Jobs report weakens Obama's election argument

JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

Friday, June 1, 2012

CHICAGO (AP) — The suddenly dismal news on American jobs is a blow to President Barack Obama's re-election argument that he has been a steward of recovery. It's heightened White House anxiety over global threats to U.S. economic growth — and the president's political prospects, too.

The economy, Obama conceded Friday, "is not growing as fast as we want it to."

Taking a harsher tone, presumed Republican rival Mitt Romney declared that the country appeared to be "moving backward." He sought to drive home a political point from the nation's first increase in joblessness in almost a year.

After a winter when the job trends were in his favor, Obama has been forced onto the defensive by three months of lackluster to dismal growth. Confronted by Friday's report of a feeble 69,000 new jobs and an uptick in unemployment to 8.2 percent in May, Obama vigorously renewed his demand that Congress step up and enact some of his jobs proposals.

Calling the Eurozone's debt crisis a "shadow" hanging over the U.S. economy, Obama made his most urgent plea yet for measures that he said would "serve as a buffer in case the situation in Europe gets any worse."

Later Friday, speaking to donors at a fundraiser, Obama said: "Europe is having a significant crisis in part because they haven't taken as many of the decisive steps as were needed to deal with the challenge, and that's weakened Asia and that means it's harder for our exports. All this stuff makes a difference in the global economy."

The jobs numbers, issued early every month, have become the year's dominant economic barometer, a baseline from which to gauge Obama's and Romney's political fortunes in an election that rides on the pace of a post-recession recovery.

Romney, responding to the first report since he effectively clinched the GOP presidential nomination, called the figures "devastating news."

In an interview Friday with CNBC, Romney said that Obama's policies and his handling of the economy had "been dealt a harsh indictment."

Obama was in Minnesota to push his proposal to expand job opportunities for veterans and to raise money for his campaign. He also raised money Friday evening in Chicago, where he was to spend a rare night in his family home.

He said private business has created more than 4 million jobs over the past 27 months, but, he added, "as we learned in today's jobs report, we're still not creating them as fast as we want."

Still, he said, "we will come back stronger; we do have better days ahead."

The economy, struggling to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression, has had to fend off a number of external pressures, from high oil prices to natural disasters and, now, economic troubles in Europe and a weakening economy in China.

The unemployment numbers, while imprecise and typically a lagging indicator of economic performance, are nevertheless an undeniable marker of the human cost of a weak economy.

May's 69,000 new jobs and downward adjustments for March and April mean the economy has averaged just 73,000 jobs a month over the past two months. That's half of what's needed simply to keep up with population growth and is a dramatic drop from the 226,000 jobs created per month in the January-March quarter.

May's 8.2 percent jobless rate, the first increase in 11 months, reflected more people coming back into the job force, but that was a thin silver-lining to an otherwise discouraging report.

No president since the Great Depression has sought re-election with unemployment as high as that, and past incumbents have lost when the rate was on the rise.

The economy is central to each candidate's argument — Obama wants it to be a choice between his and Romney's economic visions; Romney wants it to be referendum on Obama's economic policies.

Obama is counting on an unemployment trajectory that has fallen from a high of 10 percent in October 2009. The president likes to point to the 3.8 million jobs created since he became president, though 12.5 million people remain unemployed. He highlights the resurgence of the auto industry following government bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors.

Friday's report seriously dampens Obama's message, though the May numbers may end up doing more damage to Obama's short-term political standing than to the economy long-term.

The United States has experienced periods of jobs slowdown for the past three years, only to bounce back. Last year, from May to August, job growth averaged 80,000 a month and from June through September of 2010, the average was 76,000.

Hiring, housing, consumer spending and manufacturing all appear to be improving, yet they remain less than healthy. Economists surveyed by The Associated Press expect growth to pick up this year, though not enough to lower unemployment much.

Eager to draw attention to his challenger, Obama has mounted a step-by-step assault on Romney's economic record, from his days as a venture capitalist to his tenure as Massachusetts governor from 2003-2007.

The Obama campaign released a new online video Friday that features several of Romney's former Republican political foes, including Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, criticizing Romney's economic record.

But speaking to a group of donors in Chicago, Obama said the election would be close. "The reason this is going to be a close race is we've gone through a tough four years on top of a tough decade for a lot of families before that. And folks feel worn out and if you don't have a job you don't care that there have been 4 million jobs created."

Romney, now free from his primary contests, has aimed at Obama's economic policies, arguing that they have slowed the recovery, not aided it. The Republican has emphasized his own background in private business to argue that he's qualified to lead a nation in economic turmoil.

On Friday, his campaign released a new television ad promising "a better day" and declaring that a Romney presidency would focus from the start on the economy and the federal deficit, unleash U.S. energy resources and stand up to China on trade. "President Romney's leadership puts jobs first," the ad states.

Obama could face the highest unemployment rate on Election Day of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But his aides argue that the trend line is more important than the actual number. Jimmy Carter lost his re-election bid in 1980 to Ronald Reagan as unemployment climbed from 6 percent to 7.5 percent. George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992 as unemployment rose from 6.9 percent to 7.6 percent.

While Reagan faced an unemployment rate of 7.4 percent in October 1984, the rate had been dropping since the spring of 1983. He went on to win re-election.

Obama campaign video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB7vuo2piak

More like this story

Graceful 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Only 233 days until Mitt Romney is inaugurated!!!!

hkchas 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Don't make your Washington reservations...

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Good point hkchas, I'll do it for Graceful.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Which Mitt Romney are you thinking of? I might vote for one of them.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Ha!!! Which Obama are you voting for? The one who is lowering sea levels, keeping unemployment below 8%, closing Guantanamo, transparent as mud, ending the politics as usual in Washington, not raising taxes on the middle class (not one cent)...I don't have time to keep going.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago

You said "Ha!!!" but I don't think you understand what it will take to get my vote. Think, Forrest, think.

If, and it's a big if, I vote for Romney it will be because he can transcend the current bumper-sticker slogans and present a coherent plan including specific actions he will push through Congress to improve economic conditions for all Americans. He will have to propose real change, not cite real or fake numbers, not real or fake goals, and he will have to stop talking about things he claims to be against. I am not sure that is possible for a GOP candidate. Romney's pick for VP will be the first big clue whether he intends to win and govern or just appease the neanderthal wing of a formerly great political party.

If I have to vote for Obama it will just be a vote against the Romney who is held hostage by the right wing of the GOP and the Citizens United crowd that run it.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace should quit counting her eggs before they are Hatched! Rob

JCLifer 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Wish repubs had a better candidate than Romney. Maybe Herman Cain will jump back in.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I read that Herman Cain is taking over the radio show for Neal (Fair Tax) Boortz. He's probably not available to help the right wing this time.

joda 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Graceful, REALITY CHECK!! Obama, like FDR, inherited an economic mess which was caused by the previous Republican administrations.

If FDR was such a terrible President, why did the American people re-elect him 3 times? Don't answer that, I already know what you'll say. "Illegal Immigrants!" and/or "Voter Fraud!"

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Joda, you need to recheck your sources. The depression and associated financial mess was well on it's way to disappearing during the Hoover administration. Nearly ALL economists agree that the FDR administration and the various social programs he enacted (WPA, etc) actually SLOWEDd the recovery.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Only in the blog-world of right-wing politics. In his last year as president, Herbert Hoover passed a massive tax increase to boost sagging federal revenues and signed the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which incited retaliation by Canada, Britain, Germany and other trading partners. Economists generally agree that these measures deepened an already serious crisis. By 1932, the unemployment rate was 25%.

tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Actually, the numbers support the statement that Hoover's last year was the bottom. The trend was up from there and it was consistent.

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It is interesting that you folks want to continue bashing each other and pushing forward your support for whomever your presidential choice is. FACT:
1) We will find out what the publis thinks when the election is held. 2) There IS a tremendous amount of distrust for ObamaCare. 3) Nearly every historical-economist agrees that the economy during Hovver's administration was well on the road to recovery. 4) FDR's social programs did address some problems but at a tremendous cost that continues to increase to this day. 5) Keyne's advocation of deficit spending is unrealistic . . . see what happens when you spend more than you make and then increase the smount of spending every year even when your income does not increase.

Here is what I do not understand . . . federal (and probably state) budget figures, reports from elected officials, ect, RARELY use real numbers. Instead their (ALL parties) approaches to spending are all based upon pie-in-the-sky numbers that are NOT based upon reality. "If this . . . if that . . . . then we will have a surplus . . . . if" It is all baloney. And here, all of you are pontificating upon how this policy is best and will "ONLY" cost so much or that policy or cut here and spend more there. Fact is" You cannot spend more than you make, eventually it WILL come back to bite you. And going to war only postpones it. . . .

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace these types of articles are what you are reading to form your opinions. No wonder I lose intelligence after reading them. I couldn't make heads or tails of what this guy was spouting. Is it or isn't it?

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I think I understand after I read it a couple more times. It seems that the business owners small or large are going to have to pay for insurance for their employees and they are mad about it. Isn't capitalism what you admonish so devotedly the ability to make a buck by being the best at supplying a certain good that people want or need? If the business can't handle paying for there employees based on a capitalist mentality, shouldn't they not be in business then? The true capitalist would say let them sink. Am I understanding this situation Grace? Isn't the government going to subsidize a portion of the amount that they are going to have to pay or am I incorrect in that also? But isn't this healthcare issue that we are trying to understand the baby of the other presidential candidate? What if Romney is elected and pushes it even more? Are you going to stand up and complain about it then Grace?

MO4LIFE 11 months, 2 weeks ago

He can be against it all he wants to! He is the one that requested that Obama us HIS healthcare in Massachussetts but I guess to Grace and the others that doesn't matter anymore because Romney doesn't support what he created the blueprint for! JUST ANOTHER FAUX NEWS VICTIM!

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Given Romney's record of changing positions, why do you assume that he really wants to repeal it? He says he does, but when he had the chance as governor, he did the exact same thing. I keep getting lost on why he's running away from it now, other than it is the cool thing to do at this moment.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Having to pay for a employee's health care is considered cost of doing business isn't it?

I understand the situation completely. Businesses are so used to getting what they want that when something happens to disrupt their status quo they complain just like everyone else. Please don't imply that I'm stupid Grace. Your opinion of my intelligence is not important but your attitude that your are above everyone else is offending at best. Finally, ObamaCare is based on Romeny's Health Care plan in Massacushetts. Get your facts straight.

MO4LIFE 11 months, 2 weeks ago

So Grace approves of Romney putting Romneycare in place but now he knows its unconstitutional but yet he still supports his healthcare just not Obama's whis iwas blueprinted off of his. The twisted little minds that republicans have never cease to amaze me how they make something so illogical seem logical to themselves.

I believe this is the biggest flip flop in presidential history!

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace, danamilbank@washpost.com Rand Paul 2013 Budget, or Rand Paul FY2013 Budget at Google, and now tell me who is going to kill the economy. Rob

TickledPink 11 months, 2 weeks ago

The winners always write history, doesn't matter which side of the political fence they're on.

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Wait. We're ignoring the fact that this story comes from the AP. Isn't that one of your boogeymen, Grace? How can we trust anything in this story? I suspect it is really part of the Liberal Media's strategy of luring Republicans into a false sense of security.

That's the only explanation for this story, right?

And certainly, when the conservative media writes about "the liberal media," they must be honest and true, right? Only not-Republicans lie. Party members are all moral. So, if a writer at Townhall rips on the "liberal media," he surely isn't self-interested in ANY WAY. He calls himself a conservative, so he must be more moral than someone who does not call himself a conservative. So, when a conservative writes about "the liberal media," he isn't acting out of self interest. All you have to do is self-identify as a conservative (not a conservative like me, but a real-conservative-American-conservative. Ask Grace) and you automatically become good. If you say the right things about gays and welfare, you automatically become holy and right.... if I understand Grace's posts correctly.

There MUST be some leftist propaganda in here somewhere. Right?

I can count on you to be honest about this, right Grace?

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm glad someone else sees what I see in Grace's post.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"There MUST be some leftist propaganda in here somewhere. Right? "-- Right: "The unemployment numbers, while imprecise and typically a lagging indicator of economic performance,..."

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh right. Because in fact the unemployment numbers ARE ACTUALLY PERFECTLY PRECISE and THERE IS NO LAG WHATSOEVER. The unemployment numbers reflect the exact number of unemployed people at this moment.

So, just explaining a non-controversial fact about unemployment statistics is "liberal propaganda."

Look, Obama is clearly evil. He didn't spend money to stabilize the recession. I mean, if Obama were a true conservative he would actually WANT to spend money to protect our businesses and institutions, because a true conservative wants to preserve what we have and not waste things we've spent decades building. A true conservative doesn't want large institutions to fall to ruin just to be true to some ideological concept of "the free market." A true conservative would respond pragmatically based on facts, not ideologically based on abstract concepts. That's so stupid!

But Obama is clearly not conservative, because "conservatives" have told me he's the most liberal radical socialist president EVER. So he must HATE all those American things that, at first glance, you'd think he was trying to conserve. He obviously didn't decide to spend money to protect Americans and American institutions from the recession. He must not be a reasonable, careful person. Must be some other reason.

Thusly, he MUST have spent money because he hates America, and spent his whole life working hard to get to the Presidency because it has been his plan ever since he sat on his prayer rug in Kenya to DESTROY all straight white Christian males and spit on everything they hold dear.

Every time he speaks, I can just hear all the hate he has for me because I'm so white and straight and rich.

See, I'm learning to stop being conservative, and learning to be part of the "conservative movement." I don't care about conserving valuable things anymore. All I care about is sniffing out "liberals" and ascrbing the worst possible motives to them. The economy, jobs and foreign relations aren't our problem. Liberals are the problem. They have been the whole time!

It feels so good to join the party and think what they think.

I love the Party. I hope if I say the right things, they let me stay this time, and don't call me librul.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"Every time he speaks, I can just hear all the hate he has for me because I'm so white and straight and rich." -- so you're in the 1%?

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

cnn.com/2012/06/01/opinion/patrick-romney-record/index.html?hpt=op_bn6

Here Grace, Spelchek here is a viewpoint of the current Massachusetts governor on your hero.

Or isn't CNN credible enough?

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

What ever you think Grace. Your opinions are ludicrous to me. So, I am in no obligation to even pay heed to them. We all end up six feet under so, some sooner than others, everyone is entitled to their opinions but as far as yours I feel like I'm trying to rationalize with child. They can remove this post but at least I made it known that your opinion is a joke!

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I deal with reality every day. I'm trying to raise a family and trying to put my kids through school. I lived through the W. years and somehow retained my sanity dealing with some of the stuff that mo ron did. It's bad when you have no other choice in an election but to choose the lesser of two evils but that is what we are faced with.

I for one wish Ron Paul would have gathered more attention that what he got. I would love for the government to stay out of my life. Romney in my opinion is not the answer. We have tried the failed policies of the Republicans and they did not work.

TickledPink 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It's interesting how anyone who doesn't agree with you is irrational or has no credibility. I'm sure you realize it and enjoy cultivating the image, but you come across as very holier than thou and self rightous. "I'm right, you're wrong and liberals are all immoral and going to h*ll". You come up with incredible reasons to rationalize ignoring or trivializing other perspectives or opinions. Some of us liberal scum are just as morally intact as you think you are.

TickledPink 11 months, 2 weeks ago

And you're entitled to your opinions. I do find it funny though how you state once again "I am right and you are wrong" when at the very most, you've read 15 (now 16) posts made by me and the majority of them were on articles dealing with our local government, which I've not seen you pipe up on. What exactly am I wrong about?

I have seen many posts that go into detail about "liberal policies" and how they're laid out but instead of even considering them, you dismiss them out of hand. Not because they're bad policies or poorly stated but because it comes from an evil liberal. This is THE biggest issue with our government and our people right now - there is absolutely zero tolerance for someone on the other side of the aisle. The hatred and vileness is disgusting and will eventually be the downfall of our country. Unless we can work together and learn compromise, we have no hope.

And if you come back on this with nothing but more liberal bashing, you're only proving my point. I'm extending the courtesy of actually listening to and considering your opinion. I ask that you do the same.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I tried that Tickled. I have try to reason with Grace. There is no reasoning with someone who thinks they are always right. Compromise is not what Republicans want. They want to squash everything that is not their idea. They feel that the trickle down economic theories are what is right and they are blind that those policies are what have bottomed this country out since Reagan. We have had eight years that the government was for the people other than that it's been all about giving the incentives to the rich and have them trickle that money down in the economy. Guess what they are not trickling it down. They are putting it into tax shelters and banks over seas. No jobs created by these folks. They don't want anyone touching their vaults of cash.

Some plan.

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Yep, you're correct. Most conservatives are no longer willing to "compromise." Why? Well, let's see, compromise got us WW II, compromise results in katzenjammer laws and bills, compromise gets us continuous revisiting of laws with amendments that water them down or try to close loopholes while opening other loopholes, compromise gets us incapable and ludicrous lawmakers (at EVERY LEVEL and EVERY PARTY). Yeah, it's all the conservatives fault for not wanting to compromise our cans down the river.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I understand Grace. I understand that instead of the businesses taking the money that they earned in that Economic Boom during the Golden George W. Bush years and using to hire more people to drive the economy are hoarding it for their own greed. I guess they earned it but they don't want to pay the taxes on it which is wrong. It's not fair for the rest of the population to have to pay taxes and this rich wankers don't have to pay their share. That is what I understand.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

You are mistaken to think Romney is a hero of mine. However, I appreciate the effort.

asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Third world indeed, We're the last wealthy nation to implement a national healthcare system. As large as ACA is, and as quickly as it was put together, I'm sure there are serious problems with it, but they're fixable and we need to get uninsured people out the ER for colds and other issues that are moving our wealth into the hands of the most expensive medical system on Earth. Romoney didn't do MA health care just to appease his dumb constituants, he did it to save his state money. Even MittCo didn't realize how fast insurance monopolies would exploit the competitive disadvantange MA was put in and the costs bear that out. I'm glad you mention the context and supportive writing and debate around the creation of our constitution Grace, because the upshot was that the document had to evolve and it's structure and process were written to allow it. It's not the word of God, it's the work of men - inately flawed and instantly out-of-date. National Healthcare is needed, and if you don't like it (or Social Security either it seems) go somewhere they don't exist . . . oh, we're the last nation without it, just for profit, I forgot.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

So if this system of National Healthcare is not going to work how is it working in other countries that use it and have higher standards of healthcare than we do and are able to provide that healthcare at a more reasonable price?

Again Grace your opinion has no merit to it. Do some investigation of your own. Get the facts before you spout off about how things are doomed and other things won't work just because some radio or tv host says they won't.

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Not only read other material but also talk to some citizens of those "other countries." ( I suggest to talk to more than one or two -- they are easy to find online.) Luckily, I have travelled quite a bit to some of those countries. I have never met one, not a single individual, who has not indicated a desire for less taxes -- in some countries taxes are over 50 percent of income! -- and would prefer a model based on the United States. I have also never met one who, if they had the money, would not prefer to come to the U.S. for their healthcare.

Interestingly enough, check the number of Canadians who cross the border to the U.S. to utilize healthcare here. . .

TickledPink 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It does work and it's been proven to work. Sweden has one of the world's best healthcare systems and it's gov't funded. Hong Kong, France, Norway, Denmark, Singapore. All these countries have National healthcare and are consistantly ranked at or near the top of world charts.

This is from a Wiki article (which I'm sure you'll find some reason to discredit):

"The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries. A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health care."

If you care to read the full article you can look up "Health System" on the Wikipedia home page.

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I prefer going to the source, those who live within the specific system. WIKIPEDIA has for years been shown to be absolutely unreliable on anything within its threads.

I have visited every country you listed. Every one of them have HUGE waiting periods to visit doctors for routine medical care. All of them have HUGE taxes/income. All of them have citizens who come to the U.S. for healthcare (when they can afford it because of taxes), whther it be routine or an advanced procedure.

Out of curiousity. . . these quotes you toss around, what do they mean? Specifically, what does "... underperforms compared to the other countries."? HOW does it underperform; the number of deaths (all are 100%), the rapidity in which a patient can obtain an appointment, the rapidity a patient can be seen by a doctor. the cost of emergency services, exactly what?

Oh yeah, you really should look at the amount of taxes that individuals of those countries pay. You should also consider what the definitions mean before you post them.

TickledPink 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I have been to the source for several (not all) of those, but thanks for the condescending attitude. I don't know what people from the source you've spoken with but here's one example that was just a few months ago. My ex-fiance is from England, all his family still lives over there. His father recently needed heart surgery. Not only was he seen immediately, his surgery was performed at a NHS hospital by an excellent heart surgeon, he had a private room, follow up home healthcare and it didn't cost him a penny extra. His mother also has chronic health issues and gets her care from a NHS doctor and hospital and has had quality care. As far as routine appoinments, there's a wait here. What do you consider huge? In England, wait times are pretty good. You can see your PCP same day or within a day or two in most cases. I had to wait up to a week to get into my previous doctor - that's why I switched to a different practice.

Yes, there are higher taxes but I have a hard time believing the cost would equal what I pay now for private coverage I can't afford to use.

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

First of all, there was no condescending attitude about your sources. I simply stated where mine were coming from. I just spoke, by telephone, to a friend of mine in England. She advised that waiting times for general health checkups are, at least, 3 months out. Waiting at the hospital for emergency care can sometimes be 24 hours if you're not a death risk (broken arms, legs, fingers, etc fall into the 24 hour possibility).
She has a friends parent who is on death watch because they do not consider her a viable hearrt patient (has NOTHING to do with a transplant -- just the medical resources condemn the parent.)

Reference taxes_ Some of those countries EXCEED 50% tax rate (for the AVERAGE wage-earner). If giving 50% of your taxes to federal government does not bother you, then fine. However, do not forget, the 50% is just to the feds, it does not include local taxes.

I really do NOT want our taxes to increase any further.

And you still have not explained just how we are supposed to continue to pay for folks who are no longer on the employment list (retired)? A shrinking working population is supposed to pay continuously increasing taxes???

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731 nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html?pagewanted=all commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

Here John. I didn't get these from Wikipedia and word of mouth from someone is usually not the best way to judge things John. Too much personal bias.

Remember "In God we Trust but others better bring data"

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Personal bias has nothing to do with waiting times and actual events.

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

BTW, how is it that you believe a reporter does not have personal bias? BTW, as I said, I have been to those countries listed and lived, long term, in all but one.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Yawn!

It seems for every study that is published there is someone who can counter that study with some other study.

Government is run by people who have to compromise because of both sides screaming violation if one of the other sides gets more than the other.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Need to work on our social skills there a little. Never use the words You have(makes it personal focus on the situation not on the person) when trying to make a point. It is rude. Makes it seem that your pointing a finger at someone. No Grace I am constantly complaining about big business and rich elites not having to pay their taxes because they manipulate the system. I want them to have to pay their taxes just like everyone else does. Is that fair enough to ask?

I have the same rights as they do but how come I cant use my influence and power to broker deals in Washington to keep from paying taxes? and you didn't reply to my post about Romeny's Emails from the Wall Street Journal. I'm wondering if your interested in seeing how hard he worked to get the Universal health care pushed in Massachusetts. Here is the link:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303918204577447061452012178.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago

All healthcare is rationed. And we all still die. I'd rather have the government, which I can elect, do the rationing than an insurance corporation. All nations with national healthcare ration that care, healthcare is an open ended expense that must be rationed. Poor nations have poor health care. Undemocratic nations often have such corrupt systems that the healthcare is horrible, but wealthy nations have healthcare that generally matches their economic strength. Your constant claims of failure are your personality trait and do not describe the actual world.

John 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Please explain how, as the boomers retire, we can pqy for an expanding healthcare cost (governmetn controlled) when the source of the income that will be used to pay for the healthcare is DEcreasing?

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"I'd rather have the government, which I can elect, do the rationing than an insurance corporation" -- So you prefer a monopoly over choice?

asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago

ACA is built on choice. The present picture isn't. The insurors in Missouri are barely competing, and only against insurors from Missouri. The rationing part is the issue, and rationing in ACA is based on groups, boards, panels (death, of course) made up of government, insurors and medical providers; regulated by the government, not AS government. Yes, I prefer that to what I have now. You should too.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace will be seek social security or medicare when she needs it, then her opinion will change, but she will remain silent like so many other Republicans. That I got mine you get yours goes out the door when someone is sick. Rob

JMO 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It must be incredibly tiring, miserable and stressful to have such a negative outlook on life and the future. I don't know how you manage it.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Good point. Liberals will do that to you.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace when the oil leaves Alaska do you think all that oil goes to the US? Rob

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Nope, neither did a promise to keep unemployment under 8% via stimulus.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I have not met a eligible Republican yet that would give up their right to Social Security. Nor would any Democrat, but I feel the Democrats understand the need for Social security and Medicare! Republicans will understand when someone such as Rand Paul guts their benefits beyond believe, just look at his latest budget, FY2013, and 16 of a 99 voted for it. The Republicans have convinced a generation that the program will not be there including you. They are so wrong with this thought, and we need to protect these programs for future generations. Rob

JCLifer 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Social Security WON'T be there if Obama keeps cutting the contribution rates.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace tell us how Social Security doesn't work.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

So basically you can't tell us how social security works then. You have to use someone else's opinion of what social security is to base your opinion.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Tell me, what is the democrat's plan to make SS solvent?

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Don't know about Democrats, but I support means testing. SS should only be for the needy.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

If our government lived up to it's promise of using SS for what it was intended for; no problem. Unfortunately, they're spending our money faster than we can put back in thus leaving the "needy" high and dry. The only politician with the guts to come up with an actual written plan to save SS is Paul Ryan. The results in WI might be an indicator that Americans are ready to listen to his plan. Until someone else throws out a serious alternative; it's all we have.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"and we need to protect these programs for future generations" -- Rob, why are you so eager to let someone else control your destiny? Wouldn't it be wiser for Americans to save for themselves? Why would you want to put all your chips in to one pot? Especially a pot that is proving itself insolvent.

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

If Wall Street had been able to get privatized Social Security through (they tried... that's who is driving this) back during the Bush years, a lot of people would have just lost huge amounts of their investment in the past few years.

Privatized social security is a sop to the financial industry that stands to take huge profits off new fees that would be generated by privatizing social security.

Don't be suckers.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I am invested in the open market, and I have watch this market for years. Lets just let everyone put their Social Security in the the stock market and watch em rip us off again.There is no eagerness to it, it is called common sense, something that I dont see out of you, or Grace. If you would give me my social security, and Medicare I would walk away today. Hah, Hah! As I said there is no one on Social that would give it up, there are good people who understand this, When your time comes you or your Family will make the decision to make use of these programs. Watch them all come to life if the Tea party starts cutting the benefit. Rob

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"Watch them all come to life if the Tea party starts cutting the benefit" -- You've missed my point somehow, I will not "come to life" when SS disappears because I'm not naive enough to believe that it will be there for me when I'm older. Government uses programs like SS to make people believe they are needed in order for voters to survive, apparently you've taken the bait. "As I said there is no one on Social that would give it up, there are good people who understand this," -- What is good about not giving up welfare? You prefer people to be dependent on others?

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

No, the Social Security program is a response to an ACTUAL PROBLEM. People didn't create social security to make people "dependent on others." It was a response to the real problem of senior citizens living in poverty.

No, people on Social Security don't prefer living off others to taking care of themselves, but they DO prefer living with government help than with wasting away neglected and alone.

This is what drives me up the wall about the Tea Party. The person who is most casual and cavalier about "cutting programs" is cheered without ever explaining how we're going to deal with the problem that the program was created to solve.

You can't just cut huge government agencies when you haven't even thought enough about the issue to remember which ones you want to cut. You can't just cut programs without a reasonable explanation of how you're going to deal with the underlying problem.

Spel's formula of "give up welfare and stop depending on others" is a recepie to re-create the exact problems we had before Social Security. If it was that simple, WE WOULDN'T HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The Tea Party has an attitude about government that is reckless, imprudent, not careful, and definitely not conservative. They don't want to conserve what we have with some moderate changes. They want radical transformation.

realitycheck2012 11 months, 2 weeks ago

The said thing about everything I am reading here is that it is based on the lives of these people at this moment. I guarantee you even if you have a substantial savings, if you lost your job right now due to a health related issue, in less than a year you will be going to the government for help. When will people realize that money only goes so far, and with medical and prescription costs being what they are today, your savings is zapped in no time. Especially if you don't have money coming in. An average surgery is $50,000, have that same or even additional surgeries three or four times and by the time copays and deductibles are done with you, you will be asking for help--Social Security so you have money coming in to pay your bills that you can no longer afford because you are not working, and medicare to help pay for medication co-pays. Then think about this scenario for a person who doesn't have insurance. Key word in this is THINK...

realitycheck2012 11 months, 2 weeks ago

After reading these blogs, I wonder how many of you actually know how government works. It's funny how Obama, or any president for that matter, get's blamed for everything that happens. If you are not happy with the way things are now, you need to look to your congress. They are the ones who pass the laws. Unfortunately, we are under a Republican/Tea Party controlled congress that doesn't give two hoops to heck what happens to the middle/lower class. When it comes to heathcare, trust me, if you would lose your job and your health insurance you would begging the state to help you cover your expenses. When it comes to the jobless rates, you can thank George Bush who gave large employers tax credits to locate their companies overseas and outsourced jobs overseas. Obama is trying to get those things back in the United States but Congress won't allow it. Obama has lots of good ideas and ways to get the economy back on track, but can't get them passed through Congress.

Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It's the House, not the Senate, that caused the debt ceiling crisis and refused to pass a jobs bill.

The problem in the Senate is the radical new use of the fillibuster. Laws are supposed to only need 51 votes to pass in the Senate, not 60.

The "conservative movement" (not real conservatives) have determined that it is better for their politics, if not the country, to just say no to anything Obama wants to do, just to prevent a Democrat from having any success.

It is sad and unpatriotic. Stand up to the Tea Party. Vote them out.

realitycheck2012 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Graceful, what kind of deficit did Obama inherit from George Bush? Do you know how much surplus George Bush inherited? Did you not realize how messed up things were before Obama came into office? Do you realize how long it is going to take to get Bush's mess straightened out? And how do you get that Obama is unpatriotic? Do you even know what that means?

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

No she doesn't know what that means. She will have to submit that question to the radio show to get the answer for you.

It's amazing that Grace and Spelchek respond to different questions with the same answers over and over again even when they have no quantitative data to back up their claims.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

What is my point of view Grace?

You don't know me from a hole in the ground. Don't act like you know me at all.

You pretend like you have all the answers to all the questions throwing out that I know I'm right and I know your wrong. If you were right how come you have so many people on this site questioning your logic?

And the answer to another one of your questions. I want accurate info grace but you have yet to give one shred of evidence for any of your theories except some right wing based article which isn't credible. Very biased. I don't want bias. I want facts. I have provided many links to back up my opinions after comparison and contrast. Things you obviously have no clue about. Your one sided biased opinions are useless and add no merit to any argument.

online_editor 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Some of the most recent posts in this sub-thread prompt me to remind everyone that it's OK to agree to disagree and move on when the comments get to this stage of personal bickering. By this point, everyone reading the thread understands where both sides are coming from, thus, that mission is accomplished. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

How is it a conservative president got his ideas passed in a democrat controlled congress which ultimately led to an economic boom? Keep up the blame game, it seems to be working.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

What economic boom are you referring to?

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

So, after reading this and some of the documents it would be safe to say that after the Bush tax cuts and the prosperity that it brought to business the Democrats are wanting to tax (i.e. take back some of the money) that big business has earned to give back to people who need it and the Republicans who support the tax cuts don't want to give the money from the tax back to the people they want to keep it for themselves.

Am I correct in this ?

realitycheck2012 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes, he did have two full years with complete control of congress and if you remember right things were actually starting to turn around. It's that last year with the republican controlled congress that things are starting to look dismal again. I don't know how you can say his policies are proven failures. We have had health insurance reforms that actually help people that are paying for insurance. You can now insure your children until they are 26. When a person loses their company sponsored health care and have to move to their spouses health care there are no preexisting conditions clauses. As far as the jobs issues, the states that have utilized the stimulus money are actually showing lower unemployment rates. Missouri with its republican controlled house has chose not to use that money, that's why we are not seeing any benefits here. We could have construction booming again by improving our highways and bridges, but instead, they chose to get rid of most of the highway department. Graceful, you need to start checking out your facts by doing more than reading news articles and going to news outlets that only give you one side of the story. There are two sides to every story and sometimes three or four. Take some time to investigate what your saying before you throw it out there. Unfortunately, people like you are tunnel visioned and won't accept the facts, you believe only what you want to believe in.

realitycheck2012 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Graceful, the unemployment numbers were down...that's why this sudden downturn is a shock to you. I know you think what you are saying is true. There is not enough room in this blog point out all the things that have turned around, and there's not enough room to point out all the things that have gone south over the last year because of Congress. And don't use California to compare anything to. They voted a movie star in as president. That didn't get them to far either. Remember this is Missouri.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Grace, we live in Missouri? Things are better, and by the way you blog on this thing you have never left Jefferson City in the last couple of years. Rob

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"It's that last year with the republican controlled congress that things are starting to look dismal again." = You have no idea what you're talking about.

dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago

GRACE IT IS NOT THE SENATE. It is the House of Representative led by John Boehner. Good Grief wake up Grace.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Fire the Norquist 90, Starting with Vickie Hartzler. Rob

asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Amen . . .

sickandtired 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It is so funny how the liberals on this page want to blame the republican house for the debt ceiling crisis. Trying to figure that one out myself. They are trying to cut fiscal spending whole Obama/Dem controlled Senate have the mentality we will hand out more and more money( that always makes things better). Yes they do need to work on a jobs bill but they need to work on one that will get more jobs while not adding the the current situation we are in. You can worry about the middle/lower class all you want but if you keep shoveling money to them without cutting spending somewhere you just get more debt. There are only so many places to cut spending. Besides remember the old atage: Give a nickle and they will ask for a dime. I don't mind giving a little more but everybody else should be doing it also. don't take more from me so somebody else doesn't have to.

asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago

The Republicans don't control the House. The Teaparty controls the house. Their systematic attacks on the government, villification of social programs, and above all the constant drumbeat of cutting taxes on the wealthy are not the work of traditional Republicans. They've hijacked the GOP by fanning fear and distrust of the government. The debt ceiling crisis stems directly from their unwillingness to pay for spending that was absolutely needed when the fire went out of our economy. The Teaparty is using Roger & Rush to tell the American people that they don't need social programs, that only the rich can save us, that education isn't needed, and that thousands of years of governments' use of temporary debt and stimulus spending (usually in the form of war) is suddenly wrong. They choked the stimulus so bad it may be years before we regain a proper growth rate, all for cash: all out of greed: all out of a desire to take the ball of hate and economic turmoil and run with it to the unregulated bank. Money is not evil, but its accumulation into fewer and fewer pockets, at rates never experienced in American history, IS evil. By all means, elect RoMONEY and that's it, no middle class, no affordable education, no help for the old and otherwise unproductive . . . just turn 'em out and pick up the bodies. We've experienced an historic hijacking of a legitimate American conservative party and our peril is growing.

spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"The Republicans don't control the House. The Teaparty [sic] controls the house. Their systematic attacks on the government, villification [sic] of social programs, and above all the constant drumbeat of cutting taxes on the wealthy are not the work of traditional Republicans." -- Same as conservatives in the early 80's, just a different name now. Nothing has changed. Your scare tactics won't work (see WI recall results). Your party controlled everything from 2007-2010. To blame Republicans means the democrats (with complete control) are inept policy makers. If Bush left a mess, well then democrats are terrible at cleaning up messes (after spending $600,000,000 of poor peoples money to "inherit" the mess they didn't see while running to solve it) even when they own the house, senate, and potus to boot. Obama has done in 4 years what it took George W. to do in 8. Congrats.

RobHunterJohnson 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree ASB, I consider myself the middle of the road type person, I will switch hit on my voting. There has been no compromise from this Congress, there has been a tremendous amount of reteric about President Obama, and he can only sign or veto? Alot of people do not understand this, but underneath all this is a few of the ultra rich who will prosper as they dismantle our way of life. Reagan and the Democratic Congress strengthen social security until 2037,but the story the Tea party spews is it is broke, they are convincing alot of people who will need these programs 20 or 25 years from now. I will not let these few on this page who continue this attack go on unchallenged because it to important for all . Rob

sickandtired 11 months, 2 weeks ago

you are absolutely correct rob when you say there has been no compromise by this congress. The republicans want to cut spending but not raise taxes. The democrats what to raise taxes to increase spending and not make any of the important cuts(sure they will make cuts that may look pretty but even the CBO says that it is not close to enough). Yes I agree the only way to get our kids out of the situation we are headed into is to raise taxes-on everybody-not just a few to pay for the majority. But we are also going to need to REALLY look at the budget and make some cut backs in some of the social programs. we also need to cut back on our over seas spending. As for what ASB said- the debt ceiling has been raised twice in the last year and now requesting a 3rd time without making any honest cuts. If things have gotten so bad in the last year under a republican house(note dems still hold the senate and presidency) why continue with politics as usual. CBO announced that our debt will double in 17 year. It will be 70% of our GDP by the end of this year. What will happen after you have taxed everybody you can and things still are not any better.

sickandtired 11 months, 2 weeks ago

her is the article released by the CBO. cbo.gov/publication/43289

sickandtired 11 months, 2 weeks ago

grace look at the graph on the page you posted again. according to the data you are posting in 2010 the GDP was at 42%. now it is up to 70%. that is almost doubled in 2 years. Hope everybody likes that change.

seeno 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Myth of the $247 Medicare Part B Premium MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASE

For those of you who are on Medicare, read the article below. It's a short but important article that you probably haven't heard about in the mainstream news:

The per person Medicare insurance premium will increase from the present monthly fee of

$ 96.40, rising to:

$104.20 in 2012;

$120.20 in 2013; And

$247.00 in 2014.

These are provisions incorporated in the Obamacare legislation, purposely delayed so as not to 'confuse' the 2012 re-election campaigns.

Send this to all seniors that you know, so they will know who's throwing them under the bus.

This is a email forward I recieved today from a wealthy person who has worked in Insurance for years. When I googled this I found out it is a complete myth. Including Medicare's website. I wonder how many people are basing their vote on such nonsense.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303918204577447061452012178.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Its a good read. This is what I was after when I said factual stuff.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID