States with Democratic Govs had 15% Better Unemployment Numbers than States with GOP Govs. UPDATE: Not sure why, but the links have disappeared

We have to cut the deficit because we wont be able to pay it.

Great work Repubs. What about people who need jobs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-nEFO4A3bo

Obama don't settle the MERs , we want convictions. Just fine the banks anyway, we want the felons to go to jail.

The repubs' objective is to create a great depression to get rid of President Obama.

The repubs' objective is to create a great depression to get rid of President Obama.

Well said.

And to complete the redistribution of wealth to the top.

C'mon man!!!! You know that is total BS. I guess all of the criminals flock to states with Republican Governors. Most of the big cities where most crime is committed has DEMOCRAT mayors.

all I checked was the top three, but the top three cities for crime in the US all have republican mayors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Yes, the GOP led states also tend to have

Higher Abortion rates!

Higher crime rates!

Higher suicide rates!

Higher rates of illegal drug usage!

Higher High School Drop out rates!

They do have Lower rates in school test scores though!

spg64-1292127

Killing them with facts !

facts....hahaha

top ten most dangerous cities

#10 stockton cali (D)

#9 rockford IL (D)

#8 baltimore MD (D)

#7 little rock AK (D)

#6 Oakland Ca (D)

#5 memphis TN (D)

#4 New Haven CN (D)

#3 St Louis MS (D)

#2 Detroit MI (D)

#1 Flint MI (D)

TMP you should re-evaluate your sources. Funny thing is the list doesnt look much different when searching poorest liberal run local governments!

Hahahahahahahahahahaha?

And where is your source?

So we are talking about jobs. If you want to talk about crime rates, start your own discussion. Then we would have to look at the long term crime records of those cities, which have not changed dramatically for decades irregardless of mayors being Republican or Democrat.

So we are talking about jobs

No we are not talking jobs, we are talking about unemployment numbers.... Jobs were not part of the statistics...

And the terrible skewed figures used to come to this conclusion ... Allowing California's number to be used knowing that their unemployment offices were closed and people could not apply..Causing them to have a statistically impossible low number...

Cali down 20,698 and the next State NY down 9,433 ...

Look and you find that ..

> California: Down 20,698, as fewer claims were processed during holiday-shortened week

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20120202/ROI/120202009/Unemployment-aid-claims-down-California

Well imagine that !!!!! They were closed and people couldn't file for claims...

Mike what did that do to the statistical finding of the gem of an article?

jim (#7.7). You might have included the lede from the Visalia (AP) story you cited.

Applications for unemployment benefits fell last week for the third time in five weeks, signaling modest improvement in the job market.

Then you say,

And the terrible skewed figures used to come to this conclusion ... Allowing California's number to be used knowing that their unemployment offices were closed and people could not apply..Causing them to have a statistically impossible low number...

I think you are misconstruing the article, through ignorance of intent I can't say, but in any case these data have one baseline criteria: applications filed for unemployment. California like most states allow filing over the internet, so the holiday closing wouldn't really impact applications, just approvals. To support your criticism you'd need to go further into the data, find out the percentage of online vs. in-person applications, then take that figure and compare that ratio to representative periods and then compare. If you still get the "impossibly low number" as a function of a holiday office closure, your criticism is valid; if not, you are wrong.

To support your criticism you'd need to go further into the data, find out the percentage of online vs. in-person applications

I gave the final results ....

I provided an article and a government report that both clearly stated that applications were down because of the holiday .... You can spin it any way you want with things you think or you believe...

I gave proof and you give your opinion ... Sorry when the report attributes the lower number because of the holiday ... I Believe it ... You really think that California had a one week drop over 2x more than the next closest State... HAHAHAHA

I provided an article and a government report that both clearly stated that applications were down because of the holiday .... You can spin it any way you want with things you think or you believe...

jim (#7.9) I must have missed the "government report." Please give me your post # with the link because all I see is your link to the Visalia Times-Delta newspaper, and that doesn't give a cite. What report are you citing? If you don't the report reference, then you can't support your conclusions.

azartguy

here is the Depart of Labor report .... Note where it says that the ...

Shortened workweek due to holiday on 01/16/2012, fewer layoffs in all industries, with the highest concentration in the service industry.

And then in other places all you have to do is look .... the drastic reduction is attributed to it !

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20120181.htm

How ever it is "really last weeks news the new figures are out and Ca comes in at + 4,571 with the following comment ...

California returned back to a 5-day workweek. The largest change in layoffs occurred in the manufacturing industry.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20120227.htm

Think last week at - 20,698 and this week at + 4,571 might tell ya something... Quit the change when they keep the doors open to accept claims...But thats up to you...

Hey look at this weeks numbers and tell me if 1) they want to do the same comparison they did last week with the faulty numbers and 2) How do ya think unemployment looks ?

8 out of 13 States report higher unemployment claims ...

Haven't heard anything about it Have you ? Numbers came out on the 9th ... Interesting ! HAHAHA

jim (#7.11) Well, as I assumed, you are wrong.

You have made a basic conservative true-believer error known as post hoc ergo proter hoc, or, 'after this because of this.' Not your fault really, rushing to judgment seems to be fairly common on the right where folks would rather be right in their own minds and validate preconceptions than be accurate.

To help get you back on the correct path, the report says:
"CA -20,698. Shortened workweek due to holiday on 01/16/2012, fewer layoffs in all industries..." http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/ eta20120181.htm.

Please note the report makes no causality statement; the cause-effect process is only in your mind. Perhaps more careful reading and less off-the-cuff writing would serve you well.

Sure .... You believe anything you want ....

Tha'ts why the next week California went from - 20,698 to + 4,571 ....

What happened to all those people that didn't apply last week ? Did they get jobs? Son not only did the 20,698 not happen but 4,571 more were added...

I guess Logic has nothing to do with the thought process ...

Never mind you don't really want to know anyway ...

jim (#7.13) I "believe" nothing, I just read and think. Critical reading is obviously not a primary skill for a lot of folks out there on the fringes, and thinking less so.

You cannot defend you position except to keep repeating your position, much like the argument of a child who has yet to graduate from the "oh, yeah, is too" stage.

Tell you what, when you're ready to engage in a reasoned and reasonable dialogue with adults, get back to me and I'll walk you through the basic reading and critical thinking lessons I used to give my students. Then you can reread the report, this time correctly.

Smiles....

Ah another Academic that assumes they must teach those not a gifted as they...

Tell ya what, being I am in my 50's I really don't take well to people that seem to view the world looking down their nose...

So I really wouldn't lose any sleep waiting for me to come for my lessons... Since common sense escapes to many people ...

How states fared on unemployment aid applications

California: Up 4,571, due to a backlog of claims from prior week that included holiday

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2012/feb/09/how-states-fared-unemployment-aid-applications/

You might want to send them an E-mail and get them to attend you class they seem to have not understood the report either....

How states fared on unemployment aid claims

California: Down 20,698, as fewer claims were processed during holiday-shortened week

http://mynorthwest.com/21/426463/How-states-fared-on-unemployment-aid-at-a-glance

There are far to many Economists that really need your help... So don't waste your time with me ...

Smiles....Ah another Academic that assumes they must teach those not a gifted as they...Tell ya what, being I am in my 50's I really don't take well to people that seem to view the world looking down their nose... So I really wouldn't lose any sleep waiting for me to come for my lessons... Since common sense escapes to many people ...

jim (#7.15) Well,being in my 60s I've seen more than my share of ignorance cloaked as "common sense" and hiding behind bluster.

I used to call it aggressive ignorance, a kind of willful intention to not learn, to not challenge themselves, to not grow. Ask anyone who's ever stood in front of a classroom and tried to teach the sullen ignorant and they'll confirm that in a class there will be a half dozen who were fated to be right wing talk radio blatherers if they have the skill, or just become their fathers if they do not.

jim (#7.13) I "believe" nothing, I just read and think. Critical reading is obviously not a primary skill for a lot of folks out there on the fringes, and thinking less so.

jim #7.15 - Tell ya what, being I am in my 50's I really don't take well to people that seem to view the world looking down their nose...

Irony: see the 2 statements above.

tim (#17.7). I've always been a little hazy on this irony thing. One person's irony is another's sarcasm, but I'll take a shot here: what's ironic looking at those two statements?

I find it ironic that someone insults another in one post and then takes offense as an innocent victim when insulted by the other person in return. It is also hypocritical.

Hey Tim

Did you miss azartguy #7.12

Not your fault really, rushing to judgment seems to be fairly common on the right where folks would rather be right in their own minds and validate preconceptions than be accurate.

Perhaps more careful reading and less off-the-cuff writing would serve you well.

The conversation didn't start at #7.13 ...

But I guess there is some truth in the old adage that its always the retaliation that gets seen ....never the first blow!

But its really not important....

Jim,

I don't recall AZ making a comment along the lines of:

jim #7.15 - Tell ya what, being I am in my 50's I really don't take well to people that seem to view the world looking down their nose...

As he is doing it. I get that both of you are sniping at each other, that is fine. I didn't comment on that. Please, show me where AZ was looking down his nose and saying he doesn't like it when people do that.

Mitt Romney needs to have his assets seized and then see how he does.

I might sound crazy. But I do think that there in manipulation.

When I search things like company scandals and rich folk steal or something like that. It does not come up with the Enron, World.com or Savings and Loans disaster.

I swear to find the billion dollar disasters you need to type in the exact names else they dont come up. But if you type in murder or fraud or something. You never get the big frauds. You get some smuck who stole 1 million or so.

I swear to find the billion dollar disasters you need to type in the exact names else they dont come up. But if you type in murder or fraud or something. You never get the big frauds. You get some smuck who stole 1 million or so.

That is because you only get the ones that have been prosecuted and not bought off.

Dave; ( ^ :

Ever hear about run on sentences? Maybe that one was a runaway sentence?

......and just how do you figure I am a re-reg???? You don't know me.

Big Red,

I don't know if you are a re-reg but this is why people we think that:

You are very new to the vine (<6 days at the most)

You rather prolific in posts

You have quickly learned to manipulate your profile setting to hide your history.

You know what a re-reg is

I agree that it is a jump to conclusion to say you are a re-reg, but this is why people suspect it.

Actually I posted in here a couple of years ago, so yes I do know my way around these blogs but I'm not a re-reg.

I just do not like people accusing other's of re-reg when they have a problem with what a person write. That is a an old tactic in order to get that person banned.

Right wing nuts. They love making up the news. Makes it fun for the people in the know.

Jim44, try this cached page link.

Like you I couldn't get the links that Bob provided to work either, but I was able to get the cached page up.

Thanks TheHermit

yes it worked .... And OMG what a pathetic article

GOP new claims -50,818 and the total population of those states 133,760,000. Democratic new unemployment claims -47,561 and the total population is 109,102,000. So per capita new claims for GOP Governor states is a reduction of 0.0380%, while per capita new claims for Democratic Governor states is a reduction of 0.0436%, a 15% better performance.

I really hate to be the one to break it to some of you people...

These numbers are not about Job Creation!!!!!

They reflect the number of job loses... Not job gains... HAHAHAHA

No where in the article does it speak of JOBS CREATED... Yet so many of you keep talking about the Democrat Governors that have created jobs based on this silly Blog !

actually the headline of the article and the seed are that Dem governors have 15% better numbers, nowhere in the article does it say that dem governors created more jobs per se, just that they have had 15% fewer claims; the reader is free to extrapolate from there.

Your Right ...thanks for agreeing with me ... I just said that ...Look up ..see where I said ...

"No where in the article does it speak of JOBS CREATED."

Now go read some of the posts in this seed and you will see that my statement ...

"I really hate to be the one to break it to some of you people..."

and

"Yet so many of you keep talking about the Democrat Governors that have created jobs based on this silly Blog !"

My post was all about the Dems in this seed saying and talking about jobs created... Try reading what I wrote....

Jim44,

I was agreeing with you for the most part, yet your reply to me sounded defensive. In an above post you wrote:

yes it worked .... And OMG what a pathetic article

Which was the post I was responding to.

It sounds like you are deriding the accuracy of the article, hence the inference. The article is accurate, it is people who are extrapolating the data who may or may not be as accurate.

I agree with you in that it is impossible from the data contained in the article to conclude that Dem governors have created more jobs.

No doc the data is wrong also.... Look at my #1.18 and see what the author did with the California numbers...

Then I would be glad to discuss why I say the data is faulty...

Thanks...

Yea Right!

Ah another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy , I presume ? Yea like it worked out the last time the Democrats claimed that kind of unsupported drivel ...LOL

and its so obvious that they set this agenda out to destroy the president.

He's doing a great job of that all by his lil own lonesome self...

and BTW, isnt that what the Dems TRIED to do to Bush in 2004?

or is Obama the ONLY President in history thats been challenged by the opposing party?

Dont be so disingenuous...please.

It Ain't So and others --

"is Obama the ONLY President in history thats been challenged by the opposing party?"

This sounds like the "everybody does it" argument. When you use an "all or nothing" argument without using specific examples, it means nothing.

I am out of my league in any attempt to use proper debating techniques but I do recognize that a well-thought out response with details is more informative.

During GW Bush's administration, from my perspective, the Democrats offered little obstruction to Bush's policies. He got his wars, he got his patriot act, he got his trillion dollar bank bailout among other things, so I find the argument "everybody does it" in regards to comparing the current neocon obstructionism to the Democrats' weak opposition to Bush illogical, misleading, and lacking in thought.

I am out of my league in any attempt to use proper debating techniques

Now that was a coherent thought.

During GW Bush's administration, from my perspective, the Democrats offered little obstruction to Bush's policies. He got his wars, he got his patriot act, he got his trillion dollar bank bailout among other things, so I find the argument "everybody does it" in regards to comparing the current neocon obstructionism to the Democrats' weak opposition to Bush illogical, misleading, and lacking in thought.

So then please tell me was it that caused they allow President Bush to get everything he wanted?

They also agreed with the same things he wanted !!!!

OR

They were just a rubber stamp for a President !!!! And approved things they didn't believe in !!!!

Which was it?

IMO if the first one is true then OK you may not like it and it takes away your argument ...Because the Republicans fighting the President means they DISAGREE with the President...Correct?

But if the second one is what you believe And they just rubber stamped anything the President wanted... Are you really comfortable with the people you elected to represent YOU?

Or do you have another explanation?

FYI, I changed my political affiliation after GW Bush's administration from Democrat to Unaffiliated due to my disgust with the Democratic party. That does not mean I will vote "Republican."

What we need to be doing right now for jobs is eliminating all tax loopholes for corporations. Then replace them with tax incentives for "In Sourcing" jobs back to America from other countries, incentives for creating American jobs that stay in America. The culture of GREED needs to be addressed directly, all of those obscene executive salaries and bonuses. Tax them at a progressive rate going up to 90 percent on the most ridiculously high salaries and bonuses. Then if corporations want to continue making huge profits here in America, sitting on the profits, increasing executive pay and benefits and investing offshore, heavily tax those profits.

Let's call it for what it is, corporate economic treason against America and Americans.

corporate economic treason against America and Americans.

And you want to replace it with "government" treason against America and Americans.

What are the repubs in congress doing to create jobs? They spend 90+ percent of their time passing anti women, anti abortion and religious bills, they refused to approve President Obama's job plan. What have they been doing?

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge.

The repubs are praying for a great depression to get rid of President Obama.

13 months and not one single jobs bill. Still waiting.

13 months and not one single jobs bill. Still waiting.

Damn President Obama knows about all the Republican Jobs bills, why don't you? Of course Republicans only control the house ... Sen Reid runs the Senate... And nothing about Jobs ever gets to the Floor for a vote there!

White House Backs House GOP Jobs Bill

The White House backed the GOP leadership’s latest jobs bill today, which Republicans carved out of President Barack Obama’s own jobs package and paid for with a piece of his deficit reduction proposal.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the administration supports the House’s bill, which would repeal a 3 percent tax withholding requirement for government contractors that was enacted under George W. Bush’s administration.

“We support working with them to get that done, and we believe we can,” Carney said. “The current pay-for in the House version is something we can support.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-209760-1.html

And then there is this small list thats interesting....

List of House Passed Bills

Below are listed nine Republican controlled House passed bills that the Democrat controlled Senate will not pass and/or consider.

• North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938) – require the federal government to allow the Keystone XL pipeline.
• Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230) – address high gas prices and support the creation of new American jobs by increasing offshore energy production.
• Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R. 2018) – restrict the federal government’s ability to second-guess or delay a state’s permitting and water quality certification decisions.
• Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 872) – halt duplicative federal regulations on farmers and small business owners.
• Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 (H.R. 2021) – streamline the permit process for American energy production to help lower prices.
• Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act (H.R. 1315) – increase consumer protection and government accountability.
• Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) – stop the federal bureaucracy from imposing a national energy tax.
• Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act (H.R. 1229) – ending the moratorium on American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act (H.R. 1231) – ending the moratorium on American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/09/democrats-are-blocking-jobs-bills/

GOP calls on Dems not to wait, back House-passed ‘jobs’ bills

“Unfortunately, many of the jobs bills the House has passed are stuck in the Democratic-led Senate. We call these bills the ‘forgotten 15,'” he added.

The 15 bills include measures that mandate a major expansion of offshore drilling and faster permitting; block several recent or upcoming Environmental Protection Agency regulations; and thwart the Federal Communications Commission’s “net neutrality” rules, among other proposals.

“These bills are common-sense bills that address those excessive federal regulations that are hurting small business job creation,” said Schilling, who also plugged the GOP’s overall “job creators” agenda.

Now that the question is no longer about Jobs Bills from the Republicans... Can we talk about anything from the Democrats in the Senate? Ya got anything that they have passed?

I could get you more things that have come out of the House and are stalled in the Senate! But why bother.... If Sen Reid will not allow anything to be voted on! Now who exactly is it again stalling and obstructing? You know what the shame is the Democrat controlled media even kept this from someone as informed as you are !

http://thehill.com/video/house/190547-gop-calls-on-dems-to-back-house-passed-jobs-bills

Not one jobs bill in this list (including just a tax cut from the Obama jobs bill - they Republicons took one small piece and CALLED it a jobs bill - it isn't). Remember, tax and regulatory elimination are not jobs bills, just gifts to corporations. There has NEVER been one tax cut nor one regulation that was eliminated which created a single job. Not one, ever.

North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938) – require the federal government to allow the Keystone XL pipeline.

Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230) – address high gas prices and support the creation of new American jobs by increasing offshore energy production.

Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R. 2018) – restrict the federal government’s ability to second-guess or delay a state’s permitting and water quality certification decisions.

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 872) – halt duplicative federal regulations on farmers and small business owners.

Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 (H.R. 2021) – streamline the permit process for American energy production to help lower prices.

Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act (H.R. 1315) – increase consumer protection and government accountability.

Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) – stop the federal bureaucracy from imposing a national energy tax.

Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act (H.R. 1229) – ending the moratorium on American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act (H.R. 1231) – ending the moratorium on American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Show us how any of these actually promotes jobs creation. Do they fund infrastructure? No. Do they contract out new equipment or services? No. Those are the only two ways which the government can create jobs. So, no jobs bill, as I said. Just adding the word "jobs" to the title does not make it a jobs bill.

What they do is undercut our environment and our future as fossil fuels die and we have doubled down on the dying technology.

They aren't jobs bills, they are subsidies to profitable companies that don't need subsidies.

Grae

Start with the first thing on the list.... Be fair...

The Keystone Pipeline would not create jobs? Who would built it, use it and maintain it? And there would be added production at refining facilities (more jobs or more hours for those with jobs) .... It appears Dem think it creates jobs... what do you know that they don't?

Here’s a rundown of what Democrats on both sides of the Capitol have said in the week since President Obama came out against congressional action on Keystone:

• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Landrieu says she'd support Keystone in payroll/ui/doc fix bill. Says ‘good deal’ of D & R support for it.” (Trish Turner, Twitter, 12/15/11)
  
• Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK): “Another sticking point is that Republicans inserted in their bill language that would fast-track the proposed Keystone X-L oil pipeline extension from Canada down to the Lower 48. …Senator Begich is supportive of moving the project forward and his office says that’s not a problem.” (Alaska Public Radio, 12/14/11)
• Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): “I personally think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest. It’ll help us reduce our dependence on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests… I, for one, on this side would hope that this could be part of a final package…” (Floor remarks, 12/14/11)
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Well, let's hope we can negotiate something like that… if states’ rights are being protected and if this is going to be something maybe that we can try to jumpstart the approval process, make it go more quickly.” (MSNBC, 12/14/11)
  
• Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): “I am for the Keystone pipeline. … everyone’s for it, it creates thousands of jobs!” (Fox News, 12/12/11)
  
• Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): “I am proud to again offer my support for the Keystone XL pipeline and the jobs it will create. We need a quicker decision, based on the merits of this project.” (Floor Remarks, 12/13/11)
• Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC): “I'm very much for the pipeline. There is no question about that.” (MSNBC, 12/14/11)
• Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): "I commend the Speaker for including the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that is supported by business and labor." (Release, 12/12/11)
  
• Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA): “‘I think the president’s wrong on this,’ said Cardoza, who is retiring after this Congress. ‘He can veto whatever he wants, but those are both policies I support.’” (POLITICO, 12/7/11)
• Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): “Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge. … ‘The Keystone is awfully important,’ Green said.” (POLITICO, 12/8/11)

Again, these are all things Democrats have said in the week since the leader of their party said he would “reject” Keystone’s inclusion in a jobs bill extending payroll tax relief and unemployment insurance. For months now, Democrats have joined Republicans in supporting the pipeline – which is also backed by a broad-based coalition including organized labor – because it would help create jobs for workers struggling in President Obama’s economy.

http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

Remember, tax and regulatory elimination are not jobs bills, just gifts to corporations.

I disagree .... Government getting the Fluck out of the way helps create the environment for job creation..

There has NEVER been one tax cut nor one regulation that was eliminated which created a single job. Not one, ever.

So if I can demonstrate just 1 job, then your statement will have been proved false and ("NEVER"...AND "Not one") those words are pretty unequivocal are they not? So would therefore require a complete retracted if proved false by the creation of a single JOB ...Correct ? (grins a very evil grin) .... That's a lot of faith ....

Show us how any of these actually promotes jobs creation.

I just did ... Keystone pipeline !

Do they fund infrastructure?

Yep do you not consider the Alaskan Pipeline infrastructure? So why would the Keystone Pipeline not be considered the same way as infrastructure...

Do they contract out new equipment or services? No. Those are the only two ways which the government can create jobs.

When the government creates a Job it is a drag on the economy it takes many citizens tax dollars to pay the salary and benefits or each new worker that Produced NOTHING in return to PAY for the cost or creating it!

When a private company hires someone they must be able to not only recoup the cost of the employee but also still profit from hiring that individual...

But not government ... They get Zero monetary return for anyone hired it is only a liability...

new equipment or services

... So are you saying that the only way that the congress can effect the creation of jobs is to pay for programs?

Are you calling for another stimulus package for infrastructure projects? How has that really worked out for us from the past two Stimulus packages? Green energy anyone ? Where are all the roads and bridges and schools this president told us we would get for all those hundreds ob billions? And you what still trust them to fix it ...If we just give them MORE MONEY?

Any job created by government falls into 2 categories ... Temporary (part of a project) or Permanent (expansion of government) Neither one is health or helpful to the long term economy of the nation...

When IMO the Americans and particularly the left learn that the government was not designed or empowered to create JOBS for its citizens...

Government can reduce regulations, taxes and other things that impede the creation of jobs and the expansion of industry...

The only way that government stimulates Job growth in the Private sector is by getting OUT OF THE WAY !!! And passing Bill such as those Passed and sent forward by the House... Many by Bi-partition support...

Keystone pipeline -- harp, harp, harp, that all you hear -- oh the keystone pipeline, just like you heard "drill, baby, drill." Look where that got us.

Gas, oil and coal company legislation, I could care less about oil companies. No tears here. They are the most profitable industry in history on this earth and they get corporate welfare. Plus, they discourage fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy. Now, investing in alternative energy that would really create jobs and the energy would be used here in America, not the like Keystone pipeline oil which will be exported, not for use by Americans. Let's not forget pollution. Oh, no, those poor gas and oil companies, we can't regulate them. But, Americans can get lung disease and asthma, who cares.

What next, Let's Frack our way to prosperity while destroying America's drinking water.

Wow, what great examples of neocon domestic policy that destroys America.

Silicon Valley is experiencing a surge in job growth and wealth, outpacing the national economic recovery, according to a new report released today.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57373024-92/silicon-valley-economy-recovering-faster-than-nation/

I could care less about oil companies.

Do you drive ...Do you buy things that are shipped by truck,train, plain or train....When their fuel coasts go up ...Your price goes up ! The computer your on right now ..Plastic...Petroleum product... the Electricity you use ...Probably from Coal...Costs more to mine costs more to transport ..Cost to you... more to turn your lights on and use that computer...

When gas jumps about 60 cents a gallon by May... I want to hear you say that again ...

And tell that to all the people that would have had the jobs building that pipeline and all the people that would have had jobs servicing that pipeline Not to mention the people that work at the refineries that would have processed that oil... Yea Tell them ....

Do you not care about them either?

Or all the men and women and their families and all the people that get or keep jobs because of the money those people make and spend... Tell them

And all the folks that work on the oil rigs that were shut down and their families and the people that because of them had jobs ... Tell Them

THAT YOU COULD CARE LESS !

Susan ...we live in a wold that revolves around OIL you may not like it ..but that is the reality of it! Take subsidies away from oil companies ...and we to can pay 7 - 10 a gallon. like Europe.. Because as I just pointed out ... the cost of EVERYTHING goes UP!

Oil in 2012 is our nations Life's Blood... Without it WE DIE... Trucks don't deliver trains don't run, Plains don't Fly... We DIE !

You really might want to CARE MORE ...NOT LESS !

Just a thought!

Without it WE DIE... Trucks don't deliver trains don't run, Plains don't Fly... We DIE !

Without it we move on to alternatives. We put the investments in to make them happen, those that exist today and the research into those that will take over tomorrow. But we can't do that with the denial that dominates the politics of this country. We deny that oil is a finite resource, that is is controlled by an oligarchy in contradiction to a free market. We deny that there are more efficient and lower total cost alternatives today.

We should care less about oil and care more about what we are going to replace it with.

We should care less about oil and care more about what we are going to replace it with.

Hey Tim ...

Want to let me know how the President has been doing with picking winners an losers in the Green energy Industry...

You can start with Solyndra and work you way around OK...

Well... since Bush's administration originally picked them....

Well... since Bush's administration originally picked them....

And did not approve the loan ...now did they? Sorry Brite the Obama Administration Approved, enacted and watched it fail...

Sorry no where to blame Bush on this one! It seems I remember something about a warning from the Bush administration and a credit committee turning them down under Bush...

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=345

Solyndra as I recall, originally applied for the loan guarantee program (which is what the program is, we didn't GIVE them the money... we guaranteed the loans from private investors, which included people like the Walton family), in 2005-06. Because of paper work, and other issues, Solyndra had to re-apply in 2009 and was admitted into the program.

Did POTUS pick Solyndra himself? No. Big scandal? Not hardly. Same program as the one in 2005, refunded in 2009.

If you do the research... you too can apply to the government for grants, loans and other monies. The chances of your business succeeding are as good as anyone else's...

Brite

Read what I said again please....

Want to let me know how the President has been doing with picking winners an losers in the Green energy Industry...

My point being when ever government tries to pick the winners and losers in private industry they more often than not make their selections for the wrong reasons and by ill or un informed career employees with an agenda...

You can start with Solyndra and work you way around OK...

Yes I picked a loser... which has been followed by more losers and failures...Than winners in the Green energy sector...

Once those that champion Green energy finally understand that no one is against the goal of renewable energy... Most of those like me...

See failure after failure...

We see no return for Billions of dollars spent

We see how the Green energy industry has failed most everywhere it has been tried..

And to see those that seem to think we can just stop using oil and switch to a form of energy that doesn't even exist is for lack of a better word...frustrating...

The entire world evolves around oil and oil products... Without oil we Starve to death... Yet those that champion Green will not admit... It simply DOESN'T WORK ... Never has ... and never will for many years to come long into the future...

So demonizing oil and thinking by doing so they can force people to change to a form of energy that doesn't exist, is not efficient, is not cost effective, and probably won't be for years... Doesn't fix anything!

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not all of the above?

I have a theory ...but its just a theory...

Those with the green agenda and the reply to my post furthers my theory... I said Without it we die...

The reply was ..

Without it we move on to alternatives.

Back to force people off fossil fuels ...by using several tactics... We have the save the world angle , and then there is the .... Misinformation tactic ..like

We deny that there are more efficient and lower total cost alternatives today.

Really ? See it would be great were it true and were it true and it was cheaper what American would not be on it in a heartbeat... But its not ..

We then come to the one that a majority of greenies like ...drive the cost of oil up so much that people will switch because it makes the expensive green energy cost effective in the artificially inflated cost of fossil fuels..The big problem with that one ...it makes the US even less competitive on the world market... But they really don't care... because they want to save the world not the decadent USA

Brite ask yourself ... Why those that support fossil fuels are also open to renewable as soon as its finally made cost effective and reliable.. Pretty much say drill baby drill and keep searching for the golden ring for the future... DO BOTH !

But the other side of the coin ... Wants to pretty much stop all oil production force prices up to discourage its use and force the change to the new forms of energy... Even if it doesn't really exist yet and it would make Americans lives much more difficult.. But their agenda is what is most important and the unintended consequences be damned..

Brite you very intelligent and we converse often... I don't expect you to agree with me (we most never do) but I do believe you absorb what even those that you disagree with or oppose on an issue say ... So as you watch the vine actions on the issue of Renewable energy ... Just keep in mind what I suggested and see if there is not at least a kennel of truth ... Which side of the argument actually seems more tolerant of the other!

The lets do keep doing what we are doing and try anything or everything to come up with something for the future... Most often very little political motivation..

Or those that want to stop or drastically curtail the use of fossil fuels and direct the the MONEY to renewable sources... Most always political and agenda driven environmentally motivated...

Just watch ... give it time and in a few weeks and we meet on a seed all ya have to say is "you were right" or "you were wrong".... and I don't question your honesty or your ability to be objective ...just watch and give it a little time...

See Ya ...

Want to let me know how the President has been doing with picking winners an losers in the Green energy Industry...

Considering there are hundreds of companies small to large that have received investment, no I don't care to go through all of them. And especially since the performance of any one company is meaningless. See the investment is not an attempt to pick winners and losers. The purpose is to give as many approaches a shot at making it in the market place and letting the market weed them out. It is sort of like planting lettuce or carrots in your garden. You start out overseeding. Then as the plants start to grow and crowd each other, you harvest the weakest to give the healthiest more room to grow. You continue this until you have a garden where the maximum number have room to flourish and be healthy.

Just a sample of the payoffs coming from investments in renewable energy.

Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x123147924/State-says-clean-energy-firms-thrive-in-Massachusetts#ixzz1lrU2puX2

Statewide, jobs in clean energy grew 6.7 percent last year, totaling about 64,000 positions ranging from solar panel installers to engineers, Sullivan said. Job growth in this sector is expected to roughly double this year, according to Sullivan.

Growth in the sector in 2010 and 2011 has been double digit. It is leading other sectors of the economy in this recovery. So a few companies fail do to a serious of factors, not least of which is dumping by China and you want to fault the sector and investment in it?

And to see those that seem to think we can just stop using oil and switch to a form of energy that doesn't even exist is for lack of a better word...frustrating...

I love this fallacy argument. No one in their right mind thinks we can or suggests we try to stop using fossil fuels tonight except those that have an agenda to oppose the switch over to alternative energies. Anyone that is serious knows this will take years and will be a gradual transition. Even if we showed the commitment we showed for the Rural Electrification or Interstate high way system, it will take decades to eliminate our use of fossil fuels.

What we can do is start by stopping our increase in use. That we can do very rapidly, as rapidly as building a new coal fired plant. The next phase is to eliminate coal fired plants through attrition. As they age out and are decommissioned, we replace them with renewables. During this time we have to invest in a new modern grid that is designed for multiple modes of generation and distribution.

In transportation it will take at least 20 years to transition to renewables and remove traditional fuel vehicles off the road through attrition. But each year will see a decrease in traditional fuel demand as the number of vehicles on the road have made the transition.

So basically, what can change in the very near term 2 to 5 years is the growth trend in fuel usage.

Tim's right.

What's more, it's not the people that are pushing the renewable energy projects that are pushing up the price of fossil fuels. It's speculators. Take them out of the equation, and the price of fuel goes down.

Mind you, I'm not against any one making a profit. Hell... I'd like to make a profit. That's what I'm in business to do. But... the obscene profits that speculators and oil companies make?? Really?? This is sustainable??

"Green energy" is a good thing. And not every company is going to fly. Not every company is going to make a profit. And some are going to go down in flames.

But, that all being said, it's going to take a minimum of 20 years to get us off of oil. I'm figuring closer to 40...

Jim44:

Gas, oil and coal company legislation, I could care less about oil companies.

I said I did not care about oil companies, not oil. I found your response interesting. But, I need time to develop an informative reply. On one hand, I like that fact that here on the Newsvine, many posters provide in-depth information. On the other hand, it takes time to pull together information for an adequate reply.

Thanks for your comments.

Susan

Please take your time it demonstrates you are thoughtful and actually care to get the information for yourself... Something I respect...

I am sure your reply will be worth waiting for... (and that is not sarcastic, but honest)

.

Jim, when I was growing up and through much of my youth and middle-age, I believed American ingenuity could solve any problem.

But, somewhere around the 1980s, I witnessed my first false public relations campaign (I realize there are many more). When we had an oil “crisis”, automobile manufacturers ran massive splashy polished ad campaigns for electric or fuel efficient cars. I wanted one of those cars. I waited and I waited but eventually those programs were discarded. That is when I realized that it was just a ploy to appease the public’s desire for fuel efficient cars.

There were other disillusioning moments regarding energy companies and others. The latest was the BP oil spill. It was a disaster and BP tried to hide the facts, among other things. And still the oil industry boasted the best profits ever while oil-spill affected communities continued to suffer. Think Exxon Valdez.

Plus, I witnessed how the U.S. energy industry squashed the alternative energy industry. While at the same time, various countries in Europe were successfully investing in alternative energy.

Oil is a nonrenewable energy. As an American, I expect my political leaders and business leaders to find solutions to problems that benefit Americans as well as their own bottom line, but what I am seeing are politicians and business leaders making policies that help fill their coffers with taxpayers’ monies without any benefit to the taxpayers.

This is what is heartbreaking to me. American politicians and business leaders are foregoing research and development that would utilize our people’s intellect, knowledge, and abilities. It would provide jobs. It would boost our economy. We would be leaders again in innovation. But, now, we continue to use old technologies, reduce expenses by foregoing R&D and maintenance of aging equipment.

I want an innovative America.

So, when I say I do not care about oil, gas, coal, "energy" industry companies, I say this because they don't care about people. Think coal miner deaths, think mountain top removal and pollution of groundwater. Think Fukushima.

The recent news that fracking injects toxic chemicals as part of its process that pollute local ground water is horrific. What did our leaders do? They tried to hide this information. I think this is disrespectful to Americans. I believe that if Americans had good information and a choice of options they would make the right choice. But, providing information, options or solutions to the negative effects of their industry is an expense "energy" companies do not want to spend.

I, as an American, depend on accurate information but it is getting harder and harder to find.

Below are some links to information regarding the future of alternative energy. Again, I did not do hours of research. I just tried to find a few reliable sources.

Alternative energy at this time, will never replace the need for fossil fuels but it can reduce the consumption and thereby extend fuel reserves until other solutions are found.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037134&contentId=7068677

http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/GSR2011_Master18.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/davos-green-infrastructure-developing-countries

Susan

First thank you for a very well written and thought out reply... As for your 3 references I read the first and third and second is a bit long so I skimmed it...

Susan... I have read your reply twice.... And I think I have an idea of what you believe happened in the past, whats currently happening and what you hope for the future...

Honestly ... I really don't know that a continued conversation between us would really accomplish ... We are way to far apart on what you see as the current situation and what I see ... And although I admire you vision for the future... Your vision and my sense of reality are so far apart ...

I know we will never (well never is a long time but) come to an agreement of whats desirable and what is practically possible..

So as to not be another disappointment in your life I don't want to be the one to tell you the things I believe true about Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny or The Tooth Fairy...

Much of what has become your believe system I find fault with because of my own... Are you right or am I ... Right now who's to say... But since much of what you expressed in your reply I would disagree with on principled grounds I really see nothing we can gain, but to have a running disagreement...

Like our fellow Viners Tim S and Brite... I respect them for their idea's and Brite from time to time and I even agree on very very small items (smiles) But I see you more as I see Tim...

But, in fairness to him... I will speak only of you ! Your beliefs are very much based on you feelings and your emotional ties to the subject! And from personal experience all that ever gets are bad feelings and most never honest intellectual discussion because to attack a source or ideal is sometimes seen as a personal attack or at least taken personally...

But our differences run so deep ...Down to and an example I am sure will allow you to see I am probably right...

You believe that Oil Companies have an obligation to .....

I expect my political leaders and business leaders to find solutions to problems that benefit Americans as well as their own bottom line, but what I am seeing are politicians and business leaders making policies that help fill their coffers with taxpayers’ monies without any benefit to the taxpayers.

(Lets look only at business for this discussion)

You expect Oil companies to be concerned with saving the world from their product and help some other new industry put them out of business for the good of the country... and the world.... I see things a little different...

Oil companies are in business for their shareholders.... If they can help the country or the world ...other than by providing a continued reliable supply of their product.... Not cause environmental damage (yes it happens but responsible response and cleanup and reimbursement to those effected doesn't make it as if it never happened but it does help correct a mistake) anything beyond that .....is an added bonus ...But it doesn't make them bad people or bad players on the world scene.... It doesn't make them good people ..

It makes them what they are a provider of a necessary product!

Today Oil and oil companies are villains...

But not to long ago Oil made the US the crown Jewel of the World.... So soon we forget..

Oil or Oil companies really haven't changed that much ... Just peoples attitudes toward it.. People are willing to reap the benefits of the Petroleum industry... While demonizing it at the same time...

Its so easy, as we reap all the rewards and enjoy all the benefits that petro products bring into our lives every day... But somehow its never enough...

No other product on the face of the planet is more important to your survival and way of life, nothing... Yet so many spend their lives trying to destroy it.... Without petroleum and its sister products (natural gas) America is Somalia....

But do the environmentalist acknowledge that or really even care ? No ! And those that speak the loudest like Al Gore ... Think nothing of jumping on a Private Jet , riding in their gas guzzling vehicles and living in multiple Mansions...

All the time leading a crusade against oil .... But do those that have been lead to believe the problems of the world are all caused by oil .. don't care...

Susan I am a realist.... I believe that the world will not change until a group of replacement technology is perfected and actually put into use.... Its not a coincidence that the oil industry and the explosion of the automobile industry happened almost simultaneously...

The need for alternative sources of electricity ... is where the interest is ... but its not where the need is .... You want to fix the problem face the issues...

Transportation ..... Oil controls the world not because of electricity ...its because of Gasoline and Diesel ...

Gasoline and Diesel ... but its not very pretty and its not very chic... But its the lives blood of the WORLDS ECONOMY...

Solar panels ...Wind .... Pie in the Sky .... It can't work on the scale needed to provide the amount of electricity needed to power the US... and it will do nothing to get us off OIL but no one will tell you that....

Susan ... As I said when I started this reply ..... Lets let it ride but be civil..OK ... And as you can see just from this one issue I suspect you know I am right ... little common ground...

Two things I will agree with you on ...100 %

I believe that if Americans had good information and a choice of options they would make the right choice.

and

I, as an American, depend on accurate information but it is getting harder and harder to find.

But so many see things emotionally (smiles) and end up using things like reports that use the IPCC as a source... When the world knows they have a dawg in the hunt for themselves... Making them not necessarily wrong .... Just not reliable as not being bias...

Again thank you for a very civil discussion...Its a hard subject to get that on (smiles and winks)

Jim, thank you for your considered response.

The only thing I have are my perceptions of the world and I say this because I am also a realist. I don't pretend to have in-depth knowledge of subjects I have little personal experience with.

For example, I have led many community groups with varied missions. As chair, I learned that no one in the group or outside the group knows the true facts about how a particular group works, what resources they have to work with or what they really achieved.

So, I try to base my statements on the only true facts I have -- my perceptions and my limited knowledge based on the best information available to me.

I believe that we the people of the United States under the constitution and the laws of this country provide charters for corporations. To say, that: "Oil companies are in business for their shareholders.... " I believe this is part of the corporate charter. But, we can revise these charters, to have corporations include expenses to mitigate the damage their products produce. Also, originally, this country could revoke a corporation's charter if they failed to serve the public.

You are correct in one aspect, we will never agree. You are fixed in your opinion. I am open to change.

Susan

2 things ....

" I believe this is part of the corporate charter. But, we can revise these charters, to have corporations include expenses to mitigate the damage their products produce.

The corporate charter really IMO has little to do with that subject because there are SO MANY Laws that control things like that ... And the ultimate force in a free market is the public... Why do you think BP put up $20 Billion right away... Not because of its charter or ERA regulations but because of Public Relations and bad Press...

And ....

You are fixed in your opinion.

Only on my core values...they don't change . Everything else ...Ah I can be convinced but require proof not words and emotions

I am open to change.

Well then you still might see things my way (smiles) Enjoy and good luck!

Thanks Jim, words are funny things. I think if we were to sit and have a chat, we could clear up some of the unintentional misunderstandings that I feel are hidden behind our word choices.

I have little if no doubt you are 100% correct ....

Jim,

You are a proponent of the power of the free market, correct? And that the sole function of the business sector is to make a profit for their shareholders and/or owners, right?
And you think I oppose this, correct?

Sorry, I agree. Where we differ is that I want the public to be able to make a well informed decision. And really when we get down to it that information is summed up in the price of the product. That is the basis of the free market after all. So let the price of the product reflect the costs, all the costs including the externalities. Then the consumer can make an informed decision. Management can work to maximize their profits for the shareholders without having the public subsidize their costs through hidden charges.

You talk about the oil spills as the environmental issues of oil. Yet you do not even allude to the other environmental impacts of this industry or the health costs associated with their use. Costs that we all pay for, but are not attributed to the products. So how can a consumer make an informed decision if that purchase is the one they want to make?

Susan I am a realist.... I believe that the world will not change until a group of replacement technology is perfected and actually put into use.... Its not a coincidence that the oil industry and the explosion of the automobile industry happened almost simultaneously...

Today's solar and wind technology is capable of providing over 40 PWh of energy a year. We use a total of under 30 PWh a year. That is the total not electricity or transportation or residential or commercial, but everything combined. So your claim that the alternative technologies don't exist yet is in error. The technologies exist, the will to convert does not. From a practical standpoint the question in my mind is do we begin this transition now and take 20, 30, 40 years to accomplish it? Or do we avoid the issue and keep going as we have been for the last 150 years until we have no choice and no time to smooth out the transition.

Transportation is a good example. We can ignore the reality of oil and continue as we have been. This will result in transportation costs swinging wildly and more frequently as time goes on. Or we can begin the phase in of electric vehicles and the phase out of oil based vehicles over the next 20 years. This includes the technology that exists today of wireless resonant induction for energy transfer to a moving vehicle, receiving the energy to propel the vehicle from transmitters in the road surface.

I think the best way to make these decisions is to change our cost accounting practices. A simple change of including externalities into the cost basis would address this issue and allow the consumer to choose the best products for their needs. It uses the power of the free market without the hidden subsidies that we have in the system now.

Tim thank you ... I just did a quick read of you post and I like what I see... Sure we are not going to be in 100 % agreement but I would hate it if we were... that would mean one of us were not thinking for ourselves!

I will don't have the time right now to give your post the honest time and reply it deserves...So please understand I will get back to you tonight with my thoughts....

My only criticism (at this time,,,Grins) of you post is that I wish when you (or anyone for that matter) makes a matter of fact type statement that they support it with something that would allow the reader to understand where the information is coming from... to make it easier to verify your claim....Such as ...

Today's solar and wind technology is capable of providing over 40 PWh of energy a year. We use a total of under 30 PWh a year. That is the total not electricity or transportation or residential or commercial, but everything combined.

I mean that is quite a mouth full to drop out there with no support, ya know?

But as I said ... I promise I will get back to you this evening...

Again Tks Jim ..and I look forward to this exchange...

My only criticism (at this time,,,Grins) of you post is that I wish when you (or anyone for that matter) makes a matter of fact type statement that they support it with something that would allow the reader to understand where the information is coming from... to make it easier to verify your claim....Such as .

And I hate doing it. The research for this is scattered here on NV and on my computer. I am working on pulling it together in to a succinct summary, that you, and others, can review. Much of it is my work using multiple sources ranging from EERE and the Census to calculate the potentials of various scenarios.

One good place to start is here at time mark 1:46 in Daniel Nocera's presentation. 800 TW of power times 365 days a year times 6 hours a day is 1752 PWh per year. At 15% efficiency is 262.8 PWh per year and using 15% of the US surface area gives 39.4 PWh per year from solar alone. And that is without taking into account his criteria for reducing 1.2 x10^5 TW to 800 TW practical. I am estimating a minimum by assuming his practical has nothing to do with available area or current efficiencies. It is quite possible I am counting these factors twice.

You are a member of the Vine so I know you see the type articles about Republicans all day everyday here and you have a problem with Negative press (really does laugh out loud) !!!

The repubs have terrible track record. They deserve negative grades. They are responsible for bush's great recession.

The repubs have terrible track record. They deserve negative grades. They are responsible for bush's great recession

Wasn't Democrats in control of Congress the last two years of the Bush Administration? And the first two years of the Obama administration ?

I seem to remember something about that don't you?

The democrats were trying to avoid bush's recession and bush kept threatening to veto all their bills.

The democrats ended bush's recession in 2009 after most repubs had been fired.

The repubs were not elected to give excuses, they were elected to produce results. They will all be fired in November, get ready.

Wasn't (sic) Democrats in control of Congress the last two years of the Bush Administration?

Didn't Dubya discover his veto pen only after the Democrats took control in the House? When did the Senate gain a super majority and for how long was it held (hint, it was only for 40 days due to the illnesses and deaths of Kennedy and Byrd). The Senate rules require much more time between a bill being introduced and voted upon, which gave the Democrats time to work on only about 30 total bills in the Senate before the obstructionist GOPers held America hostage, again.

The 110th and 111th House sessions (2007-2009) were, by far, the most productive ever, passing well over 700 pieces of legislation, only to watch them die in either the Senate (blocked by over 300 GOP filibusters) or at the hand of Dubya who vetoed 0 bills between 2001 and 2007 and 12 between July 2006 and July 2008. And then there were the signing statements by Bush, literally ignoring the will of the Congress 130 additional times (challenging over 1000 different provisions of laws which were duly passed by Congress and the Senate).

Sorry but I just have to start here....

And then there were the signing statements by Bush, literally ignoring the will of the Congress 130 additional times (challenging over 1000 different provisions of laws which were duly passed by Congress and the Senate).

Am I to assume that you have a problem with presidents using signing statements?

Yea me too, and when a person running for president so clearly has an issue with it , when the then president of the other party uses it ... And goes on record so clearly as this, against doing it !

Barack Obama, during a 2008 campaign rally, made his position known on signing statements. After being asked by an audience member whether he would “promise” not to use signing statements to override Congressional statutes, he stated simply “yes,” and then elaborated as follows:

Barack Obama

Sunday, Apr 17, 2011 10:18 AM Eastern Standard Time

Obama v. Obama on signing statements

Barack Obama, during a 2008 campaign rally, made his position known on signing statements. After being asked by an audience member whether he would “promise” not to use signing statements to override Congressional statutes, he stated simply “yes,” and then elaborated as follows:

There is no ambiguity in that vow: none at all. He explicitly promised not to use signing statements to nullify Congressional statutes he thought were invalid. Citing his credentials as a Constitutional Law professor, Obama explained that “Congress’ job is to pass legislation,” and when that happens, a President has only two options: “the President can veto it or sign it.” In contrast to Bush — who, Obama said, “has been saying ‘I can change what Congress passed by attaching a statement saying I don’t agree with this part, I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way’” — Obama said he, by contrast, believes “that’s not part of [the President's] power.” He punctuated his answer as follows: “we’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.” It just doesn’t get any clearer than that.

List of Signing Statements
issued by
Barack Obama

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

I truly Love it when they stick to those promises...It Demonstrates their personal integrity honesty and moral conviction to telling the truth and sticking to your guns....

And he kept that promise ...For an entire 28 days ...I mean he kept that promise all the way until Feb. 17 2009 ... (clap clap clap) ....

Didn't Dubya discover his veto pen only after the Democrats took control in the House?

WoW you mean when the president became a lame duck and had lost the ability to influence legislation while it was still in congress and he was forced to use the only option available to a president to stop something from becoming a Law.....the VETO ....

Smiles .... Yawn ...Come on What would his other option be? Be run over by Congress? And allow the Democrat controlled House do what ever it wanted? Yea I am sure that's the way a Democrat President would act !!!!

Alex

Do you ever say anything that either can be proven or that you actually prove to be true?

The repubs were not elected to give excuses, they were elected to produce results

As were every other member of Congress and the President ...So what !

All we hear from the left are excuses and reasons to blame republicans and take no blame themselves!

They will all be fired in November, get ready.

Qui qi Board or Magic 8- Ball ? And are you taking bets on whether that statement is true ? If so I would love a piece of that action!

President Obama is already winning the election.

The repubs are having a hard time getting people to oppose President Obama....

.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_020412.html......

.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history. ......

.http://smd12364.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/30/10269420-obama-opens-up-huge-lead-in-florida........

.Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/12/20/bloomberg_articlesLWISQZ6S972A.DTL#ixzz1h7jGAN5y........

.http://www.gallup.com/poll/151628/Congress-Ends-2011-Record-Low-Approval.aspx

And then they say that the repub party is not a racist party.

And then they say that the repub party is not a racist party.

How was that statement RACIST? Or even not true... To state something that is true that also has something to do with skin color does not automatically make it RACIST!

Yes. That is their strategy to get votes from all the racist beasts members of the repub party. No one here was mentioning race. This seed is not about race. Race is not relevant for this seed.

There is no acceptable reason to introduce race into this discussion.

Alex

Do you answer questions when asked of you directly ?

How was that statement RACIST? I ask again...

I already said why I think that that statement was racist. This seed does not have anything to do with races. No one else here was talking about any races, then someone comes in and start bashing certain races for no reason. Poor people of all races commit more crimes.

I think that too many repub politicians introduce race issues into discussions unnecessarily only to get votes from all the racist beast members of the repub party.

There was no need for anyone to introduce the race issue in this seed.

I rarely see any leftist introduce a racial issue and start bashing certain races unnecessarily.

Poor people of all races commit more crimes.

Bull@!$%#. Poor people get prosecuted more for crimes. And their crimes are petty by comparison. Rick Scott defrauded Medicare/Medicaid for billions and then was elected Governor after paying his bribes, er I mean fines, to the feds. How many of the thieves on Wall Street and in the mortgage lending business of the 90s and 2000s are on trial let alone in prison? And the list goes on.

A large part of the racism that goes on in our legal system is based on the lack of the color green in ones wallet.

I agree that poor people get prosecuted more for crimes. We really do not have access to the number of crimes committed by rich people.

We really do not have access to the number of crimes committed by rich people.

That merits repeating, with emphasis.

Susan

I couldn't use it either but was given this by another viner

cached page link.

see if it works ! It did for me ....

THX Jim

President Obama has been deporting way more people than bush.

President Obama has been deporting way more people than bush.

Key words "has been" You are aware that that has changed in the past 6 months or so..Right?

It was another record breaking year for deportations, with DHS logging 396,906 removals during Fiscal Year 2011. ..
http://immigrationimpact.com/2011/10/19/redefining-criminality-untangling-dhs%E2%80%99s-record-high-deportation-numbers/

Alex, not only that, illegal border crossing are down over 50% since 2008 (to a level not seen since the 70s)while drug and gun seizures are way up. We also have double the number of border agents ~19000 compared to what it was in 2004, with half of the added agents coming under the Obama administration. Neither are being fully reported in the right wing (read as corporate media) media, of course.

Obama to deport illegals by ‘priority’

Case-by-case plan will curb numbers

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/18/new-dhs-rules-cancel-deportations/

Obama on Non-Criminal Illegal Aliens: We Don’t Want to Deport Them; 'We Want Them To Succeed’

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama on Monday told a student who has received a deportation notice that he does not want to deport her -- he wants people like her to succeed.

The exchange happened during a town hall event sponsored by the Spanish-language television network Univision at a Washington, D.C., school.

A student, who appeared via Skype, asked: “My question for the president is, why [is the government] saying that deportations have stopped -- or the detention of many students like me, why is it that we are still receiving deportation letters like this one?”

Obama answered, “We have redesigned our enforcement practices under the law to make sure that we’re focusing primarily on criminals, and so our deportation of criminals are up about 70 percent. Our deportation of non-criminals are down, and that’s because we want to focus our resources on those folks who are destructive to the community.

“And for a young person like that young woman that we just spoke to who’s going to school, doing all the right things, we want them to succeed," Obama said.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-non-criminal-illegal-aliens-we-don-t-want-deport-them-we-want-them-succeed

‘Backdoor Amnesty?’ Obama Halts Automatic Deportation of Illegals

The Obama administration said Thursday it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in this country and apply for a work permit, while focusing on removing from the U.S. convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.

That will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in announcing the policy change.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/backdoor-amnesty-obama-halts-automatic-deportation-of-illegals/

not only that, illegal border crossing are down over 50% since 2008

wouldn't that have something to do with that WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION the Dems are always spouting off about?

Or do you think they fear the OBL killer President Obama?

If he can take out OBL whats a few illegals ???

I have every intention of doing just that!

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge.

The repubs are praying for a great depression to get rid of President Obama.

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge.

define "in charge" then please explain why you excluded 2009 the Democrats were in charge then also?

The repubs are praying for a great depression to get rid of President Obama.

Great another statement that can't be proved or denied... Perfect political tactic...

2009 was a transition year, bush left a huge mess, an economy in a free fall. The worst recession after the great depression.

You cannot turn around a huge economy that quickly, it is too hard to separate the effects of bush's policies and of President Obama's policies on the economy in 2009.

Damn its Bush cryin time again....Because then there was 2010 and 2011 and now its 2012 ...

And for many on the Left ...ITS STILL BUSH'S FAULT ....

At the current rate of excuses this maybe the first president in history that went an entire 4 year term and was not required to take responsibility for ANYTHING !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tXSor1Y7AA

So... we quit blaming Bush for the economic free fall. The economy was supposed to stop and turn on a dime the moment that Obama raised his right hand.

I am AMAZED at the people of this country. What a bunch of whiny ADD brats we have become. It's all about instant gratification.

Our country went into an economic tail spin the likes of which hasn't been seen in almost 80 years. People, REAL PEOPLE lost their jobs, their homes, lost EVERYTHING under the presidency of George W Bush. HE was the man in charge. HE gets the blame for that. Suck it up.

And the moment that Barack Obama takes office, it's all supposed to be fixed? What kind of freaking kool-aid are you people drinking??

The best economists in the world were saying that it was going to take the US at a minimum 5-8 years to recover and that it was going to take a HUGE cash infusion, and that the we would be smart to push ideas like the ones that helped pull us out of the Great Depression - the TVA, the REP and other infrastructure projects. The lessons that we learned, cutting and gutting the government not being a good idea are being ignored.

And this is all supposed to happen in less than 4 years.

What a bunch of morons.

Brite

Repeating the Democrat line does not make it so ... I tire of this one most....

Our country went into an economic tail spin the likes of which hasn't been seen in almost 80 years

That is total crap...(sorry but that's the nicest word I could think of ) ....

Unemployment has been as high or higher

Inflation has been MUCH higher

Interest rates also MUCH higher...

But since you said it were the one to say it how about you tell me just what makes this the "tail spin" blah blah blah ...in 80 years...

This is a canned line that no one ever gets questioned on or is asked to present proof of its being TRUE !

So now how about you convince me !???

But please let me provide you with something to think about ....First !!!

The Worst Steward of the Economy in American History

As side-by-side comparison of circumstances inherited by Reagan and Obama is as follows:

Reagan

Obama

Inflation

13.5%

0.0%

Unemployment Rate

7.5%

7.6%

GDP Growth (Previous Year):

-0.27%

0.0%

Prime Bank Interest Rate

18.5%

3.25%

Among the factors that reflect the tale of the two presidencies is the price of gold.

Recently the price of gold reached $1,609.00 per ounce. While this is an historic high in terms of raw dollars, it is not the high insofar as inflation-adjusted price. That came on January 21, 1980 when gold reached $850.00 per ounce; however adjusted to 2011 that price is the equivalent of $2,328.00.

Now those are hard and fast numbers ...Correct... Now ! You talk about time to fix the problem right? So lets look and see what happened... History has a way of shedding light on things...

By August 1983 (28 months into President Reagan's first term) the price of gold was at $401.75 or $910.48 per ounce in 2011 dollars (down 61% from 1980 peak). Inflation had been reduced to 3.2% (from 13.5%); the unemployment rate was at 9.2% (down from a high of 10.8% in November of 1982); annual GDP growth in 1983 was 4.52%, the highest in the previous four years. In the final year of Reagan's first term GDP grew by an astounding 7.19% and the unemployment rate had been reduced to 7.6%). Yet the average annual federal government budget deficit over those years was kept at 4.2% of GDP despite the overwhelming debacle facing the country in 1980-81.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_worst_steward_of_the_economy_in_american_history.html

Why not read the entire article and make sure its not correct... before you attempt to defend the record of President Obama ...

Oh... But St Ronnie fixed it all over night!

That's what I'm getting at. (and it wasn't aimed at you, in particular, Jim)

I'm not defending Obama's record for the sake of defending Obama. ANYONE (with the possible exception of McCain) who followed Bush would have ended up with this ADD, instant gratification attitude. NO ONE can fix this over night. It took the US 10 years and a world war to dig ourselves out of the Great Depression. The Recession of the 70's was small compared to what happened to us in 2008. It happened over a longer period of time, and it was a slower decline. And we came out of it, smelling like a rose.

This time... I just don't think it's going to happen. We have a government divided. So divided that EVERYONE has noticed.

We, as a nation, have been acting like a bunch of hyperactive, attention deficit, "I want what I want, and I want it NOW!" spoiled brats. We expect that the economy should have righted itself by now, and since it didn't then it's all POTUS' fault, because it's HIS policies that failed. Well, you know what? Not all of them failed. And some of them are long term policies. And some of them were good ideas that didn't stand a chance. But I didn't see the other side of the aisle coming up with any ideas, other than to cut and gut social programs, climb into my uterus, try to tell me which pew I should sit in, and let me know that "In God We Trust" was my national motto... (And here I thought it was "E Pluribus Unum).

So, I do blame Bush for the setting the house on fire, and then running out and locking the door... leaving the rest of us to burn.

Have you heard any economist calling raygun's recession """"the great recession""""? democrats cooperated with raygun. Repubs put obstacles in front of President Obama.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=comparing+recessions&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Comparing Recessions and Recoveries: Job Changes
By CATHERINE RAMPELL

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/comparing-recessions-and-recoveries-job-changes-3/

Brite

I didn't take it personally...We have had enough interaction over a long enough time, that I believe I know you well enough to know that's not the way you roll...

And for the most part I agree with most everything you just said...

My biggest problem with the blame Bush syndrome is Bush was probably the first US president to preside over the US economy as it truly became part of the Global economy... Obama is learning the hard way what that means....

We no longer control our own destiny... Greece sneezes and the US markets react.... The Chienes loan us money and walk on us in the UN...

Truth be said ..President Obama or President Donald Duck couldn't fix our problems nation or the Worlds economy tomorrow... anytime soon ! Do I think he is going the wrong direction ...YES ! Does it really matter YES..But only because I believe he is taking to the collapse at a bit faster rate, than necessary. And potentially making thing much much worse (I'll explain in a second) ....

My Prediction the EU will fail...which will start dominoes falling across Europe and around the globe and we will go down with them economically...

The question for me is what happens? I believe Europe will literally be on fire... and that Bad segments of their society will attempt to take advantage of the situation!

What happens in the US...is the real question..

Brite remember how the people of New Orleans acted after Katrina ? Almost total civil breakdown.. And they knew that it was just a temporary thing... Looting, killing total anarchy ...

Imagine that on a nation wide scale...with little or no hope for a quick fix... The average American city dweller has very little food on hand in their home... Stores are just to convenient so why bother... So stores run out of food in 1 no more than 2 days (average grocery store receives 15 delivery's everyday) even in the best of times when people are at a normal state of agitation things could get ugly fast...

Now to the part I said I would get back to...

For what ever reason and due to whom evers fault Americans are more divided over more issues into smaller and smaller groups than I can ever remember in my 50 + years... Think about the issues that we seem to be so worried about and at each others throats over and the ones that are really much more important that just seem to be pushed into the background...

The issues that are in all the news are the ones that divide us and cause temperatures rising to the point that civility almost goes away ... what are the hot buttons they surrond all emontional issues ...Race, gay Rights, Abortion, religion, welfare/Food stamps food for kids...gun control and Health Care to name a few...

Things that we seem to not be concerned with ..Jobs ..Housing the type things that would bring people together are not issues its only those things that divide us that are in the news 24/7 ...

I fear that the anger under the surface today will be a huge powder keg should things get really bad... People will TAKE what they want... and Many many people will Die...You see the way some act at the OWS locations right ? Imagine that in every mid-size and major city in America... Only people are really afraid and really think they have to take from the rich... That those among us that do have deep seated bad feeling about the country, government, people of different races, sexual orientation, religions and economic groups then imagine them with nothing to restrain them and them feeling they have nothing to risk nothing to lose and so much to gain !!!!!

I wish in light of the potential disaster in our economies future... I worry that our governments continued use of using the most dividing and polarizing issues to make political gains will have some unforeseen and unintended consequences ... That we will all live to regret...

I am not a conspiracy theorist ...just a realist....

I hope I am wrong, but fear I m not! Watch Europe ! Watch OWS and Watch the meeting of the G8 in Chicago in may....

Hey you redeemers, rebels and radicals out there,

Against the backdrop of a global uprising that is simmering in dozens of countries and thousands of cities and towns, the G8 and NATO will hold a rare simultaneous summit in Chicago this May.

....................

On May 1, 50,000 people from all over the world will flock to Chicago, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and #OCCUPYCHICAGO for a month. With a bit of luck, we’ll pull off the biggest multinational occupation of a summit meeting the world has ever seen.

And this time around we’re not going to put up with the kind of police repression that happened during the Democratic National Convention protests in Chicago, 1968 … nor will we abide by any phony restrictions the City of Chicago may want to impose on our first amendment rights. We’ll go there with our heads held high and assemble for a month-long people’s summit … we’ll march and chant and sing and shout and exercise our right to tell our elected representatives what we want … the constitution will be our guide.

And when the G8 and NATO meet behind closed doors on May 19, we’ll be ready with our demands: a Robin Hood Tax … a ban on high frequency ‘flash’ trading … a binding climate change accord … a three strikes and you’re out law for corporate criminals … an all out initiative for a nuclear-free Middle East … whatever we decide in our general assemblies and in our global internet brainstorm – we the people will set the agenda for the next few years and demand our leaders carry it out.

And if they don’t listen … if they ignore us and put our demands on the back burner like they’ve done so many times before … then, with Gandhian ferocity, we’ll flashmob the streets, shut down stock exchanges, campuses, corporate headquarters and cities across the globe … we’ll make the price of doing business as usual too much to bear.

Jammers, pack your tents, muster up your courage and prepare for a big bang in Chicago this Spring. If we don’t stand up now and fight now for a different kind of future we may not have much of a future … so let’s live without dead time for a month in May and see what happens …

for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/tactical-briefing-25.html

This is the same group that started OWS....

Hang on I fear it is going to be a very rough Summer for America !!!!!

Alex. CA - actually.. no. When my mother and step father bought their house in 1970 (?) I think their mortgage was at 8.75%. My mother was an Xray tech and my step dad worked for Chevy. And Chevy had just renegotiated the union contract after a strike.

I know that in 1980, when I was paying my own rent, in a studio apartment, in a "sketchy" neighborhood, I was paying $95+ utilities, and making probably $500 a month (in a good month). I was working too hard to stay in school (high school) and pay the bills to pay much attention to politics, back then.

What I DO know is that the decline was slow. We as a nation noticed, because prices went up, the dollar went down. But it wasn't the body slam that we took in 1929 or 2008, when the bottom fell out.

Either way it goes, it takes time to dig ourselves out. As I recall, it took us 10 years (most of the 80's) to dig ourselves out of that recession, and it's going to take us most of the teens to dig ourselves out of what happened in 2008. What is pissing me off is the bitching about the fact that we haven't totally recovered yet.

Please... don't think that I"m aiming at you...

You posted while I was posting, Jim... :)

I'm not afraid of OWS. In fact, I've been out with them, here in Charlotte. I don't think that there is going to be armed insurrection. I think that's fear mongering.

What is wrong with demanding that the folks who make $250,000 pay the Clinton era tax rates (39%)? What's wrong with asking millionaires to pay an additional 3% on that second million and above?

The real truth is, I did my taxes as a single person this year, because usually it's more advantageous for my husband and I to do so. I made $21000 this year, in my business (mostly because I spent A LOT starting another one...)... $21000 in income... and I have a tax bill. I OWE the government.

Wait... WHAT?? I have a bigger tax bill than GE, Exxon or (in all probability) Mitt Romney! With $21000 in income.

No... it's not about jealousy. It's about fair play. How can small businesses stay open if we are taxed to death? How can you start a small business if what little income you have coming in is taxed to the point that you are paying more than the big companies or the top 1%?

As for armed insurrection... the only people I seem to hear that from is people on the right side of the aisle. From the extreme right. Almost like they are hoping for it, for some twisted reason. I don't see that happening. I really think that you are perhaps reading something into nothing. And if you fear violence in Chicago that badly, I would suggest staying away.

I agree that there are several revolutions and protest movements going on in many parts of the world.

I see that some repubs are seeing that the OWS and the 99 per centers are very motivated because the economic condition that they are in. Then, I see that the repubs are trying to take away their safety nets. I have seen that repubs have an abysmal track record managing the economy.

The first thing that romney would do if he wins the election would be to waste 8 trillion dollars in a war against Iran.

All those actions together, would result in pushing for the continued elimination of the middle class and in making the poor more miserable if the repubs win the election. romney already said that he does not care about the poor.

If you think that the OWS movement and the 99 per centers are motivated now, wait to see what happens if romney wins the election. There would be a much higher level of fear and anxiety in the OWS movement.

Brite,

If we could get cooperation in the Congress we could be out of this recessions effects in 2 more years (could have been out by now if we had had cooperation starting in 2009). It really is not rocket science or string theory. It is called investment.

1. 2 years of direct state aid to keep teachers, police, firemen, and other public workers employed.
2. 2 years of infrastructure project starts each lasting 6 months to 2 years.
3. Phasing in of larger infrastructure projects that last 4 years or more starting in the 2nd year. These are the high speed rail, smart grid construction, distributed alternative energy, massive upgrade and expansion of communications networks, etc. Those that need the lead time for planning.
4. Clinton era tax rates on earned income and a new bracket of 44% on over $1 million a year.
5. Elimination of the distinction between interest, capital gains income and earned income.
6. A $1/share surcharge on flash trading, gradually reducing down to $0 for investments of a year or longer.
7. Reinstatement of the up tick rule in short selling and the elimination of naked shorts.
8. Required total transparency in the financial sector.
9. Rating agencies paid by a common fund and not the selling company. Can everybody say "Conflict of Interest"?
10. Require companies, all companies, wishing to do business in our markets to abide by our regulatory standards.
11. Institute a disparity cap on employee compensation. I suggest 30:1 based on historical economic performance data. Open to arguments over the ratio based on additional real data. That is a disparity cap not an income cap.

States would not need direct aid after the second year because their tax revenues would be up to cover the costs from the spending on these other projects. We would not need the tax cuts of the ARRA if the spending went into real work and it would have reduced UI and SNAP spending because million s of people would have been working at well paying jobs. Incomes that provide disposable income to create demand in the rest of the economy.

Tim... I agree. I have been watching our government with something akin to horror the last 4 years. I am at a loss to decide if this divide is because of who POTUS is or if it is true outrage and backlash.

It seems to me that those who protest the most have no real ideas on how to fix the problems, and those who want to fix the problems are too afraid to push the envelope...

It seems to me that those who protest the most have no real ideas on how to fix the problems, and those who want to fix the problems are too afraid to push the envelope...

Read over the history of the Great Depression and the politics of the New Deal. They had the same problem. FER was afraid to go all the way too. And had the same no answer opposition. In 1937 we had a double dip because the opposition and fiscal conservatives scared FDR to erroneously start to address the deficit instead of boosting the stimulus in the election year 1936. 1938 showed improvements again when he reversed the 1936 changes.

WW2 shut the opposition up because the spending was on weapons. They always like spending on weapons. Then came full employment with enlistment and the draft. And low and behold, full employment pulled us out of the depression.

So this is not new to our time to make a long story short.

Go figure people with money to spend, create demand and stimulate economic growth. They should try to find an advanced econ class to teach that in. /sarc.

New Mexico has a repub governor.

New Mexico has a repub governor.

Yep and she is fighting to stop the democrats...

New Mexico legislative panel votes to continue immigrant driver’s licenses with restrictions

Republican Gov. Susana Martinez suffered a temporary political setback Thursday in a bid to stop New Mexico from granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

A legislative committee shelved her proposal and approved a Democrat-backed alternative that continues to allow licenses for illegal immigrants but with new restrictions.

-------

House Majority Leader Ken Martinez, a Grants Democrat, said the state’s license policy allows illegal immigrants to “come up from the shadows” so they can drive to work and take their children to school and other places without fear of arrest for not having a license. The committee-approved restrictions will “really hit the bad guys hard,” he said.

State law enforcement and Martinez administration officials told the committee that New Mexico’s licensing law posed a security risk to the state and rest of the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nm-house-panel-to-hold-hearing-on-proposal-to-end-drivers-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants/2012/01/26/gIQAoYpHTQ_story.html

So the Democrats want to make sure the Illegals can drive to the jobs they should even be in the country in the first place...

And take their kids to schools they don't have to pay for ...

Alex thats your Democrat party...Fighting against the Republican Governor...