Obama Pushes House to Pass Emergency Jobs Bill

What are Rangel and Kerry’s view on the funding this bill?

Why should they get any more of an advantage, than the rest of us??????

U.S. census data shows that annual pay for teachers has fallen drastically over the past 60 years when compared to the annual pay of other workers with college degrees.
Teachers spend an average of 50 hours a week on instructional duties, including an average of 12 hours each week on non-compensated school-related activities such as grading papers, advising students and clubs, and bus duty.
the average national starting salary for a teacher is around $30,377. But the study showed that other college graduates entering professions that require similar training and responsibilities start at much higher salaries. For example, public accountants start at $44,668; computer programmers start at an average of $43,635; and registered nurses start at about $45,570. The average earnings of workers with at least four years of college are now more than 50% higher than the average earnings of a teacher. And in addition to starting salaries being lower, inflation has grown faster than the increases in teachers’ salaries each year.
Indeed, “why should they get any more of an advantage’?

ndeed, “why should they get any more of an advantage’?
Posted by: Flash Override | Aug 10, 2010 2:20:51 PM
Nice detailed post.
On top of all that, its funny that Republicans bluster about what not to do in a soft economy, and claim to be concerned about jobs, but they don’t stop to think about what laying off hundreds of thousands of state employees during a soft economy does to that economy.

Posted by: stormerF2 | Aug 10, 2010 2:54:46 PM
Public and unions in the same post— catnip for the “conservatives” — neo and otherwise! I assume since money is your concern, you support letting the tax cuts expire for those who can really afford it and are doing just fine in this economy (the wealthiest among us)— or are you just engaging in class war b.s.?

On top of all that, its funny that Republicans bluster about what not to do in a soft economy, and claim to be concerned about jobs, but they don’t stop to think about what laying off hundreds of thousands of state employees during a soft economy does to that economy.
—
If only Rahm could return some of his $16 million…

WHY DOESN’T OBAMA PUSH THIS ADMINISTRATION TO STOP SPENDING???
We need a President — not a Campaigner-In-Chief.
Parties! Good times! Wine! Banquets! Beaches! Money! Laughter! Vacations! Golf! Personalized rock concerts at the White House! High fashion! Hollywood types fawning all over you!
Meanwhile, the rest of us are broke, unemployed, or on the battlefield.
This is the most corrupt administration in American history. Obama, Pelosi,
Reid and the other liberals in Congress, along with the biased media, based the entire 2008 campaign on lies. They have no problem governing AGAINST the will of the American citizens.
Please think hard about this when you vote in this upcoming election.
Our elected officials are supposed to be serving us — NOT themselves. Most all of them are addicted to control and power over us!

CaptK..
.. back to school is a good time for a tax holiday ..

“Our elected officials are supposed to be serving us — NOT themselves”
————————–
meanwhile from an ABC article:
Wall Street Opens Wallet for GOP Senatorial Candidates
Financial Industry Donating Twice as Much to Republican Campaigns as to Democrats
By RICH BLAKE
Aug. 9, 2010
“During the first six months of the year, bankers, brokers and money managers — individually and by way of Political Action Committees — have contributed twice as much to GOP Senate candidates than to Democratic ones.”
————
I agree. Our elected officials are supposed to be serving us….NOT Wall Street.

stormerF2 | Aug 10, 2010 2:54:46 PM posted: “For Christ sake when will the spending stop?”
OK! Let’s start with the Military. We constantly are told there is “no money” for spending on social programs. Yet I hear ZERO debate from conservatives about deep cuts to our military spending or that form of “bloated government”. U.S. arms spending increased by 71% under the presidency of George W. Bush.
SEVENTY-ONE PERCENT.
Here are the top 5 military spenders in 2009 according to SIPRI (in $ Billions):
1.United States — 607.0
2.China — 84.9
3.France — 65.7
4.United Kingdom — 65.3
5.Russia — 58.6
We spent seven times more than the next highest spender, China.
Please explain why conservatives support this outrageous Deficit spending while demanding stringent cuts for firemen, police and teachers here at home.
America’s strength and security is NOT JUST MILITARY. We should be investing in our people and our infrastructure. We should be using our tax revenues to pay for services that people need to grow a strong economy: health care, energy, a clean environment, education, housing, and a secure retirement for all.

If the nation had been driven into a ditch economically before Obama came dashing to the rescue, why, Oh why. did he just push the pedal to the metal going down that same ditch?
It seems that Obama’s change was nothing more than a speed change down that ditch.
Anyone recall Obama’s little speeches on not making excuses and accepting blame rather than blaming others? From his current rhetoric Mr. Obama seems to be the one with amnesia.

Here is the reality-JP Morgan suspects that real GDP growth for Q2 was 1.3%, not the level claimed by the Obama administration.We are heading into a double dip recession caused exclusively by the policies of the Obama administration. Had they done NOTHING we would be seeing economic expansion and job growth;instead we see the government robbing from the productive private sector to fund the jobs and benefits of government workers.This cannot continue. The FED report today is the “Mene,mene…” written on the wall of our economic future.Unfortunately Obama doesn’t have a Daniel to interpret it for him; his economic team members are jumping ship like rats leaving a sinking vessel.

“I assume since money is your concern, you support letting the tax cuts expire for those who can really afford it and are doing just fine in this economy (the wealthiest among us)— or are you just engaging in class war b.s.? ”
Wait, who’s engaging in class warfare here? Those that can really afford it already pay more than their “fair” share into the government coffers, but that’s not good enough for you huh mama?
No, they should be penalized with more taxes so the one can redistribute it properly. But that’s not class warfare is it? What is that called then?

Anyone remember what happened when Clinton implemented the “luxury tax”? Talk about unintended consequences. The problem is the absence of the ability to think critically.

pro mama, aren’t you the one that is always crowing about all the teachers, policeman, and fireman come to your deli and gym. How wonderful everything is under Obama? So why did we need this again? Welcome to Obama’s summer of recovery!

No, they should be penalized with more taxes so the one can redistribute it properly. But that’s not class warfare is it? What is that called then?
Posted by: J.R. | Aug 10, 2010 5:48:33 PM
Nice try but I’ll use a term you seem to like — “epic fail.” Where do you get this stuff???
lol.
The Republicans put the expiration date on the tax breaks, and have admitted, in rare candid moments, that extending them digs a bigger hole. They aren’t being penalized with more taxes. Their tax breaks are expiring as planned by the Republicans– whereas the middle class is struggling and the economy is soft so theirs will be extended a bit longer.
A little tidbit. While the Republicans take up for the greedy rich and the base takes up the cliched talking points, fact is more and more wealthy people are Democrats nowadays, and their support for Obama remains strong. Wall Street money has very recently come to favor Republicans again, but in broad terms, the affluent Obama vote is strong. Check the polls and internals. Read the Wealth Report at WSJ. Affluent Americans– the nongreedy ones- are Barack Obama’s most secure class of support.
Why? Because they tend to be well-educated, intelligent, and live near cities and the coasts which are less insulated and less given to epistemic closure and xenophobia. They understand the importance of environment, education, infrastructure, alternate energy, science, reforms, the country’s competitiveness and living up to the country’s ideals.
One of the main goals of conservatives” since FDR has been to get rid of the new deal legislation. And the truth is that those who oppose unions (and immigration)align with those powers that be who HATE sharing their wealth with the people who are actually doing the work.
But there are plenty of those who are wealthy and believe in both liberty and equal opportunity as well as social justice.

progressive mama | Aug 10, 2010 7:12:22 PM posted: “But there are plenty of those who are wealthy and believe in both liberty and equal opportunity as well as social justice.”
Nice post progressive mama – and nice to see you back from vacation. There’s always work to do here.

“While the Republicans take up for the greedy rich and the base takes up the cliched talking points”
Yes, you’re so above that class warfare aren’t you?
This is such a tired argument. The only people that believe it still believe the tripe coming out of Obama’s mouth. You can’t delineate either party when it comes to the rich, it’s split pretty evenly. The only difference is that the democrats like to pine for more taxes while doing all they can to avoid paying their own, i.e. Geithner, Rangel, Kerry and etc.
But still people like p. mama and green g. will excuse that behavior.
Everyone in this country should pay the same percentage of their earnings to the government. Why does the idea of equal protection under the law not apply to taxes. The left has been able to demonize those with money in this country. Redistribution is not what are government is charged to do.

Unemployment used
Bills mount, need food, rent, gas, more
Mr. O no hope

JR, since the existence of mankind man has shared their wealth. It’s part of being a member of a society. We would not exist as a species if the strongest among us, didn’t help all those who are part of their world.
Some of you just sound like massive invdividualist, and I don’t think that’s wrong, but you benefit as we all do from most of us paying into,silly things like roads and aid for emergencies, education, survival…everyone benefits.

Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 9:24:11 PM
Americans are the most generous people in the history of the earth…
When the government taxes those that earned, then gives to those who didn’t earn, that’s not sharing, that’s just theft.

“The reality is that lowering marginal tax rates actually increases government revenues”
What if you lower the tax rates to zero? How much revenue is generated then?

What if you lower the tax rates to zero? How much revenue is generated then?
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 9:47:42 PM
And if you raise the marginal tax rate to 100%, how much do you think you will collect?
Skip, give us a number… how much of a productive person’s income do you think the government should be able to seize?
Give us another number, how little an income should someone not have to pay his fair share?

Hold on Quo, I’m still waiting for the elementary economist to explain how lowering tax rates to zero will increase revenue…..

JR: That’s the truth huh?
——-
Absolutely. Those who oppose unions (and immigration– and pit American-born workers against immigrant workers)align with those powers who HATE sharing their wealth with the people who are actually doing the work.
—-
JR: You’re so above that class warfare aren’t you?…You can’t delineate either party when it comes to the rich, it’s split pretty evenly
—-
Typically when I engage in warfare its not the rich versus the poor but rather the smart, open-minded, compassionate, brave and progressive versus the willfully ignorant, fearful, narrow-minded, greedy and conservative. I’m absolutely in war with chickenhearted fearmongerers and people who choose ignorance and greed as a way of life. I make no bones about it. I believe in the liberal ideals this great country was founded on, I believe in the middle class and I believe in strength of heart and mind.
I also prefer the truth to the lies the conservatives and Republicans tell.
Both the Great Depression and Bush’s recession were preceded by growing inequality. Look it up.
So, here’s why all of you argument falls apart. I think most wealthy people are Democrats (e.g. Oprah, the Kennedys, George Soros) or independents ( e.g. Bloomberg) and that the Republicans represent for the greedy rich– and those who aspire to be the greedy rich one day and are easily duped. They also represent certain corporate interests. Not all wealthy people are greedy and qualify as the greedy rich.
Or don’t you get that???
lol.
—-
J.R. “Hate sharing their wealth??? What country do you think you live in? Since when have people been required to share their wealth?
If you read what I actually posted (tricky, I know…lol) I wrote, hate sharing their wealth with those actually DOING THE WORK. So, uh, I think I work in the United States of America, post-Civil War, and I don’t believe in slavery. Question is what era and country do you think you’re living in????????
Reactionaries kill me.

Still trying to push the alleged success of the Bushonomics I see. Any increase in government revenue was from taxes on capital gains increases from the housing bubble, not tax cuts for the wealthy. It was fake.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 10:22:43 PM
Mr. Obama would love to have the unemployment figures under Mr. Bush, up to and including his final year…
Let’s not forget that the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress under the final two years of Mr. Bush’s administration…
Some might reasonably argue that Congress, through tax and spend authority, has more control over the state of the economy than the President.
What do you think?

Yes, exactly Skip! ;-)
“It’s the spending…!”
OK, let’s cut spending then….where would you like to start? Why not cut military spending by about half? Let me guess….you want to cut the Department of Education…
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 10:27:01 PM

OK, let’s cut spending then….where would you like to start? Why not cut military spending by about half? Let me guess….you want to cut the Department of Education…
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 10:27:01 PM
Let’ start with the Department of Education, then continue with HUD, move on to Commerce, then to Labor, then to Agriculture… any department that depends on powers not GIVEN to the Federal Government, BY THE STATES, should be cut…
Remember, the Federal Government, did not create the states… the states created the Federal Government… and limited its powers…
The States did not create people, the People crated the States, and only gave them the powers need to provide for the common good.
If you think a particular welfare program is good, then let your state adopt it, but let your neighbors alone to adopt (or not) whatever programs their people think provide for their needs…
Above all, don’t put you faith in government at any level, for they are ruled by men… much like you, full of faults… put your faith in God and yourself…

Progressive Mama; love your screen name! Sure beats “Pit Bulls” and “Grizzlies”, man that’s some scary stuff.
Posted by: irma | Aug 10, 2010 10:53:51 PM
I love Sarah Palin, she drives the liberal wackos, wacko…

“Let’ start with the Department of Education, then continue with HUD, move on to Commerce, then to Labor, then to Agriculture…”
I figured as much…your whole idea is just to dismantle the federal government. We’re going to pass on that plan.

what part of “the private sector funds the public sector” don’t progressives understand? ….
—
Those poor, poor multinationals.
Many, if not most, credible economists are urging additional action, and I’d think since you’re a deficit peacock, you’d appreciate that the aid is paid for.
And, btw, here’s the bottom line. The CBO said the bill will decrease the deficit by $1.3 billion over 10 years.
As for austerity, premature austerity measures are viewed as a HUGE mistake by many, including reputable and Nobel prizewinning economists, and reminiscent of FDR’s premature attempt to balance the budget (1937). Austerity during the downward plunge in the business cycle can actually drive the nation deeper into recession.
Many of you seem to regard the federal budget like a family check book, which is an inaccurate analogy, but even if you accept the analogy, the fact remains that sometimes going deeper into debt can improve your financial situation — for example, let’s say you work retail or in child care or are a waitress, and go back to school to become a nurse or physician or engineer. You’ll lose income for a period of time while in school and go deeper into debt, but eventually get paid more and increase your family’s prosperity. Or let’s say you run a popular deli or gym, that’s located in a building you bought with borrowed money, and you have an opportunity to expand to a second location or add an addition to the gym with a sandwich shop and you have to borrow more money in order to expand. And both eventually increase your income.
And, for the record, government employees are consumers, and without state aid its likely state taxes will go up.
Just sayin’

And, for the record, government employees are consumers, and without state aid its likely state taxes will go up.
Just sayin’
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 10, 2010 11:19:59 PM
Let the State taxes rise… the States don’t have the ability to print money or run a deficit… they must have balanced budget…
For too long the Federal Government has taxed too much, and borrowed too much, and given the loot to State governments, as they just did with the emergency spending plan just signed by Mr. Obama…
This moves the level of accountability to the Federal level and allows the State governments to spend money they did not have to raise themselves…
Stop the “revenue sharing” programs… let the States raise their own money and account to their own tax payers… and run their own programs…

Are you kidding? Without federal money from blue states the red states would collapse.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 11:40:21 PM
I’m all for it… Actually it is the non-producers in both the Red States and The Blue States who would have to earn their own rather than relying on the Government to steal it from someone else…

“for example, let’s say you work retail or in child care or are a waitress, and go back to school to become a nurse or physician or engineer. You’ll lose income for a period of time while in school and go deeper into debt, but eventually get paid more and increase your family’s prosperity. Or let’s say you run a popular deli or gym, that’s located in a building you bought with borrowed money, and you have an opportunity to expand to a second location or add an addition to the gym with a sandwich shop and you have to borrow more money in order to expand. And both eventually increase your income. ”
yes mama, those are called investments and they are inheritently different than deficit spending. The government does not make money, they have to tax to get it. This bill plugs the holes of a sinking ship that are only going to bust later on.

Note to Skip, what do they red states produce, cars and what???? Without the red states the blue states would starve, have little gas for their big cars, buts thats alright with you, you have a bicycle, solar panels, and a big garden.

those are called investments and they are inheritently different than deficit spending.
———-
So, infrastructure, medical IT, green initiatives, scientific research, educating our children and youth and so on aren’t investments in our future????
Yeah, (cough, cough) okay…. I know whose advise on investments I won’t be taking. lol.
Its fascinating how you ignore that I started out by saying that while many of the right wingers on here and “independents” (ha!) seem to regard the federal budget like a family check book, it’s an inaccurate analogy, however if you can’t give up that analogy, the fact remains that sometimes going deeper into debt can improve your financial situation and then I gave examples that you rightly note are investments.
Forehead slap.

J.R. | Aug 11, 2010 8:34:51 AM posted: “those are called investments and they are inheritently different than deficit spending. The government does not make money, they have to tax to get it.”
Why in your view is deficit spending “inherently different” than borrowing money for an investment?
In my state, a large percentage of the federal Stimulus money was used to build healthy new tax payers by investing in revitalizing school districts, paying for training, and community college scholarships. Truly an investment that will be repaid with new taxpayers.
A well trained workforce has already attracted new employers like the country’s largest Solar Panel plant, Bio Sciences, Health Care, High Tech, and Renewable energy.

“Why in your view is deficit spending “inherently different” than borrowing money for an investment?”
It’s simple. People undertake investments with caution and after much consideration as to how it will affect their lifestyles and those who rely on them. They cannot print more money to make up for losses nor can they get more revenue through taxation.
Governments throw money to the best lobbyists interests and the interests of those that will keep them in power. There are no risks so no real considerations.

With the exception of infrastructure, the rest of your list is not the responsiblity of the federal gov’t…..
In your opinion, and that doesn’t mean the expenditures aren’t investments. Most normal people actually consider infrastructure, education, basic research, alternate energy and public health “investments” in the future of the country.
To take one example, NIH and publicly funded scientific research stimulates, enhances and complements private R&D research and investment. Green goddess @ 2:17:21 PM offers other examples as well.

J.R. | Aug 11, 2010 2:30:02 PM posted: “Governments throw money to the best lobbyists interests and the interests of those that will keep them in power. There are no risks so no real considerations.” I am all for stronger lobby reform. But the notion that our governments do not weigh risks or use central planning is simplistic.
Government and businesses have successfully been working together to help our economy since the 1800s.
Let’s use a local level example of how these partnerships work. In Dallas, Texas an old brick rail road district in the downtown West End fell into economic hard times (akin to a “recession”) after President Kennedy was assassinated.
The city of Dallas (“government”) weighed the risks and decided to borrow $2.3 Million in bonds to encourage economic growth in that area (“stimulus money”).
The city also made new rules (“government intervention”), such as zoning, building restrictions, signs, and historic district designation – designed to spur further development. The borrowed government money was spent on converting old warehouses into shops and restaurants, street improvements, and security – this in turn attracted more investment, (“private industry”) large and small businesses, plus taxpayers who today visit or live in the West End.
There have been problems along the way, but today that original investment has paid Dallas back many times over. Roughly 7 Million people visit the West End every year – it has become the leading Dallas tourist attraction, contributing money to help revive other nearby run down neighborhoods.

J.R. | Aug 11, 2010 4:59:04 PM posted:
“Of course if the city of Dallas had failed to revitalize that area and lost out on that investment and that money, they shouldn’t expect the city of Houston, TX to help pay for the loss.”
No, but if the city of Houston had invested in the original Dallas bonds they would have taken on that risk. Here in the United States of America, we all share the risk for our Union.
We increased arms spending by 71% under the presidency of George W. Bush.
So now, when state funding for teachers, police, and firemen is at risk – due to massive decreases in tax revenues, not simply “over-bloated budgets” – why shouldn’t we as a nation shift our spending to a different priority?

The Internet will eventually replace physical teachers.

“EXCLUSIVE: Obama wins more spending cuts than Bush; Washington Times”
so you’re saying that the budget decreased? Is the one spending less or more than Bush? has the budget increased or decreased? Just sayin.

Go ahead unions, pile it on…
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | Aug 11, 2010 11:25:30 PM
The top 2% rich of the United States owns 95% of the wealth – and you blame the unions.
Get a grip on reality.

progressive mama: “I love Nancy Pelosi; she drives the conservative wackos wacko AND she doesn’t quit! She actually does her job and accomplishes things!!”
Does her job and accomplishes things? For whom?
In a CBS News poll published on March 22nd, Pelosi enjoyed an 11% approval rating.
A recent Gallup poll showed that Congress’ job approval rating stands at 19% in August, near the historical lows seen in recent months. Approval is a record-low 5% among Republicans and a lackluster 38% among Democrats.
Congress’ average approval rating thus far in 2010 is 20% — down from 30% in 2009, the first year of the 111th Congress. This year’s average easily trails the 36% average approval Gallup has recorded for Congress since the measure was established in 1974, and is the lowest seen in any midterm congressional election year since then. The record-low single rating for the measure is 14% in July 2008. (
Democrats have controlled both chambers of Congress since January 2007.)
Gallup stated that low Congressional job approval is generally associated with large seat losses by the majority party in midterm elections, a sign of potential trouble for the Democrats in 2010.

Skip: “But in a democracy like ours the public will decide through their elected officials what tax rate is fair.”
We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. And right now the Democratic Party in control of Congress couldn’t care less what the public wants. Pelosi made it clear to her Democratic House members that they should vote on bills even if it means they lose their seats in November. That doesn’t sound like elected officials who care about the will of the People to me. Does it to you?

Posted by: Mary | Aug 12, 2010 12:11:29 AM
So you only accomplish something if polls say you did?
If you end slavery and the polls say you oughtta be shot, was ending slavery an accomplishment or not?
Nancy Pelosi has passed ethics reforms, creating a new in-house and quite aggressive watchdog, the Office of Congressional Ethics. Since she took over as Speaker, there are fewer earmarks and they’re more transparent. She’s passed health reforms, financial regulation reforms, fair pay legislation, the stimulus, TARP, etc, etc, etc. She’s both an idealist and a realist who gets what needs to be done done whether its popular or politically expedient or not.
And she’s wonderfully delicious when it comes to bugging the bejeezus out of right wingers, God love her.

Someone let me know when teachers, fire fighters, and police officers want to join the rest of us and become real Americans.
In the meantime, after exhaustive review and analysis, Obama, otherwise known as NoBo by those who really know him, is headed for a presidency of complete disaster. It will soon get to the point that staunch Democrats will be calling him the idiot that he is.

Nancy Pelosi . . . . . God love her. – ProMa
NEWS FLASH for ProMa.
God does not love evil, he puts up with it.
We, the American People, are following his lead.

The Democrats ran on the promise to reform healthcare and that’s exactly what they did. On the other hand financial reform was popular.

Posted by: Noz | Aug 12, 2010 12:48:13 AM
As I said, not only has she made amazing progress when it comes to ethics reform, financial regulation reform, health care reform, etc, etc, but she’s also wonderfully delicious at bugging the bejeezus out of right wingers, God love her. Like silver to vampires and water to witches…

Healthcare reform could have been alot better if Joe Lieberman hadn’t killed the public option which would have been a powerful tool for controlling costs in the private sector, however the insurance industry cried no public option was needed, that they could afford to cover everybody with mandated coverage. Once it was given their right-wing droids started the campaign that mandated coverage impinges on people’s freedoms, undermining their agreements. It’s all further proof that you just can’t trust big business or Republicans to operate in the public’s best interests. The only good reform is no reform.

You’re just talking generic ideological nonsense again Quo, the whole idea of a public option is to drive down costs in the insurance market through government competition, not charity. And if the insurance industry didn’t think it would do just that then why were they so terrified of it?

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.” – BHO, JUNE 22, 2007

“his reckless administration has just increased spending while cutting nothing.”
Fine, you want your little victory, have at it. The fact remains that you can’t talk up the “cuts” you’re making when you’re dramatically increasing the budget and deficit (on track for roughly 1.4 Trillion once again!). This is reality, those aren’t lies. I do not consider (and I think most would agree) what Obama has done to be cuts in the budget.

Posted by: J.R. | Aug 12, 2010 9:18:31 AM
And Gates cuts won’t be cuts either, I imagine. (Get ready for Congress’s NIMBY politics on budget cuts, Broder)
And offsets aren’t offsets. And the CBO numbers on deficits aren’t real.
And blah, blah, blah.

Why don’t you READ our Constitution and educate yourself?
–
lol. You forgot to suggest I read the Federalist papers as well. Missed that when I skimmed your rant initially.

Nancy is hated across the political spectrum.
—-
I suppose you didn’t watch her on Top Chef then?
Too much melting.
lol.

Oh, and Mary, just for you,see, from Nancy Pelosi’s Gavel blog “Governors Across the Country Support the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. It contains lots of great quotes from Governors who appreciate that Pelosi can get things done. (For a contrast to Pelosi, skim down and read the post titled “House Republican Leader John Boehner: Jobs for Teachers and Cops in States Across America Don’t Matter”– s’pose he’s too busy golfing and clubbing to be concerned about middle class Americans)

Hey Mary, looks like you caught a couple.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Aug 12, 2010 1:27:37 PM
Hey, FL, aren’t you going to call out “Mary” on her fine demagoguing?
No?
lol, lol, lol.

Posted by: Noz | Aug 12, 2010 6:15:27 PM
Why don’t you explain the damage clearly and precisely and explain the direction you’d like to see the country go in– and how Republicans will get us there(???)And maybe talk up why and how the supertan golf-playing and clubhopping Boehner would be a better choice. The latter would be truly fascinating.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was the one Democratic leader who never publicly wavered from passing health care reform– and today she was there along with Senator Boxer and Secretary of Transportation, Ray Lahood for the groundbreaking marking the beginning of construction on a new public transit hub in SF, which will serve as the northern end of Cali’s high speed rail service.
Progress. Pelosi represents progress.

“Approval is a record-low 5% among Republicans and a lackluster 38% among Democrats”
5%!!!!!!
Let’s look at that again 5 PERCENT of people approve of the Republican party. Which means the GOP is approved by the buts here and no one else.

the President pushed the House to pass a $26 billion emergency aid bill to guarantee the jobs of teachers, fire fighters, nurses and first responders around the country.