Occupy Wall Street is a DNC ruse to divert attention away from Obama's Failed Presidency Other Topics, posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 7:30 am
The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama's America looks like.
It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule.
It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.
It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves.
It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and of murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society.
It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: of defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene.
It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been always rejected.
It is an America where our founding documents have been now shredded and, with them, every person's guaranteed liberties.
It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and all other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor.
It is the America that Obama and the Democrat Party have now created with all the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood, unions, universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities.
Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in three years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America.
"Socialism, in general, has a record of failure that's so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are out numbered by the people that vote for a living!
Posted by RJ Reed, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 11:59 am
Fringe right talking points without substantiation. Let's look at some facts about where we are today versus a few short years ago.
In 2001, America had created 23 million jobs in the prior 8 years.
America had a budget surplus.
Read that again.
America had a budget surplus.
America had a budget SURPLUS and had CREATED 23 MILLION JOBS.
In the following 8 years, under Bush, not Obama, America ran it's first trillion dollar deficit. Two endless wars, tax cuts favoring the ultra wealthy and unpaid entitlement programs such as Medicare Part D were the primary culprits. Fiscal irresponsibility of the highest order by the republicans in taking a budget surplus to a trillion dollar deficit.
Bush's last years, he left us with the worst economy since the Great Depression. Job losses of half a million or more per month. No job creation, just massive job losses. TARP. Think of September, 2008 when John McCain told us the economy and Wall Street were fine. His people called Americans "whiners" and it was just a mental recession.
Ever wonder why the 8 GOP candidates never mention Bush in all their blathering?
President Obama took the GOP disaster and has led America forward, although with GOP intransigence, much slower than all of us would like.
Wall Street reform. Health reform that keeps kids covered, that keeps insurance companies from cutting sick folk off their paid for benefits. Saved millions of manufacturing jobs in the auto industry. Supports GOP ideas like cap and trade (McCain/Palin ran on it in 2008!), personal responsibility such as Newt and Mitt supported mandates, and other policies in a bipartisan fashion. But the GOP abandons their own ideas once he agrees to compromise. The GOP won the House in 2010 and promised JOBS JOBS JOBS. Nary a Jobs Bill in sight, but they voted on abortion 7 times. They vote on an existing national motto. That sure saved us, didn't it?
But no help on jobs.
We have much, much more work to dig out of this Second Great Republican Depression.
We have gone from continuous months of half million job losses to 23 months of private sector job growth.
Job growth of 200,000 per month versus Bush's astounding job loss record.
Much more to go.
Americans generally pay lower taxes now than ever before, especially the wealthiest Americans. As has been asked on other thread: when was the last time the ultra rich paid significantly lower taxes?
Mitt paid 13% of his $42 million income. Again: when was the last time the ultra rich paid significantly lower taxes than they do now?
I do not support Occupy. To link President Obama to communists and black panthers is a pathetic Fox fantasy.
Nor do I support giving the car keys back to the political hacks that drove our economy into a ditch.
Republicans almost killed the economy and the middle class a few short years ago.
They have done and said NOTHING to "earn" the chance to destroy our country any further.
So hide from facts and scare folks with the story of two jerks in Philly 3 years ago resurrecting the panthers.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Dear Mr. Reed,
George Bush is not running for office.
John McCain is not Running for office.
Obama is running for office.
Stay focused. Bush and McCain are irrelevant in the 2012 Presidential race.
This is about Obama's failure to lead.
This is about Obama's 5 Trillion dollar deficit.
This is about Obama using Occupy Wall Street as a diversion from his miserable record, his plundering of the economy, his incompetency, his embracement of socialism, and the fact he makes the previous worst president of the United States, Jimmy Carter, look good by comparison.
Posted by RJ Reed, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Please stay focused.
Bush and McCain are relevant, because the current GOP candidates will do exactly what Bush did. And the GOP nominee will get spanked much the way McCain did.
Please stay focused.
The economy IS getting better, even some of the GOP candidates are caught on tape admitting it.
Please stay focused.
We have had 23 months of private sector job growth, following a republican led decimation of our economy that culminated in 524,000 jobs LOST per month in December of 2008; 2.6 million jobs LOST for the year.
Posted by Lawrence F., a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 4:37 pm
poster "critic" just pasted an old hate email fraudulently attributed to Thomas Sowell - see Snopes. Added a bunch of invective, much baseless, about Occupy, but the rest is the old email.
One notes he can't accept the incredible change in the jobs outlook - 2008 losses of millions to today's positive numbers. So attack, fear, lie.
One also suspects that Mr. "critic" can't tell us the differences between Bush policies and the plans of the current Republicans running for president. I don't see much difference either, I'm afraid. Scary. Certainly the greater of two evils is going back to 2008. We can't have that.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Did I say 5 Trillion dollar deficit. My mistake. It is 5.76 Trillion dollar deficit in 4 years. Obama has bankrupted future generations whose standard of living won't be nearly as good as their parent's due to Obama's failed socialist experiment.
Obama will pick up California because effete intelluctuals with slop for brains will vote for him. But Obama will be turned out after one term. It's a matter of our country's survival.
Sorry progressives. It is too late for Obama and your failed utopian socialism.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 6:26 pm
In a bit of Democratic comeuppance for dinging Mitt Romney for how little he pays in taxes. And wouldn't you know, John Kerry had a (slightly) lower tax rate than Romney does. In 2003, a year before running for president, Kerry's tax rate was 13.1 percent, versus Romney's at 13.9 percent in 2010.
Also, the Internal Revenue Service filed a tax lien seeking more than $800,000 from Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, escalating a dispute over payroll taxes that the lawmaker’s office blames on faulty government paperwork. Ha Ha
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 8:52 pm
It was Admiral McRaven's op that got Bin Laden. Obama had the good sense not to stand in his way-- unlike Bill Clinton who balked at least twice when Bin Laden was within our sites. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued against one op saying "Muslims will hate us" as the rationale for the president to abort.
Hillary had the guts to recommend a green light. Goes to show that when push comes to shove Hillary is far more competent than her husband and Obama. If the Democrats don't want to lose in November the best nominate Hillary and send Obama to the showers. She is the only Democrat who can beat the Republicans.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2012 at 9:32 am
Occupy Critic: "She is the only Democrat who can beat the Republicans."
The polls show there isn't a republican that can beat Obama right now - that is, a republican actually running. Even Rasmussen shows it (the Fox pollster - Obama up in FL, a red Rubio state. GOP can't possibly win without Florida.) The republican A Team (Christie, Bush, Daniels, etc..) were too scared by Obama's numbers to actually step in this year and are waiting until 2016. A bunch of chicken(poop) whining losers who were too afraid of being labeled a perennial loser before 2016, a loser label like that of Romney and Santorum.
So you have the minor league team of candidates: Romney (a moderate running for 7 years, spending untold millions of Mormon money and still can't get GOP love) Newt (in an open marriage) and Santorum (look it up.)
The President or Hilary can beat any of them. And is. without an economic freefall this summer (ie.. Europe blowing up) this is over. Romney can't beat Obama because people dislike Mitt the more they hear and Santorum's surge is temporary - it'll turn flaccid after a few minutes.
Bin Ladin? Bush had eight years, and gave up less than a year after 9/11. Want a link to the video of him saying "I honestly don't care about the guy"?
Obama made the promise and kept it.
Why aren't you American enough to honor that?
Tax rates and deficit are important to you? Sounds like you are VERY upset with Kerry getting away with lower taxes than you, Occupy Critic?
The new budget unveiled today shaves $4 trillion off the deficit that Bush created. Calls for fair participation by the wealthiest of us Americans who have done so well the last decade.
I'm sure you're for it.
So Occupy Critic, are you going to change the subject again and bring up some more Sean/Rush/Fox drivel? You still have a long list from Fox: birth certificate, Obama's report card, Biden misspeaks, teleprompters, Catholic bishops, Planned Parenthood, abortion, guns, etc...
Posted by bob, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Occupy critic that protest is doa anyway and it is so screwed up I don't see how you can give anyone credit for organizing it. If you think Obama is responsible for the financial crisis then you have no understanding of economics and no idea of how wall street works.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2012 at 3:27 pm
“Unless the economy turns around in the next 18 months, Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. That would be an accurate statement.”
This judgment comes not from Sarah Palin but from Glenn Kessler, fact checker for the Washington Post. Which makes the judgment triply damaging to the president, since the Post is not known as an anti-Obama newspaper.
The unemployment rate is at a record high 9%. Obama said that if his stimulus bill was passed it would be below 8%. Yet all these libs cook the books with fake #s. If Obama is creating jobs why isn't the unemployment rate going down?
One cannot honestly look at a chart of job growth/loss by month over the last 4 years and come to any conclusion other than Obama kept this country from going over the precipice. Show us any chart of job loss/growth, by month, that shows otherwise.
Argue birth certificates or teleprompters. The job growth issue is a losing argument for you.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2012 at 5:19 pm
"“Unless the economy turns around in the next 18 months, Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. That would be an accurate statement.”"
In short, as you see from the above graphs, that statement is inaccurate if you remove the first couple months from Obama's record (for example, take Feb Mar 2009 out since Obama policies couldn't yet effect Bush's monstrously bad job numbers.)
Blaming Obama for 1.5 million jobs lost in his first two months in office is an absurd notion. Frankly, the first 6 months of job losses reflect more on Bush than Obama.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2012 at 6:29 am
The unempolyment rate under Obama is ~ 9% depending upon which measurement you use. These are the BLS measurements:
U-3 — This is what BLS calls the "official unemployment rate." It represents unemployed workers who are actively searching for a new job. That's the 8.3 percent rate that made headlines last week.
U-4 — This is the total unemployed plus "discouraged workers." Discouraged workers are those who have given up looking for a job because they are convinced there aren't any available for them. It was 8.9 percent in January.
U-5 — This is the total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus "other persons marginally attached to the labor force." The marginally attached are people who are neither working nor looking for work, but indicate they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the last year. But they aren't counted as unemployed, because they didn't actively search for work in the last four weeks. That rate was 9.9 percent in January.
U-6 — This is the catch-all of the lot. It includes all of the above groups — total unemployed, discouraged workers and the marginally attached — plus part-time workers who say they would like to be working more, but for economic reasons could only find part-time work. It was 15.1 percent in January.
According to The New York Times, no sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment was over 7.2% on election day. Even using the most conservative measurement of Unemployment Obama is a full percentage point above the electability number.
And Obama is no FDR. Perhaps Obama's socialist buddy George Soros can prop up Obama's miserable presidency. The way it looks now it is 300 to 238. Obama loses and the nation gains.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2012 at 3:34 pm
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday February 14, 2012 shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11.
These numbers, if they hold, will indicate that Obama will lose the electroral college vote in 2012. I prdeict 300 to 238. The United States wins. Socialism loses.
Posted by Lawrence F., a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Critic: you are so completely OUT of it!!!
Did you even READ the poll????????????????????????????????????
From the SAME POLL you cite:
"In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president posts a 49% to 42% lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The numbers are very similar if former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee. In that case, the president leads 49% to 41%. " Web Link
Still holding for an electoral loss of 300-238 while winning the popular vote by 7 points?
I'd love to see your state by state electoral math to make that work!
You have ZERO credibility.
And that's Rasmussen, the Fox News of pollsters!
I repeat my previous comment: "One notes he can't accept the incredible change in the jobs outlook - 2008 losses of millions to today's positive numbers. So attack, fear, lie."
Still can't talk about jobs by month as the other poster pointed out. It completely deflates your claims.
This just came out, so I didn't read it all (funny after what I said, eh?) but here's the takeaways:
"President Obama’s political standing is rising along with voters’ optimism that the economy is getting better, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, a shift that coincides with continued Republican disquiet over the field of candidates seeking to replace him...
Showing steady improvement since early December, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has reached the 50 percent mark in The Times/CBS News poll — an important baseline in presidential politics and his highest approval rating since May 2010 (excepting the brief bump he received after Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011)."
Same poll has the President beating Mitt 48-42.
Worst part for Romney?
"Romney's drop in support against the president is attributable to a shift among independents. Last month, independents favored the former Massachusetts governor by eight points over Mr. Obama. In the new survey, Mr. Obama holds the edge, leading Romney among independents by nine points."
Bad week for Mr. Romney.
Independents will, as usual, decide the election. Unless it's a complete blowout for Obama, like the way he beat McCain.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 6:22 am
Polls are, for the most part, are controlled by liberal news media.
Does anyone remember the day the Democratic convention ended in San Francisco in 1984? The Newsweek poll showed Walter Mondale 18 points ahead of President Ronald Reagan. Mondale ended up getting crushed 49 states to one. But he did get D.C.
So go back to reading the leftist propaganda and misstatements in the NYT and feel smug in your coccoon of liberal bias. But come the day of reckoning Fly Over Country will carry the day for the United States and put an end to this disastrous socialist experiment.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 7:09 am
you talk out of both sides of your mouth. In one post you quote poll results and in another you claim polls are controlled by the liberal media. You can't have it both ways. You have no credibility. Go back to watching faux news.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 7:56 am
Dear Menlo Voter,
You should read more carefully before jumping to conclusions. But most liberals are a zealous and impetuous lot. I said "Polls, for the most part, are controlled by liberal news media". This means, now listen up Menlo Voter, that some polls are not.
Rasmussen is about as objective as they come. It has no dog in the fight. Sometimes it provides poll results I don't like. But at least I know it is objective. Polls conducted by Newsweek and the NYT are usually nothing more than promotions of their desired outcomes without regard for the facts.
Now you can go back to your George Soros funded "objective" Media Matters website or reading the latest copy of the Nation.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 9:27 am
first of all you are jumping to conclusions when you state I am a "liberal." I am not, nor am I a conservative. I'm one of the majority of this country that are independent moderates. We're the ones that actually elect people to office as opposed to those on the rabid left and rabid right.
Secondly, I get my news from multiple sources because everyone has an axe to grind. By reading multiple sources I can generally figure out where the truth lies. It's usually somewhere in the middle.
As I said, you can go back to watching faux news now.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 am
"Rasmussen is about as objective as they come."
Hilarious. Also wrong. But to humor "critic" let's refer back to Lawrence's post re the very poll critic cites as "objective":
"In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president posts a 49% to 42% lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The numbers are very similar if former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee. In that case, the president leads 49% to 41%. "
49-42 Romney loses.
49-41 Santorum loses.
As Lawrence asked, what is your state by state analysis to get to 300 electoral votes, while losing the election by 8-10 million votes?
Posted by Some Guy, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 10:42 am
You can cry all you want, but the elite who run this world will never see the inside of a jail cell, it just doesn't happen, no matter what crazy thing they do, or how many people it kills.
It's going to take a clean sweep of the government to fix this mess, and the only way that is going to happen is by a long and bloody revolution.
The president in this country has no real power anymore, if he did, why has Obama broken nearly every single one of his campaign promises?
I'll tell you why, once he got elected, he was sat and told how things were going to work, and how things were going to be, and if he didn't play ball, they would kill his family. You might think I'm joking, but look what happened to the polish government a couple years ago because they were bucking a pipeline from Russia to Europe.
The elite of this world don't give a damn about you, they just want as much of your money as they can get, and they don't care if they have to kill to get it.
Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community, on Feb 15, 2012 at 10:49 am
I'm amazed that such absurd nonsensical invective as this article comes out of what is supposed to be an educated community. It is Orwellian at best, Ayn Rand-ish as well and the elephant (appropriate symbol?) in the room is old-fashioned racism.
Posted by gcjackrabbit, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:30 am
Unfortunately the first rather lengthy comment was originally attributed to a Wall Street Journal contributor (Eddie Sessions) but proven false and a plant. Whether you agree of disagree with the content is your own prerogative. Read and learn.
Posted by justthefacts, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:50 am
You only provide half of what Kessler wrote. The sentence following the one you quote is: "But he also became president in the midst of the worst recession of our lifetimes — and it seems a real stretch to make him personally responsible for every one of those lost jobs, without bothering to offer a shred of evidence for the claim."
Kessler is merely saying that the job losses occurred during Obama's watch, not that Obama was responsible for all of them.
Please note that the latest reported rate of 8.3% is just 0.4% higher than where it stood when Bush left office (7.9%). If the rate continues to drop, then given another couple of months Obama will be able to claim unemployment is no worse than it was when he took office.
You are correct in stating that no president was re-elected with an unemployment rate greater than 7.2%. However, even that needs to be put into perspective. There appears to be an even greater correlation between the unemployment trend and election's outcome than the actual unemployment percentage and the election's outcome. The president who was re-elected with that 7.2% rate was Reagan, and he benefited from a rate that had been trending down from a 10.8% in Nov 1982 (BTW - the rate only reached 10% under Obama). Carter and Bush lost with rates of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively, but the rates had been trending up. So yes, the current unemployment rate may be 8.3% but the trend is currently working in Obama's favor, and given the pace of that trend, come November the rate might be less than Reagan's 7.2%.
Disclosure: I'm an Independent. I favor neither party. I only favor the facts and a proper perspective.
Posted by Gunther Steinberg, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm
This unsigned article, from a critic(??) of the times who has lived with his eyes and ears closed, except to Fox News, has turned actual events by his interpretation on their head. A man without guts to spell out his name, only to echo all the untruth and misinformation that has been spelled out in this election year. - A good way to have people remember the damage done by his co-believers between 2000 and 2008, after which George W. Bush retired to his home, leaving the world in a financial mess and his friends well rewarded.
Posted by Ramsey Cox , a resident of another community, on Feb 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm
The Hill Poll: Obama more likely to lose than win again, say voters
President Obama will be a one-term president, said nearly half of registered voters polled by The Hill.
While 46 percent of likely voters predicted Obama will lose next year, 41 percent said he will win, a narrow margin just outside the poll’s margin of error that reflects the public’s split opinion about the president. The remaining 13 percent were unsure.
Posted by Mom of soldier in Afghanistan, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 6:23 pm
To Occupy Critic, Our young people have made great contributions to this country during the Obama administration. They are repelled by the negativity of folks with your mindset. The people who are parasites on the system are both 1. the low-life Takers who live off the government as well as 2. the Greedy wealthy minority who have Congress under their thumb to keep their tax rates low and their tax loopholes wide open. I know rich people who collect Social Security and sponge off of the government as well. Republicans in Congress have not made a single contribution toward restoring the surplus budget we enjoyed during the Clinton administration!
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2012 at 6:50 am
In 1999 the Clinton Adminstration ordered that no DOD facility could be used as a polling place, even if it had been planned for use in the 2000 election. The Clinton Adminisration eventually retreated, and Congress passed legislation leaving polling places for the 2000 presidential election intact. Later the Clinton Adminstration formally opposed a bill, which the House had already approved, to make clear that polling places are allowed at military facilities.
So before you wax poetic on how noble the Clinton Adminstration was please remember "IT LOATHED THE MILITARY".
Then not being satisifed on trying to supress the military vote the Gore campaign machine Down in Florida, in a concerted effort to trim George W. Bush's margin of victory, challenged a great many overseas absentee ballots, many of which were from military members. County canvassers disqualified a total of 1,527 ballots from overseas, according to an Associated Press report--more than 40% of the total. What could be more divisive than disfranchising Americans who are risking their lives to defend their country?
And as far as the Obama Adminstration is concerned they are nothing more than corrupt socialists. Just look no further than operation Fast and Furious when Eric Holder got caught lying to Congress. The Justice Department sold weapons to terrorists in Mexico which were used to kill American Government workers.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2012 at 10:11 am
occupy critic is getting his claims abused up and down this thread so fast that he spins wildly from one Fox talking point to another. Must hurt his head so.
We could follow your factless flight of fancy, talking about how te GOP continually voted to NOT give the best body-armor to our troops in Iraq or any of the other GOP insanity to our troops issues, like sending them to war with too few troops.
Or sending them to war on false pretenses.
But that would just take away from this thread - see RJ Reed's response to your original post.
You have yet to refute facts with anything other than wild claims, distortion or distraction.
Posted by Mom of soldier in Afghanistan, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Thank you, John Morris, for clarifying the Republican role regarding our troops. Al Gore actually WON the election against Bush. He clearly won the popular vote and Jeb Bush and his cronies made sure that Gore didn't win the electoral vote with their cheating tactics. Talk about disenfranchised voters! If Gore had been president we wouldn't have gone to war under false pretenses, and some of our finest young people would still be alive, contributing members of our citizenry.
Posted by KUDOS, a resident of another community, on Feb 17, 2012 at 10:19 am
To Lawrence F. who has the most articulate AMERICAN voice of reason substantiated by facts and who is not afraid to challenge the plethora of misinformation one normally finds here among the regular contributors. They are repetitive and self serving and do not address the "real majority" like Lawrence and others who could be called "elitists".
The amount of conservative prattling which is reiforced by arrogant and insecure minorities and are of one small voice which, unfortunately, dominates any discussion about gripes which affect the 1 per centers who use this online site to no avail.
I suggest you go and buy a TESLA with your spare time. TESLA being the only contribution to come out of this area and a product which can be afforded by only a few.
Posted by Lawrence F., a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2012 at 11:22 am
As has been pointed out by others before - if these forums accurately reflected the community, we'd be living in an area of hard core, far right conservative elected officials like Arkansas or backwoods Georgia.
We're not. Voters in our communities are smart, caring, thoughtful and liberal. When the far right objects to that statement - ask them to point out how many conservatives are elected from the greater bay area.
I don't post often, but when I see far right unsubstantiated pablum posted without any claims of accuracy or supported by facts, I feel someone has to ask the poster for facts. They so rarely respond with any - just change the subject to some other talking point. (see "critic" above)
For someone to claim Obama is a failed President when Obama has to clean up form Bush's massive failure is an astonishing naive statement. Or deliberately a provocative lie.
Bush took a budget surplus and gave us a 1.3 trillion deficit in his final year.
Bush took an economy that created 23 million jobs in the prior 8 years and Bush left office with America losing 3/4 of a million jobs a month.
Did anyone seriously expect Obama to turn it around faster than he has? He (therefore, we) have had no help from the republicans.
"First-time jobless benefits claims fall again. Now at the lowest level since March 2008 - Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits fell to their lowest level in almost four years last week..."
It's a slog. It's been tough. It's probably been the worst time ever for a large number of Americans. Most of us in the area have only been mildly effected (no disrespect to the large numbers hit by the housing crisis in the outer fringe of the bay area - Manteca, Anticoch, Brentwood, etc..)
But it is getting better. Why let the republicans take us back to their disastrous economic policies?
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:19 am
The United States is experiencing the longest stretch of high unemployment since the Great Depression, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression, writes CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf on the CBO Director’s Blog site.
Further, the agency projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014.
“The share of unemployed people who have been looking for work for more than six months — referred to as the long-term unemployed — topped 40 percent in December 2009 and has remained above that level ever since,” Elmendorf writes.
Official unemployment of 8.3 percent is contested by data supplied by the polling form Gallup. It puts the jobless rate at 9 percent, up from its previous estimate of 8.6 percent. And it predicts things will worsen shortly.
"Gallup's mid-month unemployment reading, based on the 30 days ending Feb. 15, serves as a preliminary estimate of the U.S. government report, and suggests the Bureau of Labor Statistics will likely report on the first Friday of March that its seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased in February," the firm said when releasing its mid-February numbers.
My prediction 300 to 238. The American Public will give a big thumbs down on the inept, and lost and delirious Obama Administratrion. Liberals are in denial. Socialism does not work.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2012 at 10:23 am
Novel math, critic, never seen the per day figure. What site gave you that idea to hide the obvious? Following the Mark Twain credo: lies, damn lies, and statistics - a time tested strategy.
Web Link Are you counting the millions of jobs lost in Feb - April 2009, Obama's first 3 months, as Bush losses or Obama?
Look at the chart. When Obama policies kicked in, job losses shrunk and turned into gains. Without republican help.
Where are your links to substantiate your numbers?
Reagan tripled the national debt, from .9 to 2.7 trillion. Despite being handed a BUDGET SURPLUS from Clinton, Bush doubled it from 5 to 10 trillion. We are at 15 trillion because of the monstrously bad economy Bush created.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2012 at 10:40 am
Dear John the facts are the facts.
1) Net jobs gain under Bush 1,094,000
2) Net job losses under Obama 1,663,000.
3) Price of Gas increase under Obama 91% and rising
4) Rate of deficit spending under Obama as compared to Bush 2.54 times as much.
Obama is a dilettante who is way over his head and is drowning in red ink. And all those poor people whom ACORN told they won't have to pay their car payment or rent in 2008. Guess what! Either they paid their rent or were evicted. Either they made their car payment or their cars were repossessed. Do you think they will fall for the ACORN scam again?
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2012 at 11:14 am
Your 1 and 2: Didn't address job growth by month since Bush's catastrophic losses, did you?
Web Link 23 months of private sector job *growth* vs 700,000 jobs *lost* per month under Bush.
3. gas prices - grasping at straws again - click on the 6 year chart Web Link
4. Look at the GDP at the end of Bush's fiasco and look at it now. We are digging out. Look at Obama's budget that reduces the deficit $4 trillion.
"dilettante"????? First he's a socialist muslim fascist radical christian, now a "dilettante"????? Jumping away from the socialist rant now that Wall Street declares him (via stock market prices) to be the greatest president for capitalism since William Jefferson Clinton.
I ask your question: "What kind of a dream world do you live in?"
Similarly - I have no idea where your Acorn fantasies came from, well, I do - glenn beck, right?
Still waiting for your stock market numbers at the end of Bush's disaster.
"Obama is toast! Goodbye and good riddance!" Yet again, I ask for your electoral math - how does Obama lose 300 to 238 when he's going to beat Frothy Ricky Santorum by 8-10 million votes?
Deflect some more! Don't answer the questions. Acorn was wild, but you're running out of ways to divert the subjects into your fantasy world. Acorn, socialist, muslim, birth certificates, oh no, what next?!?!?!
It's halftime America, things are getting better, despite republican obstruction.
We know you are praying for Europe to blow up. A global dip again into further recession or some other disaster is the only thing that will keep President Obama from a 2nd term. Americans know the GOP will just repeat Bush policies.
We can't afford republican policies. We must continue to grow out of Bush's recession.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2012 at 11:24 am
You are looking at a single inning. You have got to be looking at the total ballgame. I find it interesting that a Green Party member throws his allegiance to the Democrats. The Green Party is as far to the left as the Tea Party is to the right.
Posted by Common Sense, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Feb 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Critic is comparing Bush's entire 8 years to Obama's tenure to date which is a fair comparison. You could compare Bush's first 3 years to Obama's but that would not be fair. Yet Mr. Morris wants to compare a period in time for Obama to a period in time for Bush which only tells a partial story. Critic did a fair comparison. Morris did not. As critic said one team can outscore another team in one baseball inning but could suffer a huge defeat when looking at the entire game.
It appears Mr. Morris is attempting to manipulate the facts to suit his desired outcome.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 7:16 am
What a sorry president. All he does is whine. Waaah! Its Bush's fault. Well I have news for you obtuse liberals. A president is suppossed to lead an not make excuses for his miserable performance. For 3 years he has execerbated the "mess" Bush left him. He has increased the national debt by nearly 50% in 3 years! That alone is enough to send him back to Chicago where he can do some more Community Organizing for the ACORN follow-on.
Why would anyone in their right mind give a president with such an abysmal record a second chance? Unfortunately we have a lot of liberals who are willing to suspend objectivity regarding Obama's egregious performance just because he is a socialist and they actually believe that nonsense that European style Socialism is good for our country.
It is a sad day when we can say that the PRC has better economic develpment than the United States. But with Obama crippling U.S. businesses through the highest corporate tax rate in the world, onerous regulations that severely hinder our ability to compete in the international market place, and the support for Union pensions that are forcing companies into bankruptcy or relocating manufacturing overseas because we can't afford to keep up with the Unions rapaciaious demands for more money.
Unless we shrug off Obama Atlas will Shrug. A seond Obnama term will most likely result in the collapse of the United States economy, which will in turn, result in the collapse of the World Economy. Socialism does not work and Obama has proved that with his incredibly bad performance.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:34 am
"critic" and his fringe ilk are lost, grasping at straws and rooting against America.
Obama a socialist????? Have you looked at the stock markets lately?!?!?!?!?
A socialist? First a Muslim. Then a radical Christian, then a Muslim again. Then a fascist, now a socialist. A Kenyan, with complete documentation of his American roots delivered the weekend he whacks Bin Ladin.
Yawn. You guys are off your meds again.
"For 3 years he has exacerbated the "mess" Bush left him." At least you acknowledge the mess Bush left - that's a step forward for you in getting back in touch with reality.
Domestic oil production is at an 8 year high. Web Link
23 months of private sector job growth, over 3.5 million jobs added since President Obama reversed Bush's disastrous job losses. Web Link
Stock markets far higher than when Bush left.
Look at the biggest nightmare image in the world for far right fringe like critic and "common sense" - they can't explain it!!!!!!!
It gives them cold shivers and nightmares - Web Link
Another fringe joke: "highest corporate tax rate in the world" filled with so many loopholes that many corporations pay no taxes - look at Exxon and GE.
"critic" just throws out the odd claims without any substantiation. They get rebuked and he randomly throws out some other trash conspiracy theory.
Fear, fear, fear, says fox and the far right noise machine.
Fear fear fear.
Rooting for America to fail because they detest our President. How patriotic.
Listen to Clint: "it's halftime, America"
Keep fighting the fear machine, it's all about jobs jobs jobs.
I'm about done here. "critic" hasn't had anything new to say since the unsubstantiated trash he posted at the top, and it's all been debunked.
The full version of In Performance at the White House: Red, White and Blues is set to air on local PBS stations on next Monday, February 27, at 9 p.m. ET.
After his relection loss I can see him signing a lucrative contract with one the big recording studios. His first song should be: "I can't get my Mojo Goin" followed by "I got the White House Re-Election Loss Blues"
And to Mick Jagger come January 2012 we will get "Satisfaction" as we see an end to this disastrous 4 year experiment with Socialism.
Posted by Chuck, a resident of the Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands neighborhood, on Feb 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm
critic: I'll respond while your post is still up, before it's deleted because apparently you've been posting under multiple names.
I agree with you on something, finally: The President does love to sing. Good post on this - "The full version of In Performance at the White House: Red, White and Blues is set to air on local PBS stations on next Monday, February 27, at 9 p.m. ET."
Why don't you start a new thread, this time obeying the rules?
You can answer the numerous questions you've ignored, like the one about month to month job gains or the one about how you think any of the current 2nd team reserves on the GOP bench (Mitty and Ricky and Newtie) are going to get 300 electoral votes.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 23, 2012 at 9:58 am
The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January. Obama's on a roll. But I have to hand it to him. I don't think any President can throw a party as good as Obama can. So while Obama rates #44 in Presidential performance he can take great pride as being the President who throws the best party.
1) Net jobs gain under Bush 1,094,000
2) Net job losses under Obama 1,663,000.
3) Price of Gas increase under Obama 100% and rising. In just two weeks the price I paid at the pump for premium jumped from $382.9 to $425.9 or 11.23% in just two weeks.
4) Rate of deficit spending under Obama as compared to Bush 2.54 times as much
Obama is cratering. The left has run out of excuses. Americans want a president who can lead; not one who just makes excuses and refuses to take responsibility for his own inadequacies. But he does throw a great party. Perhaps when Romney beccomes President he can appoint Obama as the Partier In Chief.
Posted by Chuck, a resident of the Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands neighborhood, on Feb 23, 2012 at 10:25 am
again, before your multiname post is removed, I'll ask:
you keep talking about unemployment, which is bad but getting better. 23 months of private sector job growth, 3.5 million jobs added. The question - why don't you look at John's chart and comment on it?
re your: "Rate of deficit spending under Obama as compared to Bush 2.54 times as much" huh? Bush took office with a budget surplus of 100+ Billion. Left office with a 1.3 Trillion deficit. What weird calculations are you using? Whatever they are, apply the same math to Bush vs Clinton and tell us the rate.
Even the GOP candidates have given up running on the improving Obama economy.
At last night's debate they used the word "jobs" 6 times.
They used the words "birth control" 8 times. Freaks. Or complete bozo's, it's hard to tell the difference.
Kind of like John Boeneher saying jobs were job 1 in 2010, but never does a thing for jobs while voting on abortion 7 times.
"Obama is cratering." Hardly. Obama, assuming no European financial crisis effecting our American economy growing and job growth, will beat Mitt and Rick by as much as he beat John McCain. Look at the polls.
Americans want jobs. Women want health care. And birth control, too.
Not a bunch of anti-birth control wing nuts talking about Satan and abortion.
The GOP freak show rides into town. No woman is safe - pass out the aspirin.
And beware Virginians who want to assault women with mandatory trans-vaginal probe ultrasounds.
GOP overreach, into a woman's body: "There Is Nothing Constitutional About State-Mandated Transvaginal Ultrasounds" Web Link "
John, and the President, are correct - it's all about jobs.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I don't comment on temporary trends in a candidate's record when there is more complete infomation avaialable.
Getting back to the proverbial baseball game where Obama outscores Bush in a single inning but Bush slaughters Obama in all the other innings and wins the game in a landslide, it is ludicrous to point out the inning's acheivement as an indication that Obama won the gam when in fact he lost it by a considerable margin. When you have more complete data that is the data you should go with.
Besides, you leftist lunatics Bush is not running against Obama. I don't care about Bush. Bush is not running for President. This is nothing more than a diversion away from Obam's miserable perfromance as a president.
If Romney gets the nomination he will beat Obama by a significant margin. Just check today's Gallup Poll published by the Hill.com
Romney is beating Obama by 4% points. And with gasoline prices heading towards $6.00/gallon by election day it will be a walk in the Park for Romney. If I were haim I would hire Obama to make the arrangements for the Inaugurral Ball. Obama definitely knows how to throw a party. I will give him that.
Look at the chart without your blinders on. That TREND you see can be described with two letters - UP.
"I don't care about Bush." Then you use him in some lame baseball analogy. About as useful as talking about Bush trading Sammy Sosa.
Polls? Okay, from your poll: "Still, the result is a positive sign for Romney, who hasn’t seen his standing against the president diminish even as Santorum has pulled ahead of Romney nationally. "
Then there's the right leaning Rasmussen: "In a potential Election 2012 matchups, the president leads Rick Santorum 48% to 41%. If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, the president leads 49% to 39%." Web Link
Your confidence in Mitt, any version of him, beating the President is ill-advised, to day the least.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Obama is running against Bush. There is only one problem-- Bush is not running for President. Liberals are so desperate that they know Obama can not run on his record and win. So they bring out the boogeyman and attack him. However, the people in flyover country, the ones whom liberals look down on, will have their day. We will point out Obama's ghastly record and Obama will not only be a one term president, he will claim the dubious distinction, from Jimmy Carter, of being the worst president in U.S. history. Tick Tock. Only 252 days until Socialism is relegated to the ash heap of American History. And not a moment too soon. Dasvidaniya Libs.
Posted by Occupy Wall Street Critic, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Mar 4, 2012 at 9:31 am
You can seep how desperate liberals are when thye start asking "Have you quit beating your wife" questions. Now they are demanding proof that Romney is not George Bush. How ridiculous is that.
The Gallup Poll has Romney 6 points up on Obama. That number should grow as we approach the election. Obama is a failed president by every measure. He has a net loss on jobs, he has bankrupted future generations of Americans' futures by increasing our national debt by 50% in less than one term. Obama is a danger to our country and even democrats will be voting against him to ensure their own economic survival.
Posted by Lawrence F., a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Mar 4, 2012 at 10:24 am
Yet again, critic shows the same fear and cowers in front of the graph that quiets every conservative - Web Link
As posted above - 23 months of private sector job growth, 3.5 million jobs added. critic has to use a number that includes the first part of 2009, when mostly due to Bush, millions of jobs were lost.
It is as plain as the blinders on his face: Web Link
And quit lying - I did not "demand proof" that Romney will be just as bad as Bush - I'm telling you there are no significant differences in policy. You just can't prove otherwise, so you get rather huffy.
So cute when you get like that!
Romney will shift overnight to more of Bush's policies and politics for the general election, stopping just short of using the toxic phrase "compassionate conservative".
Here's an oddity - perhaps proof that even Romney knows he's in trouble and unwilling to put good money after bad: In 2008 Mitt spent $44 million of his own money to get spanked by McCain because he erroneously thought he had a chance.
This year, knowing he has an uphill battle against the incumbent?
Posted by Lawrence F., a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Mar 4, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Oh, dear. Maybe there IS a difference between Romney and Bush policies!
"All the Republicans have the same basic strategy: reduce taxes on people who are already wealthy, and take away tax benefits for poor people, particularly who are striving to try and get out of their poverty, and restrict tax benefits for people who are workers in the middle class," says David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who writes about tax issues for Reuters.
"Romney’s plan is George W. Bush’s plan on steroids.
George W. Bush gave 12.5 percent of his tax cuts to the top 10th of 1 percent. Romney’s plan gives a third of the tax cuts to the top 10th of 1 percent. And Romney’s plan gives 57 percent of the total cuts in his package to the top 1 percent. That’s people who make more than about $400,000 a year. "
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2012 at 11:05 am
Looks like Mittens Romney, eerrrr, Myth Rom.... ummm Meh Romn.... I mean Mitt, just wants to cut his own taxes at the expense of the hard working middle class folk.
Paying 13% on $42 million in income is too much for Meh Romney. And that's the money we know about, not counting the Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Islands accounts (dozens of them.) Time to release your taxes for the last ten years, Mittens.
Who was the last billionaire politician that wanted to cut her taxes down to nothing? Ahhhh, yes, Meg Whitman wanted to eliminate Calif cap gains to nothing.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2012 at 11:09 am
here's a 2009 quote from Romney saying RomneyCare should be the model for ObamaCare, complete with mandates.
2009, that's after Obama was elected and Mitt suffered his defeat only a year earlier:
"There's a better way," Romney said. "And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.
First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."
Myth loved mandates before he hated mandates. So did Sarah and McCain. Socialists before they weren't socialists.
Posted by John Morris, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Oh, the poor 1%, suffering under socialism:
"In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3%... but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%.
Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery.
It is likely that this uneven recovery has continued in 2011 as the stock market has continued to recover. National Accounts statistics show that corporate profits and dividends distributed have grown strongly in 2011 while wage and salary accruals have only grown only modestly."
Our socialist President, destroying the stock market, striping billionaires of their wealth....
.... oh, wait a minute...
What kind of moron watches Fox or listens to Beck calling Obama a socialist and actually believes it, with all evidence to the contrary?