with the tax code, but he said himself that it was a big mistake and his wife hasn’t let him live it down. I also do not believe we have seen true free market capitalism since before the turn of the 20th century. The new deal didn’t save our society from anything. It gave us social welfare which I believe has destroyed the family unit. We have unbridled corporatism and poverty now look at companies like Enron and others of that ilk. And I believe the fed played a size able role in where our country is now.

        More later time for work.

      • “…rescind the Patriot Act, I’m totally in support of that.”
        This is information I found on the ACLU web site circa December 2010.
        “The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals’ financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

        The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of a foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
        The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
        Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge – with no need for evidence or proof – that such a search meets the statute’s broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
        Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person’s First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
        A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
        Why the Patriot Act’s expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
        Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

        Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
        Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
        Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
        Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. “

      • I see you assertion about Eric Holder; it’s an opinion and one which would make prosecution of Holder an exception to the rule since other AGs presided over the same program in the past (with similar results)

        This is sad but true unfortunately. There definitely needs to be more accountability for government officials.

        Reagan totally glossed over the Iran-Contra affair and never admitted to any role in arms-for-hostages, secret negotiations with a terrorist state, arming Contra rebels (against the law and the specific legislation of Congress) or the trafficking of cocaine received as payment for arms. This was one of the most egregious scandals of the 20th century, and you’re totally missing it…totally.

        I don’t condone those things and they were definitely big problems, but they happened 20+ years ago we can’t fix them now. However we can make an attempt to fix the things happening now and we should do what we can in the here and now. If people can admit they are problems that’s the first step towards fixing the problems.

      • The emails contained information that was rather sensitive apart from material germane to the investigation (remember that Benghazi was a secret, CIA outpost). If you don’t buy that, it doesn’t matter: What you’re talking about is just the APPEARANCE of impropriety…no actual wrong doing because there is NOTHING damning in the emails.

        The only real scandal of the bunch would be F&F: an ill-conceived idea every time it was tried (by several prior administrations).

  • Sree

    How about Nobel prize..

  • The fact that things would be worse with a Republican president is obvious and perhaps irrelevant. The whole idea of the two parties validating each other by one being ‘less worse’ is an unfortunate fallacy in our country’s political ideology. I voted for Obama, even after I swore I would never vote again. The whole world hoped for and envisioned change. I must say that I am rather disappointed for a variety of reasons. Our ridiculous levels of military spending remain unchanged, Wall Street remains privileged and corrupt, we still do not have universal health care despite the amount in taxes we spend on institutionalized widespread murder and rewards for the super rich. America refuses to look inward,…or outward in any meaningful way for that matter. Our only relevant industry (war) forms the basis for a most @#$%ed up society and definition humanity. Giant corporations continue to rape the earth and extort the population. Poverty remains unchecked and worsens every year. Why should any of us as Americans be proud of the way things are going. I feel terrified and desperate, …and hopeless. Things are so @#$%ed and getting worse. Any of you still patting yourself on the back for being on one side or the other of the same corrupt, murderous and criminally twisted system should be ashamed of your ignorance, complacency and unforgivable status as just another sheep. I am sick of your bleating.

  • Dixon Diaz

    It would be nice if Obama actually accomplished those things, but he didn’t. 7.9% unemployment? Not if you count all the people who gave up looking. Then it’s 15%. Cut job losses in half? You mean he still lost plenty of jobs, but the rate slowed down because most of the jobs were already gone. The country is in awful shape. He’s done as much good as tits on a bull.

    • You cannot ignore that U5 and U6 unemployment figures (which take into account the discouraged) have also fallen during the same period. I’ll grant, in advance, that the profile of these jobs is not sufficient to raise up the working class.

  • Please. The three scandals haunting Obama’s administration are serious and the “here and now.” Stop glorifying a president who takes no responsibility for the scandals, horrendous foreign affairs and the mess OUR economy’s in! Stop the “what ifs” and start dealing with the Obama reality!

    • Yes, we believe things would be much worse without the Dep’t of Education, a decimated EPA and closed Consumer Protection Agency. We believe that Medicare in block grants is a disaster. We believe that proper regulation is important in maintaining a functional, capitalist economy.

      IRS scandal: a sorting problem where workers responded to a massive flood of 501c4 applications in the best way they thought possible. It is within normal operations that (clearly political) applicants be asked question about the nature of their activities (since they are supposed to be primary a social welfare organization to get 501c4 status…like a Rotary Club or something).

      AP scandal: legal reviews of phone records…no wire tapping. Done.

      Benghazi: a tragedy involving a secret CIA outpost where embassy staff chose to go even though they knew it would be very dangerous and they would be pretty much on their own. Following the attack there was a lot of inter-agency infighting over the narrative that should be advanced (in order to protect the investigation, the CIA operations there, etc.), but zero evidence of a cover up, and certainly nothing that compares to various lies told to the citizenry by prior administrations. The only verifiable scandal involved here is that the Republican had both the real emails and the faked ones but advanced the fake ones as the “proof” of their manufactured scandal.

  • You shudder to think how bad things would be? Really?
    What planet are you on that you wonder about how things could be and not how things are?!? Reality folks! Take responsibility Obama and Obama followers!

  • Joseph Sacramento

    We knew this stuff a along, That’s why we reelected him He will go down in history as one of our greatest president’s Thank you Mr. Obama for a job well done

  • MDP

    I am a democrat but lets face it, it is easy to look wonderful when dad comes home with a new credit card and says lets ease our financial pain with the new credit card… oh and by the way kids, you can pay it off later.

  • me212

    The grammar on these posts os mostly horrible

  • Cleveland Wall

    Imagine if a Republican president had signed the NDAA.

  • Nick

    Tell me again how much Obama has lowered the deficit! he has, hasn’t he? he has overall plans, IE OBAMACARE, that will definitely lower the deficit, doesnt he? I am man enough to admit that bush was bad for America, are you man, or woman enough, to admit that Obama is worse? naw. obama supporters are afraid to criticize their Obamagod because they have called so many critics “Racist” that they fear it themselves!

  • Nick

    Amazes me that some people think that if it is in print, it is true. I find more facts in a Fortune cookie. I hear more truth in a Fairy tale! Check your statistics and then try to print the truth! It can be done!

  • dddavid

    If a Republican had those accomplishments they’d be trying to add him to Mount Rushmore!

  • Debbie Gross

    President Obama has truly done so much for this country. I am just amazed that there are still people who can’t see that Republicans have spent many years focused not on…the country they serve…but on “getting Obama”.

  • Daniel Lovejoy

    The Republicans have done nothing but obstruct progress for Americans while trying to give Corporations the reins to the country. They have violated every oath of office they have just because they lost the big seat and couldn’t finish the job.
    There has to be a way, besides voting them out of office, to hold them accountable for dereliction of duty. The fiscal conservatives are spending other peoples money to embarrass Obama. They continue to be hypocrites about family values, sanctity of life, and every other talking point they use to prove their superiority over everyone that isn’t conservative.

  • james p. gleepolestenker

    wow, what a discussion thread we have here. Face it, I am sure that McCain is privately pissed that he opened the national door to Palin and her big mouth lost him the Presidency. As for Romney, I really think he didnt realize how much scrutiny he would be under when he stepped into the political spotlight. It was almost like the Republicans drew his name from the hat and said ‘lets try this one, he’s got money, lets go spend it for him’

  • Tom from Maine

    Wait a minute … I constantly hear liberals tell the blatant lie that back in the day – you know, when Democrats were blatantly obstructing any Republican efforts at civil rights legislation – that the Republicans were the liberal party then!! Yet, when it’s convenient for you, we were the stupid pro-business conservatives who got this country into the Great Depression … right. FDR vetoed an anti-lynching bill, appointed a KKK member to SCOTUS and put thousands of Japanese Americans into internment camps. Tell me, was he a liberal or a conservative? Get over yourselves, admit your mistakes and move forward; stop trying to take credit for the GOP’s history on civil rights, citing them as “liberals,” when anyone with half a brain can see that they weren’t at all.
    You’re on the right side of the gay rights debate, and the GOP is on the wrong one. I’ll have to live with that. But you guys f*cked up on race for over a century and then tried to transfer those sins onto the GOP by claiming that you were “conservatives” back then. Lame, pathetic and a blatant lie.

  • Josh

    Unemployment dropped from 10% to 7.6%?

    “Unemployment” figures only apply to those currently receiving unemployment checks. The figure does not include those who have been out of work so long they no longer qualify for benefits, those who never qualified for benefits, new graduates of high school and colleges who have not been able to find employment since 200, etc.

    Research into “Real Unemployment Rate” shows the level is calculated to be anywhere from 14 to 23 percent with the real rate rising from July into August.

  • Josh

    Helped aid in the liberation of Libya and the death of dictator Muammar Gaddafi?

    Muammar Gaddafi transformed Libya from the poorest country in
    the world to the most prosperous country of Africa, more prosperous than
    Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

    “Multiparty democracy is a sham promoted by governments that
    treat their people like donkeys and deny them real power. We have seen
    the world shaken by the multiparty systems. What on earth do we need
    with the alternation of power when power is in the hands of the masses?

    The world is fed up with parties and elections. Even the
    Western intelligentsia feels disgusted with the party system and the
    farce of elections. They acknowledge the fact that what is going on is
    not democracy but falsification.The world is going to eventually embrace
    the people’s authority, sweeping away all those old systems.

    We will never abandon the State of the Masses. There will be no going back on the people’s authority.” – Muammar Gaddafi, 2007.

    Below are sixteen of the numerous benefits Gaddafi brought to
    Libya, which things the Libyan people will never see again:

    1. There was no electricity bill in Libya; electricity was free for all its citizens.

    2. There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya were
    state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest
    by law.

    3. Having a home was considered a human right in Libya.

    4. All newlyweds in Libya received $60,000 dinar (U.S.$50,000)
    by the government to buy their first apartment to help start up the
    family.

    5. Education and medical treatments were free in Libya. Before
    Muammar Gaddafi only 25 percent of Libyans were literate. Today, the
    figure is 83 percent.

    6. Should Libyans want to take up farming, they would receive
    farm land, a farm house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kickstart
    their farms all for free.

    7. If Libyans could not find the education or medical facilities
    they need, the government would fund them to go abroad. It was not only paid for, but they get U.S.$2,300/month for accommodation and car
    allowance.

    8. If a Libyan bought a car, the government subsidized 50 percent of the price.

    9. The price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per liter.

    10. Libya had no external debt and its reserves amounting to $150 billion are now frozen globally.

    11. If a Libyan was unable to get employment after graduation
    the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or
    she were employed, until employment was found.

    12. A portion of every Libyan oil sale (national oil fields) was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

    13. A mother who gave birth to a child received U.S.$5,000.

    14. Food was subsidised: 40 loaves of bread in Libya cost $0.15.

    15. 25 percent of Libyans have a university degree.

    16. Muammar Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation
    project, known as the Great Manmade River project, to make water
    readily available throughout the desert.

  • If either McCain or Romney had won, there is a better than even chance the US would be at war with both Syria and Iran right now.

  • Warranty Man

    BOOM

  • Tobey

    Suppose if a Republican did all those things Obama did…obviously he/she would do it in a different way. Then Republicans would be the cheering party and the Democrats would be the booing party….you had your 8 years of booing under Bush. now it’s our turn. OH! but i guess we can’t because he’s black…right?