Job creation at record high. Stocks at record levels. Millions getting healthcare. Bin Laden dead...

[Triana]

Republicans to sue Obama. FOR. DOING. HIS. JOB. The one they cannot or refuse to do.

FabuloUS.

[MoonRiver]

1. ReTHUGlicans are like a runaway train.

They know they are going to crash and burn but just can't stop!

[Half-Century Man]

27. And the train it won't stop going, no way to slow down.

[Louisiana1976]

28. True.

[intaglio]

59. More like - THE BIG BUS

[MoonRiver]

60. Lol, perfect!

[elleng]

2. Yup!

[Thinkingabout]

3. The hell if their suit is for an Executive Order to delay employer rules,

The House passed a law doing the same thing which died in the Senate, WTF.

[Fred Sanders]

4. The lawsuit, not yet even filed, is summer talk bait for Republican politicians who are committed to

rallying the base with their "colored" rantings.

The racist white demographic needs to be herded by hate to get to the polls, before they become aware that their own party is kicking them in the nuts.

How better to keep hate alive than by using the cover of a law suit?

[Triana]

6. "The racist white demographic needs to be herded by hate to get to the polls"

BINGO.

Well said.

[Louisiana1976]

32. Exactly.

[JDPriestly]

5. All is not perfect, say I, but we sure are a lot better off than we were in the final days of the

Bush misadministration.

Now if we could just get the NSA under control and end the conflicts and wars in the world . . . .

Oh, yes. Obama and Kerry are working on that and will report back when their mission is really, really, dare I say it, accomplished.

Seriously. Good job. President Obama. Tough world, but good job.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. But: The Official DU Response ...

Job Creation at a 6 year high.

But ... they're all part-time, low wage jobs.

Wall Street at record levels.

But ... Wall Street is not an accurate measure of the economy.

Home Prices rising.

But ... the rising prices will increase homelessness.

Millions getting healthcare.

But ... we don't have not Universal Healthcare.

Deficit falling at fastest rate in 65 years.

But ... that's austerity.

Bin Laden Dead.

But ... that was an extra-judicial killing. We should have captured him and brought him in for trial ... just like in the movies.

Benghazi mastermind captured.

But ... he was held captive on a ship and interrogated for 4 days, before being turned over to authorities.

So none of that counts!

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Bingo!

[former9thward]

9. The first two "But"s are absolutely true.

The jobs being created are part time. Nationally in June there were 288,000 jobs added. Hurrah, until the devil came out in the details. There were 523,000 full time jobs lost and they were replaced with 799,000 part time ones for a net gain of 288,000 jobs. There were only 12,000 full time jobs added.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Have you ever considered ...

that those accepting those part-time jobs, wanted to work part-time? ... And, part-time jobs often lead to full time jobs? ... And, in this imperfect world where people are struggling to survive, a "snowball beats no ball"?

Regarding the second point ... Wall Street's boom doesn't represent the Main Street economy; but it does represent the pension returns for Main Street folks.

[former9thward]

12. No I have not considered it because it is nonsense.

There were over 500,000 full time jobs lost. No, these people did not suddenly say "Wow I can make a living on just working part time!" There are job openings (part time) in the White House press office that you may be interested in.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Nonsense because ...?

No, these people did not suddenly say "Wow I can make a living on just working part time!"

But a segment of that part-time job accepting folks were folks that woke up to the ACA and said, "Wow, I no longer have to work a full-time job for the benefits!"

And a bunch of folks woke up and said, "I want full-time; but this part-time job will keep the lights on."

[former9thward]

18. The were 500,000+ jobs that were eliminated.

Not full timers suddenly wanting to earn less money.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Okay.

[uponit7771]

64. How do we know this? I'm starting a business because of ACA now, I'm no longer tethered to my

...company.

I'd like to know the numbers on this no doubt

regards

[former9thward]

65. Like everything else in this country basic numbers have become political.

So you won't get any real answer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. Yes they have ...

Here's an interesting number:

In the past 12 months:

total part-time went up 198,000 while total employed went up by 2,146,000, meaning that 1,948,000 full-time jobs were gained.

For the numerically challenged (or willfully ignorant ... politically motivated) ... Part time jobs were 9.1% of all new jobs (198,000/2,146,000).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

That kind of hampers your part-time job "argument" ... wouldn't you say?

[uponit7771]

76. Hmmmmm, interesting ... we don't have to go to who quit because of ACA ... it's on 10% max anyway

... out of the total numbers.

Conservatives are such aholes... they fudge every perspective

[uponit7771]

75. unnnnnn, there are some that show their work and are credentialed... If I see some from there

... then I'll take them

[creeksneakers2]

47. I've read that

from conservative sources but their links never say it. Do you have a link for that?

[former9thward]

52. I read that in the Wall Street Journal

The best I can find on the internet is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But it is very difficult to get though their data.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. So you saw the real numbers ...

AND STILL, made the argument above? Yes, it is very difficult to get through their data ... so it's probably best that one either put in the work, or refrain from making an argument based on a known conservative rags take.

[SunSeeker]

84. You'd think you wouldn't have to say that to a progressive. nt.

[progree]

66. Over the past year, part-time jobs were 9.2% of the 2.1 million new jobs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189920#post34

The Household Survey numbers that produce the part-times job figures is highly volatile.

[font color = blue]>> There were 523,000 full time jobs lost and they were replaced with 799,000 part time ones for a net gain of 288,000 jobs. There were only 12,000 full time jobs added. <<[/font]

Not true. The 288,000 jobs came from the Establishment Survey of payroll jobs. You are mixing numbers from two separate surveys -- the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey.

The Household Survey said Employment increased by 407,000 jobs

EDITED to add: This OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

has a section, "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" that covers a lot of the nonsense interpretations of the economic numbers. Two that were used in the excerpt above (I'm not saying intentionally):

(1). Highlighting adverse one-month changes in some highly volatile component, and making it seem like it's the story of the whole Obama administration's job record

(3). Cleverly mixing statistics from the household survey (CPS) and the establishment survey (CES) (without making that clear of course)

[former9thward]

82. Yep, I'm just conspiring all over the place.

This is the only place where I have read the people are giving up full time jobs in mass to take part time jobs. The economy has liberated them!

[progree]

87. Over the past year, 9.1% of the job gains were part time, and 91.9% were full time

According to the Household Survey (which produces the part-time numbers),

Over the past year, total part-time went up 198,000 while total employed went up by 2,146,000, meaning that 1,948,000 full-time jobs were gained.

That's explained in http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189920#post34

I highly recommend you read it.

[font color = blue]>> Yep, I'm just conspiring all over the place. <<[/font]

I don't know what you are doing, besides polemics, and misinformation (you did read post 66 about the tricks of the polemicists? If not, that's another one to read, as well as the full version in the "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" in http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439
)

[font color = blue]>> This is the only place where I have read the people are giving up full time jobs in mass to take part time jobs. <<[/font]

198,000 new part time jobs and 1,948,000 new full-time jobs in the past 12 months is hardly evidence of people giving up full time jobs to take part time jobs in mass.

[font color = red]Edited To Add -- in the past 12 months, "Part time for economic reasons", i.e. people who wanted a full-time job but ended up with a part-time job(s) DECREASED by 650,000[/font]

That's also in http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189920#post34

[former9thward]

90. I suppose next you will defend the decline in the labor participation rate.

It is the lowest since March, 1978. A real healthy economy! -- and the main reason the unemployment rate has been decreasing. If you take people out of the denominator the rate goes down.

[progree]

94. Half is due to the retirement of the baby boomers, half isn't

About half the decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate is due to the aging of the workforce and the retirement of the boomers, according to the Council of Economic Advisers:

http://news.yahoo.com/report-labor-force-drop-had-pre-recession-roots-203848691--finance.html

Of the rest, part is due to the still poor economy, and part is due to long-term factors (whose reasons are not well known) that preceded even the onset of the 2001 recession.

The full report is at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf

I take heart that the Employment To Population Ratio -- the % of the age 16+ population (which includes EVERYONE 16 and over, including centennarians) that is employed, has been rising since November 2010, up by 0.8 percentage points from that low point, even as the boomers retire in ever-growing numbers.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

No, the economy is not real healthy, not by a long shot.

[obxhead]

13. The Wall Street high is simply a matter of your tax dollars flowing to the banks

at near interest free rates and those same banks having no where else to put that capital other than Wall Street.

It's a fictitious number making a very few a whole lot of money. It's also built using the same practices used just before he 08 crash, but this time it's even worse because the securities are backed by renters and car buyers, people that have little to no skin in the game.

The rising home prices are just a figment of the imagination that things are going well based on the previous shell games currently being run.

It is austerity. We're shoving money into the pockets of investors while our infrastructure collapses around us. I know of several bridges you don't want to drive across and nothing is planned to repair them.

Bin Laden, yep, he's dead, it was a good call.

Not even going to justify mentioning the other B word. Fiction from day 1.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Okay; but the tens of millions of retiree's ...

with pensions and ... well ... everyone else that pays taxes, would disagree ... if they took a pause from the 1% frame.

[obxhead]

20. Oh,

You mean those most at risk from another collapse in the next few years. Those with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars riding on a shell game of renter backed securities being sold today just like mortgage backed securities were sold in 06-08.

Those people are my parents. Those people are me in 20 years. Why should ANY of us be running at this kind of risk?

Right, party before policy, I keep forgetting

[spanone]

19. not true. my retirement fund has tripled since Obama took office. tripled.

[obxhead]

21. So has mine

and it's all a pipe dream.

4%

That was an expected increase for decades, now you get 300% in 6 years?

I have a bridge, it's for sale.

[spanone]

25. believe what you wish.

[obxhead]

35. I would love to believe that all is well

However I choose to live with reality and how it effects the world.

In other words, I put policy before praise of party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. "... As you stay invested in a system that youcall a shell game." ...

This amazes me.

[freshwest]

51. 'Ponzi scheme' Koch meme. 'Shell game' GOP meme since SS began.

None of it is either, unless the public does not believe in it. The method is from Segretti, and used to make people give up.

We either believe in keeping our promises to each other and ourselves and take on the responsiblity, or we run from it. We can participate, or we can stay on the side lines and accuse those doing the work as stupid, lazy, weak, ineffective or even dishonest.

But who is really being those things?

It always looks to me like the plantation owner who beat a slave when he didn't do things fast enough for the owner, (not for the worker, but the overseer, which carries through with where I'm going here) but work the overseer would never lower himself to do, or was incapable of doing.

Sound familiar?

The job of being a political activist is humbling personally. It can be risky socially, physically and financially. It is often unpopular, thankless in the short term and very unpleasant. Although the reward in the end is great, even if those doing gain little or nothing, for the ones who follow. The work for the worker is the work itself, not the opinion of the overseer.

It is cynicism that is bitter and lazy, wants instant gratification, just as the GOP and the Libertarians promise. They always see their thinking as superior for they have leisure to think, the confidence from no opposition in their face in politics, and not forced to work with adversaries. So they can remain blissfully pure.

To reject working positively for change leads to the same thing as the RW believes. And the result of always seeing everything in B&W, so awful and hopeless, allows one to feel justified at adopting the 'it's every man for himself' route and fall into selfishness. The negativity is used to explain why they are willing to stand by and let all burn, while they or others devouring the basic means for change like termites.

It's a win-win for those who accuse and refuse to honor the worker who is doing the job they wouldn't or couldn't do anyway. Mouths are kept happily busy and hearts are proud, but the hands doing the jobs are few, easy to take potshots at as they are busy working as they are confined to one thing, becoming a slow moving target and too busy to fight the disrespect.

Have you ever had a job like that?

I sure have. And I've not forgotten those who didn't know what how hard I or others worked, which they later learned and were amazed at what was accomplished, as they'd been busy sniping for the win. They do not have the capacity to be allies in a cause, to suffer in silence and be humble while getting the work done, because they took the cheap way to feel big, and didn't do a damn thing for anything but their own ego no matter how many words they use for cover.

It's a nasty little game being played and it's purely human and easy to feel that one is the winner. But we all lose by listening to these voices.

JMHO, 1SBM.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. +1 ...

Righteous Rant!

[progressoid]

56. What's a retirement fund?

76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck

Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.

Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/

Stock Market Surge Bypasses Most Americans, Poll Shows

More than three-quarters of Americans say the five-year bull market in U.S. stocks has had little or no effect on their financial well-being, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents dismissed the 176 percent rise in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) since its March 9, 2009 financial crisis low, according to the poll, taken March 7-10. Barely one in five -- 21 percent -- said the market’s gains have made them “feel more financially” secure.
...

The poll’s findings reflect the concentration of financial assets among better-off Americans. Only about half of Americans own stock, either directly or through retirement accounts, according to the Fed’s 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/stock-market-surge-bypasses-most-americans-poll-shows.html

Roughly 36 percent of working-age survey respondents said they have less than $1,000 in savings and personal retirement investments, and 60 percent reported having less than $25,000 saved. The numbers are similar among retirees surveyed: 58 percent have less than $25,000 on hand, and 29 percent have less than $1,000 saved.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/20/3416808/retirement-savings-survey/

[Doctor_J]

30. and the health "care" corporations are reaping historic profits, and

the schools are being handed over to OTHER profiteers. Too bad 1dBm's list doesn't include anything that actual Democrats should be happy about.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. No ...

health "care" corporations are reaping historic revenues, not profits (thinks to the ACA's medical loss ratio regulations) ... big difference.

[Doctor_J]

44. Ooh, close

[link:http://|Health-Care Stocks Lead S&P 500 for First Time in 15 Year]

Stock price = profits, not revenue.

And what happened to the bullshit about how Heritage Care would "lead to single payer". I will give the BOG (and Krugman) credit for dropping that lie from their patter. Especially since the new HHS Secretary declared (at a meeting of insurance execs), "There will be no single payer while I have anything to say about it".

Let's face facts - ACA was the biggest transfer of funds from working people to the 1% in US history. Had a Republican president tried to pass it, dems would have been 100% against it. Instead the personality cult has completely bought into a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation and pitched by Newt Gingrinch. I wish I could think of a better word than disgusting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Oh so wrong ...

Stock prices DO NOT = profits. Stock prices represent a lot of things, including market share and revenue. But the fact is:

Still, the companies saw their average operating profit margins expand to 8.24 percent in the six quarters since the overhaul became law, compared with 6.88 percent for the 18 months before it was passed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/health-insurer-profit-rises-as-obama-s-health-law-supplies-revenue-boost.html

For the numerically capable, that represents a less than 2% increase.

And what happened to the bullshit about how Heritage Care would "lead to single payer".

It's still around ... Your familiar with the Vermont single-payer experiment, right? Industry change, like all social movements, takes time.

Let's face facts - ACA was the biggest transfer of funds from working people to the 1% in US history.

B.S., ... or perhaps, you're unfamiliar with the mortgage melt-down.

[catbyte]

93. Well, Dr J, what you call "disgusting" I call a lifesaver. My husband has had Type I

DM for 50 years, and at the time that "disgusting" piece of legislation went into effect, his insurance was within $10K of being cancelled because of the lifetime cap. We were 1 hospital stay away from economic ruin. Oh, and that "disgusting" law also most likely saved the life of a very dear friend of mine. They caught her breast cancer during a free mamgram--made possible by the ACA--while it was still at Stage 1. This was her first mammogram in 8 years. She couldn't afford to pay for her own after she lost her job & her heath insurance.

Yeah, the ACA is nothing but "disgusting."

[Doctor_J]

95. you refuse to look past your own front door

Medicare for all would have also saved your husband's life, without guaranteeing insurance companies hundreds of billions of dollars in profits every single year forever. This particular logical fallacy is called "appeal to emotion", because it attempts to avoid the facts of the situation by making the audience feel weepy. Your husband's life saving treatment did not require working people paying 400 billion dollars per year over and above the actual cost of health care. Those dollars are a result of the president colluding with insurance executives to rip off working people. Period.

[progree]

96. Where do you get the $400 billion profit figure?

That seems at least 10 X too high.

[Doctor_J]

98. 20% or so of a 3 trillion dollar industry

The math is not that hard

[progree]

99. "20% or so" is not just profits but all expenses and overheads of the health insurers

#95: [font color = blue]guaranteeing insurance companies hundreds of billions of dollars in profits every single year forever. ... Your husband's life saving treatment did not require working people paying 400 billion dollars per year over and above the actual cost of health care.[/font]

#96: Where do you get the $400 billion profit figure? That seems at least 10 X too high.

#98: [font color = blue]20% or so of a 3 trillion dollar industry The math is not that hard[/font]

I believe the 20% or so figure is not just the profit margin of the health insurers (which BTW is not the entire health industry, but just a piece of it), but also all administrative costs, salaries and so on of the health insurers. In other words, not just the profits of the health insurers, but all expenses of the health insurers other than the amount they pay out in claims. Anyway, the much maligned ACA limits all that to 15%.

[catbyte]

97. And you refuse to look past your arrogance and self righteousness. You are also

very presumptuous. The situations I detailed are hardly unique--there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people the ACA has helped. Sure, single payer would have been a far better option, but it would never have passed, even with a Democratic majority. Obama isn't a dictator, for chrissakes. Are you suggesting we should have acted like red state governors and refused the insurance extension, or should my friend have refused that lifesaving mammogram because the ACA made insurance companies rich? You appear to have a very simplistic view of life--something is all good or all evil. The world isn't black and white, it's more nuanced than that. I know my experiences and the experiences of millions of others positively impacted by the ACA doesn't fit into your limited world view, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. You have managed to be both naive AND bitter, and that's not easy to pull off. Congrats.

[IronLionZion]

62. You'll never be happy

I'm sure of that much.

[A HERETIC I AM]

83. Can you please explain....

just exactly how it is you arrived at the conclusion; "your tax dollars flowing to the banks at near interest free rates".

By what method or mechanism?

[riqster]

23. This. Just this.

Well said.

[Hissyspit]

39. You mean you agree with the counter-points?

Because they are all pretty valid points.

I'm not sure what poster is trying to accomplish.

[CAG]

46. You forgot one....

But, but, he's not solved EVERY problem on earth and everything's not perfect yet according to MY standards and principles.

[krawhitham]

53. +1

[JoePhilly]

58. Bingo.

[Chathamization]

80. A lot of those are valid points

But ... they're all part-time, low wage jobs.

No, but many are and the employment to population ratio is still pretty bad. That’s why Obama was talking about another stimulus and other ways to improve the employment situation. True, the Republicans have blocked his efforts to do, well, anything, but that doesn’t mean the problems aren’t there.

But ... Wall Street is not an accurate measure of the economy.

It’s not. Wealth inequality is pretty bad, and too many are still unemployed or underemployed. There’s a reason why Obama has been trying to wage the minimum wage instead of that since Wall Street is doing fine everything will trickle down.

But ... we don't have not Universal Healthcare.

Nor a public option. After all these years, of course, we need to stop focusing on what could have been and spend our time working to change things at the state level. The ACA is a huge improvement, but it still leaves us far behind where we should be.

But ... that's austerity.

The tilt towards cutting government spending to improve the deficit was a mistake. The improving economy cuts the deficit, while things like sequestration slow the recovery. I also have mixed feelings about making some of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

But ... that was an extra-judicial killing. We should have captured him and brought him in for trial ... just like in the movies.

Didn’t Obama say that we should have captured him and brought him in for trial if we could have? The argument was that he was killed during a firefight, not that we executed him because we didn’t feel like giving him a trial.

The economy and healthcare both need a lot more work and would have benefitted from Obama being more aggressive during his first term. It’s understandable that people have mixed feelings about them.

There are also some important accomplishments that have been omitted, such as foreign policy successes (not perfect, but he’s also had to struggle against a truly reckless establishment) and his environmental initiatives.

[morningfog]

81. Of course it all counts. And all of your "buts" raise valid points.

We must remain vigilant and never settle. Always raise the buts.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

88. nailed it.

As you usually do.

[obxhead]

10. TPP being pushed hard

and ready to wreck the paltry economic gains. Pushed hard by Obama.

Yeah, there are victories to celebrate, but...... We're still a looooooong way from hope, let alone change.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

14. "How's that hopey, changey stuff?" Palin asks.....

K&R - for the direction Obama is taking this country. Obamacare has made a huge difference for our family, very big - life saving. And not just mine, but many families.

[obxhead]

16. Not well.

But it's a damn sight better than if that word salad shooting part timer had any say.

However, you were just shoving another "better than McCain" slogan at me.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

22. Am I? Am I really? No, I'm not. Better than McCain?!? Of course Obama is better

than McCain. Hell, most anyone would be better than McCain. I'm glad Obama's our President and has accomplished so much. Heaven help us if McCain/Palin were in charge....

[nomorenomore08]

48. Which is why I'm voting for the Dem nominee in 2016, whoever it is.

As far as I can see I really don't have a choice, except staying home on Election Day. And that choice sucks.

[JEB]

24. Yea, I've got health insurance that I can't afford to use.

[craigmatic]

26. Why is the deficit falling good? We're democrats that falling deficit means cuts on the poor.

[Doctor_J]

33. because the entire list consists of Republican objectives

Excuse me for not celebrating

[progressoid]

61. Yep. We should be spending on infrastructure and jobs.

[IronLionZion]

63. Because those in the defense industry think they got screwed royally

There have been huge cuts in defense spending, less jobs for contractors, ending lots of large programs that have outlived their usefulness making stuff no one in the military wants any more. They claim they lost lots of high paying STEM jobs.

Liberals have always wanted big cuts in defense since always and we finally got it. If we want more spending on social programs and infrastructure, then we need to elect more Dems to take over the house this year. There's no other way.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. I wish Dem's had treated Shrub like this .

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. Actually, we did ...

we just forgot to turn it off.

[toddwv]

31. Imagine if they worked with President Obama

instead of actively working against him.

[JEFF9K]

38. And yet Republicans are expected to pick up seats in the upcoming election.

Is this a nation of morons, or what?

[orpupilofnature57]

41. I wish it were what .

[JEFF9K]

42. Well said!

[Doctor_J]

45. Because all of these are Republican platform items

The president decided that he didn't need votes from the Wellstone/Sanders wing of the party. He decided to turn his back on a big portion of the millions who voted in 2008, and instead "work with" the same people who were booted out of office. This was either an egregious miscalculation, or part of the plan to finish up the Reagan/Bush/Bush/Norquist "kill the government" initiative. In either case, when a Dem enacts a Republican agenda, he/she runs the risk of coming up short of votes. Seriously, how many Dems do you think will be motivated to vote by "deficit falling at historic rate". Do you honestly think this should be a campaign point???

[cantbeserious]

40. And Yet - Wages Adjusted For Inflation - Are Still Flat Since Reagan - Some Progress

eom

[nomorenomore08]

49. The problem is that we never decisively turned our backs on Reaganomics. It's still operating

in "kinder, gentler" form.

[Jamaal510]

43. When Dems are in office, great things happen

and everyone gets lifted up like a tidal wave. When Republicans are in office, only the rich get lifted up. It's that simple.

[napkinz]

54. and yet Reagan is the greatest president and Obama the worst in a recent poll ... ?

Hey media, why isn't it Morning In America II?

[JoePhilly]

57. They'd be carving a Republican President's face on Mt Rushmore.

Personally.

[iandhr]

67. obama is still black

[Fearless]

71. Death of the middle class..

But I digress.

[LynneSin]

72. BENGHAZI!!!

BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!! BENGHAZI!!!

[R B Garr]

86. LOL, very well done! And it's the truth. n/t

[LynneSin]

91. I tried to post the word Benghazi for each time Issa screams it

of course I think I'm sure a few billion

[woo me with science]

73. Ooh, Third Way talking points!

It was a *restructuring,* not a recovery. Full-time jobs with benefits are being replaced by shit, part-time work, and that has been the plan of this neoliberal/corporate/Republican agenda all along.

The jobs that have been created in this "recovery" are mostly low-pay service jobs. The truth is that it was not a recovery. It was a restructuring to benefit the One Percent.

April 28, 2014: Most Of The Jobs Added Since The Recession Pay Low Wages
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/28/3431351/recovery-jobs-low-wage/

Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?_r=0

Low-wage jobs proliferate as middle class ones disappear: job growth patterns since the recession
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/low-wage_jobs_proliferate_as_m.html

Low-Wage Jobs Replace Middle-Income Work, Study Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/low-wage-jobs_n_1846733.html

Careers Are Dead. Welcome To Your Low-Wage, Temp Work Future
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/08/30/careers-are-dead-welcome-to-your-low-wage-temp-work-future/

In addition, the TPP that Obama is hell-bent on supporting will DESTROY jobs and cut wages for over 90 percent of American workers:

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

No, the chocolate ration has not been increased:

*

The Third Way/DLC/neoliberal agenda is the result of a deliberate infiltration of our party by the very same banks and corporations that purchased the Republican Party first. Of course jobs had to come back as they *always* do....but the change in quality of those jobs, and the diversion of the money no longer going in 99 percent pockets to the bank accounts on the One Percent, was the goal all along.

Your stock market gains reflect that, not any recovery for the middle class. And to celebrate a Heritage Foundation Republican plan to entrench bloodsucking middlemen into our health care system and mandate their profiteering by law, while our president continues to carve out even more loopholes to further shift costs from corporations to patients, is the rotten Third Way cherry on top.

The rise of the Third Way agenda in our party was never a grass roots phenomenon, but rather a deliberately orchestrated and corporate-bankrolled one, ...just like the propaganda supporting it.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[Initech]

74. Don't forget record numbers of states overturning archaic marriage laws!

[Mike Nelson]

77. Republicans can't stand Good News...

...about America!

[krispos42]

79. Thanks, Obama...

[Major Hogwash]

85. Great thread.

It brings out the trolls who admit they read the Wall Street Journal and then sound like Mort Zuckerman, "but, they're only part-time jobs!"

[santamargarita]

89. So now it's time for another Republican coup!

So they can Fuck things up again!

[deafskeptic]

92. I get the feeling GOP would sue him if he gave them the moon. /sarcasm> n/t