It annoys me that dems sit back and don't defend their record on the economy

[GusFring]

All of the "Obama is destroying America crap, " how? By completely turning around the economy and providing health care to those who need it? Why don't dems brag about their handling of the economy more?

[RKP5637]

1. Democrats are horrible at crafting messages to brag about their outstanding records.

I just don't get it. The messaging from democrats is consistently deplorable. All the average guy/gal hears is how horrible the democrats are, and there is little defense of their records by the democrats.

I was on a website recently, for example, where the people seem rather moderate, it's a non-political website, but they started blaming Obama for Net Neutrality, how horrible it was, and that he did it to spy on everyone in the country, that the government is taking over the internet for propaganda and spying on everyone.

None of them seemed to have the foggiest idea what Net Neutrality is, but to blame Obama for the horrors he was bringing to the internet.

[Rex]

2. It is not that they don't. They are a small voice in mass media. Republicans control the flow

of information in this country. That is one reason they hate bloggers so much, can't put a filter on the internet. Dems try and do make some noise, but it is only carried by a small number of stations. Foxnews and CNN, on the other hand, are all over the planet. And they ALWAYS portray Dems as at fault for everything that goes on that responsible people should take care of. Funny, they let the GOP act out as the clowns that they are - without a single question of fault toward them.

We are to expect the GOP to be a bunch of dangerous idiots, we expect Dems to be at a higher standard (even though it doesn't matter and they slam Dems regardless). We need more exposure in the mainstream media for Dem messages to hit home.

Goodluck convincing Comcast or Murdoch to carry more liberal news casters that will request Democratic representatives and show them in at least a neutral light. Foxnews is the worst as everyone knows here. They should be called Anti-Obama News Network. Sunday morning lineups of political shows are almost always majority GOP. Half the commentators don't even ask critical questions they should be asking.

If news was forced to be fair and balanced, the GOP would lose millions and millions of voters and they know it.

[tavernier]

11. I agree 100%

It's not who makes the news, it's who tells it.

[Bigmack]

53. I'd like to agree.... But...

Lots of people don't get their news from Faux. Lots of people get their news from their local paper... from the RW web... from viral emails.

The Dems have nothing like the (excuse the expression) grassroots effort to sway people.

Where's our viral emails? If Dems blasted those things out by the thousands, we could at least compete. Dems have the advantage of facts... we don't have to make shit up the way they do.

Ever reply to local newspaper letters-to-the-editor boards? The RWNJs own those boards. If they are not paid astroturf assholes, I don't know who is. Dems, "libs", "socialists", and sane people are outnumbered 20 to 1. Where are our astroturf writers?

Dems need an organized message to get their message out.... and not just to conventional media.

I see no sign of that.

[lastone]

3. it's a constant source of frustration for me as well

Minnesota, dem gov, raised taxes on high incomes and raised the minimum wage - what does that equal? Low unemployment, higher medium income and a large surplus.

Seatac WA, raised minimum wage and has seen one of the, if not the fastest turnarounds in the economy in 20 years.

California.

Why aren't these success stories front page news? Why do we have to go 'overseas' for real news?

[appalachiablue]

55. Same. Never heard of MN Gov.'s good works until yesterday which is outrageous. Why aren't

Dems. more vocal about actions and successes from the states and from Obama, knowing well that the RW Media has a 20-1 advantage. So speak up louder, like FL Alan Grayson on the House floor about Health Care. That Dems. have never been organized is a tired, old excuse. Good news elevates moral.

'I don't belong to any organized political party, I am a Democrat' ~ Will Rogers (1879-1935)
American humorist, social commentator, cowboy, vaudeville performer.

[chillfactor]

4. seems I remember Harry Reid...

putting the Turtle in his place...

[progree]

5. I try

vv----vv----Please see my sigline

[MFrohike]

6. The record isn't that good

If you look beyond the headline numbers quoted in TV news, it's far from sunshine and rainbows. The unemployment numbers are deceptive (as has been noted for decades now), housing markets are busy pricing the non-wealthy out of them, income inequality has dramatically worsened since 2008, student loan debt is astronomical (which bleeds off money that could be directed toward actual businesses), and the financial sector is more consolidated and interconnected than before 2008. The GOP really won't highlight all of that, because their "solutions" are far worse, but it's not a strong record to defend. The administration pinned its hopes on monetary policy and austerity-lite budgets in the hopes of bringing back the confidence fairy. The only thing that's really kept it all going is the old stabilizers like food stamps and unemployment insurance. Those have worked amazingly well, unlike most of the policies of the last 40 years.

[uponit7771]

7. Every economist that isn't a hack says the opposite, this dip was larger than the LAST FOUR combined

...and people are drudging up pre recessions numbers to justify a position that doesn't even halfway make sense.

Under Obama the middle class is doing better

relative to

The horrible REPUBLICAN GREAT RECESSION...

What FAUX news and the right has done is to convince the left that the Republican Great Recession was but a scratch

[TheKentuckian]

9. and that is why we fail. Have you already forgotten that the economy sucked ass before the crash out

and we were making hay running against what you think doesn't "halfway make sense" to compare to.

Maybe you and yours were doing well but a great many of us were praying for some relief in this new golden age you say we can't be thinking about now.
Hell yes, it is a tough marketing effort to simultaneously sell the economy has recovered so we don't have to do anything to help struggling Americans but temper expectations to the point that a horrible economy is way too much to be expecting.

The TeaPubliKlans sell a lot of bullshit and nonsense so maybe they are better practiced but I think the message is a tough one even for the masters of bullshit much more so with less than stellar salesmanship more common on our end.

[MFrohike]

13. Is that a fact?

Perhaps you should check with guys like Dean Baker, Bill Black, and Joseph Stiglitz. They're not hacks by anybody's standard, except the Austrians. You might find a different perspective.

The middle class has lost ground relative to its pre-crash position. The massive loss of wealth due to the collapse of the bubble and the resulting foreclosures did quite a number on middle class wealth. Adding to the problem, 93% of the income gains from 2009-2012 went to the top 1% of earners. No, that 93% number is not a typo.

When you look at the massive drop in labor force participation, the massive loss of wealth via housing, the millions of jobs lost and replaced by retail wages, AND the federal government's downsizing of its own workforce in the middle of a depression (in the same way as the Long Depression), then I have to wonder how anyone who isn't ignorant or high on Kool-Aid can maintain things are better. Sure, we're not at the bottom anymore, but, hell, even a dead cat will bounce if you drop it from high enough.

P.S. New business formations have been negative since 2008. That means more businesses close than open. It'd been on a downward trajectory for the last 2-3 decades, not a coincidence given the policies enacted, but for it to be negative is a bright red, flashing sign. It's NEVER been negative since we've been recording economic stats.

[sendero]

12. There are lots of folks...

... who buy into the "recovery" claims that we hear non stop from our oh so truthful government and media but anyone remotely familiar with what is actually happening knows it is all lies.

The FACT is that when you send most of your productive activity (manufacturing) overseas, and then attempt to outsource or insource (H-1B) your primary productive industries (technology) you wind up with a service economy where most of the jobs are low pay flipping burgers or walking dogs.

The economy has been essentially flat since 2008. And if it can remain so that will actually be good news. You'll know that things are actually improving (if they ever really do) when the Fed stops its toxic Zero Interest Rate Policy. Zero interest rates are the economic equivalent to IV blood to a very sick patient.

[MFrohike]

14. That's part of it

The biggest failures to my mind are the timidity of fiscal stimulus (I don't just mean that $800B in 2009, I mean the downsizing of the federal workforce), the devotion to long-discredited fiscal conservatism (austerity-lite), the failure to ruthlessly cut down the FIRE sector to a proportion that makes sense, and the desperate reliance on failed monetary policy (the Fed's policy is essentially Japan's in the mid 90s). Taking on these things are the whole purpose of the federal government. If it doesn't, then it's working at cross-purposes to its people. Americans can make our economy work as we've shown for centuries. We as a people don't need the government to do it for us. What we do need is the federal government not to be actively or inactively working against us by not doing its damn job.

[sendero]

15. I agree....

... with everything you say but would of course add that the Fed (Federal Reserve) is a privately owned and operated institution that does not take orders from the Federal Government or any other public entity.

[MFrohike]

16. That's not true

It's an independent agency of the federal government. The fact that banks are shareholders doesn't mean it's private. It was created by Congress, is regulated by Congress, and its policymaking positions are political appointees. The problem with the Fed is not that it's a private entity, it's that Congress and the executive (not just this one, almost all of them since it was founded) have bought into the absurd notion that monetary policy is somehow so difficult that only specialists can understand it. When I reflect on the fact that the Grangers, a collection of semi-educated farmers who'd form the base of the Populist Party, had a full working knowledge of monetary policy that was quite thorough in its day, I have to laugh. If a bunch of guys who had work all day for a living had the time to learn and understand monetary policy, I'm absolutely stumped as to why people today can't do the same damn thing.

[sendero]

22. From Wikipedia..

.... "According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve System "is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

[MFrohike]

23. None of which contradicts what I said

It's an independent federal agency. Independent agencies aren't answerable to the executive like a cabinet department. While it doesn't receive funding via the appropriation process, its profits go to Treasury, as mandated by law. That alone is a clear sign that it's not a private entity.

That being said, the executive could choose to lean on the central bank, as Nixon did to Arthur Burns, to get it carry out more accommodating monetary policy. Congress could place the Fed under Treasury and make its head answerable to the Secretary. The Fed is independent because Congress and the executive allow it to be independent. Its genesis is in federal law, not the constitution. As Congress makes the law and the executive has veto power over it, they control the Fed. The issue is their abdication of their responsibility, not whether they have the power.

To use an example I don't like, consider the Pauls' campaign to audit the Fed. There's a lot of debate about whether it's a good idea (it is, but not how they want to do it), but there is no debate whatsoever that Congress has the power to do it. If Congress has the power to audit the books of the Federal Reserve at its whim, the claim of the Fed being a private bank falls apart. No court order, no subpoena, no legal justification is necessary for Congress to do this to the central bank. All that is required is a majority of those present and voting and signature, or a non-pocket veto.

[eridani]

8. Not possible without drawing attention to the fact that die the 99%, it isn't doing better

Reduced unemployment has only meant that shitty jobs have replaced living wage jobs. Family income has been decreasing yearly ever since 2000, and both recoveries since then have been jobless--i.e., no increase in net jobs compared to before the recessions.

[B Calm]

10. Democrats historically have always been better with the economy. I blame the ignorant voter for

not doing their homework before voting.

[Liberal_in_LA]

17. me too. i dont understand why they didnt run ads contrasting jobs lost under bush

Compared to jobs gained under Obama during 2014 campaign

[progree]

24. We so much more enjoy shooting ourselves in the foot. Great lead-up to 2016

We'll run on how shitty the economy is and say its the Republicans fault and so give us Dems another chance.

(Just like we did to the 2014 midterms, with predictable results)

We'll flagellate our f'ing selves to death comparing today's economy to the high-fever hyper-inflated sick unsustainable bubble economy of 2007 when people were using their houses as ATMs to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Anybody could get a mortgage, virtually no questions asked. The belief that housing prices never go down, at least not on a national average scale (thus the theory that a geographically diversified bundle of mortgages was always a safe bet).

We won't dream of comparing the current economy to what it was that got handed to us in January 2009. No, not us Dems. Instead, we'll make a great case for why its time to change the party at the helm.

[former9thward]

25. The economy is terrible.

They give out good figures and then revise them downward when nobody is looking.

4th-Quarter Growth Revised to 2.2%, Less Than Initial Estimate

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/business/economy/us-q4-gross-domestic-product-revision.html?_r=0

[progree]

27. I've seen plenty of upward revisions to the numbers too.

[progree]

28. For example 2014 Q3 GDP growth: initial reading: 3.5%, 1st revision: 3.9%, 2nd revision: 5.0%

All when nobody was looking

[former9thward]

29. The rate in 2014 was 2.15 which is terrible.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/263614/gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth-rate-in-the-united-states/

Spin away.

[progree]

31. It is real GDP growth so its adjusted for inflation. And it exceeds population growth which is

something like 0.7% or so. So it is an increase in real per-capita GDP by about 1.5%. Not great but a lot better than what Bush handed us.

[former9thward]

35. Bush is always the standard when there is bad numbers.

As if the average American cares about that partisan BS. News flash, they don't.

[progree]

38. News flash - they do. I've talked to many RW'ers who admit that Obama got

handed a shitty economy.

[former9thward]

46. So?

Now RW'ers are the standard?

[progree]

48. Most Left-wingers I've been in contact with realize the difference between the Bush crash

and the Obama recovery.

[former9thward]

49. I am in contact with liberals

not "left-wingers" so much -- whatever that term means. Th recovery has been poor except for Wall Street.

[progree]

51. Uhh, for you, Bush seems to be the standard when he has good numbers

[font color = blue]>>Bush is always the standard when there is bad numbers. As if the average American cares about that partisan BS. News flash, they don't.<<[/font]

Uhh. The economy is the number one issue for Americans, at least from the polls I've heard/read. In 2016 people are going to choose between a Republican and a Democrat for president. Do you really think they are oblivious to the stated economic policies and performance of the two parties, or at least have an opinion on it?

And interestingly, your comparison in that personal income graph is the Obama years vs. the Bush years. So for you, Bush is the standard for the "good" years. But you run away from his record when I point out the unsustainability of that bubble economy and the subsequent crash. Can't have it both ways.

[former9thward]

54. I have posted probaby a hundred times or more

that I do not believe a President has much to do with the overall economy. It is extreme partisanship to give all the credit to a president when there are good numbers or all the blame to a president when there are bad numbers. Our economy is tied into the world and that is what affects it the most. Neither Rs or Ds have ANY plan to deal with the increasingly low paying service jobs of our economy.

[elleng]

34. The numbers are ALWAYS revised downward.

Many things about the economy have improved over the past 6 years, tho because repugs refuse to increase the minimum wage, things for many in the 99% have not appreciably improved.

[progree]

36. NO THEY ARE NOT! See #28.

[progree]

39. #28 dealt with 2014 Q3. Here's 2014 Q2: 4.0%, then 4.2%, then 4.6%

In all honesty, here is 2014 Q1: +0.1%, then -1.0%, then -2.9%

[progree]

26. When some winger dinger talks about how wages were higher when Bush was prez

I show them this:



(from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008 )

====================================================================

And when they say, "but but, prices keep going up and wages aren't keeping up with inflation" I show them this, which is inflation-adjusted:



(from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032 )

(The above graphs begin at January 2000. Bush took office January 2001, Obama took office January 2009)

[former9thward]

30. Maye you should show them this.

People know they are not doing well in this economy. They can't be BSed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

[progree]

32. Yup the tech bubble followed by the housing bubble. Not very sustainable. How about

2012, 2013, and 2014?

And why are you so intent on making the Republican's case?

[former9thward]

33. I believe in presenting facts.

Others believe in presenting partisan propaganda. What do you do?

[progree]

37. Sounds like a lot of opinion. A 2.15% real GDP growth rate is "terrible"

Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 03:16 AM - Edit history (1)

even though it represents real per-capita GDP growth of nearly 1.5%. (Admittedly disappointing compared to most recoveries). [font color = red]On edit, a minor update: according to http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm , "Real GDP increased 2.4 percent in 2014" (not 2.15%) with one more revision to Q4 2014 to be made [/font]

What about 2012, 2013, 2014 on that personal income thing? And that graph in Wikipedia says its the author's personal work -- so how do you know its not a lot of manipulated BS?

And when you write this in #25 about the GDP growth rates: [font color = blue]"They give out good figures and then revise them downward when nobody is looking."[/font].

That is just Jack Welch bullshit, partisan propaganda. The GDP revision dates are given well in advance. There are always 2 revisions about a month apart. From what I've seen the revisions get as much attention in the media as the initial one. They are certainly no secret. I keep track of the scheduled release of economic numbers and their revisions at http://biz.yahoo.com/c/e.html

So no, you don't believe in presenting just facts.

[kelliekat44]

40. Nor do they defend their President. nt

[truebluegreen]

41. The rich are certainly doing well.

The poor and the middle class not so much, despite recent gains in job growth and wages. So the Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place: the rich won't credit them, and the rest of us are still not making much progress...so it would all sound like a lie.

[progree]

42. Well, in 57 months there are 10.2 million more jobs ...

Contrast that to Bush's net 1.3 million job creation during his entire 8 years. More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post1.

And as far as wages and salaries -- the below is the INFLATION-ADJUSTED earnings of non-supervisory and production employees (in 1982-84 dollars). These are not business owners (they are employees working for someone else), these are not CEOs or any other types of executives or anyone that has even one person reporting to them (that's what non-supervisory means). So we're not talking about the economic glitteratti here...



from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032

Higher than under Clinton ... higher than under Bush ...

And I don't know of a single developed economy that is doing better -- Japan is swinging back and forth in and out of recession, Europe is barely above water growth-wise.

Most of what you see making Obama look like a miserable failure is a comparison to some select statistics from the peak housing bubble year of around 2007 -- a very sick high-fever unsustainable economy. And then when you point that out and debunk other issues, and point out that it all crashed under Bush, they say oh, that was so long ago, G.W. Bush isn't running, blah blah. Well, I say, then stop comparing to Bush era bubble stats then.

[truebluegreen]

43. I get that. We all get that.

Many jobs have been created, after many, many jobs were lost. I think we are barely back to no. of jobs that existed before the housing crash and we have a long way to go to address population growth during that period. Problem is, the new jobs are not as good as the old jobs. Problem is, the unemployment rate doesn't adequately reflect actual unemployment what with underemployment and people out of the workforce. Problem is, all the gains from the recovery went to the rich. In fact, 90% of the gains since 1980 have gone to the rich. And people know it, in their gut even if they can't cite the statistics.

The deck is stacked. Obama and the Democrats were elected enthusiastically in 2008 to change the status quo and what they did instead was defend it.

[progree]

44. True, we're not fully recovered. Obama is not Merlin The Magician. He's just a hell of a lot

better than Bush, at least judging from economic performance during their respective administrations.

Don't forget to take boomer retirements into account when talking about people out of the workforce.

Don't forget that the economy before the housing crash was sick, feverish, and unsustainable. So pining and sighing about those good ol' days just before the housing crash is just plain silly.

[font color = blue]>>"Problem is, the new jobs are not as good as the old jobs."<<[/font]

So why are wages and salaries higher, even after adjusting for inflation? See graph in #42.

[font color = blue]>>Problem is, all the gains from the recovery went to the rich.<<[/font]

See graph #42 - again, these are not business owners, not CEOs or executives or anyone that has even one person reporting to them.

[font color = blue]>>The deck is stacked. Obama and the Democrats were elected enthusiastically in 2008 to change the status quo and what they did instead was defend it.<<[/font]

Ludicrous bullshit. It was quite a large stimulus package that was passed when Dems had control of Congress (only a few months with a filibuster-proof Senate majority BTW). Since then, the RepubliCONS have blocked just about everything Obama has tried to do economically (he did manage to raise taxes on the top 2% though).

[font color = blue]>>And people know it, in their gut even if they can't cite the statistics. <<[/font]

I do know, both in my gut, and for a fact that I'm a hell of a lot better off than in January 2009 when Obama took office. I don't know many people who aren't.

Keep making the Republicans talking points on the economy though, and 2016 will be just like 2010, 2012, and 2014. (As for 2012, supposedly a good year, we kept the presidency, true, but lost ground in both the House and the Senate, and in state legislatures and governorships). And a big part of the reason was that some ignorant people on the left kept pissing on Obama for not cleaning up after Bush's mess fast enough, and circulated dubious Internet B.S. and memes.

[truebluegreen]

45. If you want to have a conversation,

don't put words in my mouth. "...pining and sighing about those good ol' days just before the housing crash is just plain silly."

The only good ol' days I'm pining for were pre-Reagan. And it's ludicrous bullshit not to realize that we didn't just go off the rails with Bush the Lesser, nor did we get back on track with Obama. Our economic difficulties started decades ago, and only became too big to ignore under Bush.

If you are not aware of that, and it seems you are not, I pity you and the party you want to shape.

[progree]

47. And if you want to have a conversation, don't make dumb statements about what I'm not aware of

I'm fully aware of the economy pre-Obama and pre-Bush. By the way, I don't remember the economy before Reagan being so paradaisical -- perhaps you don't remember stagflation and 18% interest rates and 13% inflation.

[truebluegreen]

50. I remember the 70s very well.

Not a good time, but recoverable...until we decided to divorce ourselves from reality and apply some bright, shiny New Ideas. We've been busily shoveling all our wealth into the pockets of the rich for more than 30 years, hoping that that would improve our lives...and surprise! it hasn't worked. Obama and the Democrats, for all the good they have done, did nothing to reverse that trend (seriously? "managed to raise taxes on the top 2%"? Taxes would have gone up a lot more if they had done nothing).

Have fun in your bubble. I'm done here.

[progree]

52. Yes, he raised taxes on the top 2% and kept the Bush tax cuts for the lower 98%

Pre-Obama, the top tax rate was 35%. Obama raised the top tax rate to 39.6% (by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the upper bracket).

And on earned income, there's a 0.9% Medicare surcharge on the top 2 brackets, bringing the total top marginal rate to 39.6 + 0.9 = 40.5% (it was 35% under Bush)

On unearned income (other than long term capital gains), there's a 3.8% Net Investment Income (NII) on the top 2 brackets, bringing the total top marginal rate to 39.6 + 3.8 = 43.4% (again it was 35% under Bush)

On long term capital gains, the top bracket is 20% + the 3.8% NII tax bringing it to a total of 23.8% (it was 15% under Bush)

The Medicare and the NII taxes were part of the 2010 ACA legislation.

(Other conditions apply on when and how the NII tax is imposed, so the above is somewhat simplified)

==========================

[font color = blue]>>Taxes would have gone up a lot more if they had done nothing<<[/font]

Yes, they would have gone up on the bottom 98% if he had done nothing. So I'm glad he didn't allow that to happen. How 'bout you?

Quite a spin on the 1970's economy. Speaking of having fun in your bubble, wow.

[truebluegreen]

56. You can use the google! Congratulations. I am very impressed.

The part you left out, of course, was that the fiscal cliff deal raised taxes on individuals above $400,000 per year, and couples over $450,000. That's not exactly only the middle class, is it?

But your concern is noted, for those poor downtrodden wealthy folks.

[progree]

57. Huh? The fiscal cliff deal raised taxes on the top 1%, and kept the Bush tax cuts for the lower 99%

[font color = blue]>>The part you left out, of course, was that the fiscal cliff deal raised taxes on individuals above $400,000 per year, and couples over $450,000. That's not exactly only the middle class, is it? <<[/font]

No, >400 K$, >450 K$ is not exactly the middle class. The top 1% begins at about 400 or 450 K$. I consider that wealthy, and not at all middle class.

Raising taxes on the top 1% is just what progressive president is supposed to do. And which I whole-heartedly applaud (except I wish taxes on the top 1% would have been raised quite a bit more -- and way way up on those making more than $1 million).

[font color = blue]>>But your concern is noted, for those poor downtrodden wealthy folks.<<[/font]

Where, in anything that I have written, did I indicate that raising taxes on the top 1% (or top 2%) was bad? I mentioned that in #44 as something progressive that Obama managed to do, even when the House was Republican and the Senate was far short of a filibuster-proof Dem majority. I meant that in an approving, positive way.

And no, it isn't [font color = blue]"the part you left out"[/font]. I clearly stated in #52 the part where the fiscal cliff deal raised taxes on the top 1%:

[font color = brown]>>Pre-Obama, the top tax rate was 35%. Obama raised the top tax rate to 39.6% (by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the upper bracket

... On long term capital gains, the top bracket is 20% + the 3.8% NII tax bringing it to a total of 23.8% (it was 15% under Bush) << [/font]

(in the last line above, raising the capital gains on the top bracket folks to 20%, from 15%, was part of the fiscal cliff deal. The NII tax surcharge came from the 2010 ACA legislation)

[font color = blue]>>You can use the google! Congratulations. I am very impressed.<<[/font]

I learned about the ACA tax increases and the fiscal cliff deal tax increases from reading news articles (and a book in the case of the ACA, which is too complex to pack into one or a few news articles). And yes, I did "use the google" to check on some things. Thank you. There are plenty of DUers who just repeat memes they hear as fact rather than checking out their validity, and I which they would learn to "use the google" too.

[NCTraveler]

58. Two schools of thought.

1) Limited regulation capitalism is evil on its own. It leaves people out, often leaving them to die slowly or live in squalor. Unless it is transformed it is not to be talked about in any form of positivity.

2) Obama, supporting the bail out and other minor incentives, steered the economy back in the right direction. He gets the credit for it.

It is very hard for people, myself included, to give the President credit while he has presided over the strangling of the middle class, a boom for the top 1%, and very limited changes to the way our government does business.