patching...
Update: Seen anything interesting around town? Post your photos in our Pics & Clips Gallery. »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Christie Touts Recovery, Continued Momentum in Budget Address

The governor presented his $32.9 billion budget for fiscal year 2014.

 

Progress is evident. Momentum is building.

As he laid out his $32.9 billion proposed budget for fiscal year 2014 at the Statehouse Tuesday, Gov. Chris Christie said the state’s future, both economically and in recovery following Hurricane Sandy, is moving in the right direction.

With talk of compromise and bipartisanship — as well as a few customary jabs at former governor Jon Corzine’s administration — Christie called on the state’s Legislature to keep it going, to make the conscious decision to help New Jersey return to a position of prosperity it once knew.

Of course it will do so with the help of funding from the federal government.

Included in the governor’s proposed budget is just $40 million in supplemental aid for Sandy-related recovery efforts. And the Sandy funding is last resort funding, stopgap aid aimed only at bridging the delay gap between recovery projects and anticipated federal aid.

When it comes to making New Jersey whole again after being devastated by Sandy, the bill is being laid directly at the feet of the federal government with the hopes that its $50.7 billion in relief aid will cover the tab.

“In the past year, of course, our economy has been challenged by Superstorm Sandy. In the face of this unprecedented emergency, we have stood together,” Christie said during his address.

The proposed $40 million “contingency fund” will be used for expenses not reimbursed by the federal government. The funding, he said, will allow small business to reopen and infrastructure improvements to go ahead as planned as the state waits for federal aid.

According to New Jersey Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff, the supplemental aid could also be distributed to towns in need throughout the state by the Department of Community Affairs, though only as a final option. Municipalities have been instructed to send their requests for recovery aid or emergency cost reimbursements directly to the federal government.

In his 45-minute presentation, one that received several standing ovations from both Republicans and Democrats, Christie lauded what he said is a record amount of funding for schools, greater pension contributions, and the presentation of a balanced budget with no tax increase for residents.

Begrudgingly, Christie also announced the state’s expansion of its Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Though he said he doesn’t approve of the bill, Christie said, as law, participation is necessary because it represents what’s best for New Jersey’s citizens.

Praised by state Republicans but chided as unrealistic by state Democrats, Christie’s budget could be significantly altered, some say, based on the actions of President Barack Obama and the U.S. House of Representatives. Should Congress and the White House fail to reach a compromise on budget cuts by this Friday, March 1, the U.S. would enter a sequestration.

Sequester would prompt significant funding cuts in federal aid, including trimming the $50.7 billion Sandy relief package only just approved by Congress in January. Funding for programs such as U.S. Housing and Urban Development’s Community Develop Block Grant program, which will be used to help residents in New Jersey rebuild and elevate their homes after Sandy, would be reduced.

If that’s the case, some worry the $40 million in Christie’s budget for contingency Sandy aid might not be enough.

State Sen. Linda Greenstein, D-14, said she believes the contingency fund is a good move by the governor. A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she said even if New Jersey sees every penny of the federal aid package its been promised, there might still be funding holes that need to be plugged. Seeing the aid package cut do to sequestration, however, could wind up costing New Jersey a lot more in its recovery effort.

“If sequestration goes through, no, (the $40 million) wouldn’t be enough,” she said. “I have a feeling if sequestration goes through we’re in some trouble.”

Related Topics: Budget Address, Chris Christie, NJ Legislature, Sandy, and sequestration

Kevin Nedd

8:01 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013

"Begrudgingly, Christie also announced the state’s expansion of its Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Though he said he doesn’t approve of the bill, Christie said, as law, participation is necessary because it represents what’s best for New Jersey’s citizens."

Classic definition of a hypocrite.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

8:40 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013

He dislikes the law in its entirety. He is not given the option of opting NJ in our out of the law in its entirety so we are stuck with it. Considering we are stuck w/ the law and there is nothing we can do about that, how can you call the man a hypocrite for doing what he can to insure NJ maximizes the benefit and minimize the harm of being stuck with having to follow this law? Should he just completely opt us out and let all the money we have to now pay in increased taxes flow to some other state instead of using it here in NJ? That is just plain foolish.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

8:50 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013

How about showing some real leadership by saying the following:

"While I may have philosophical differences with the Affordable Care Act, it is the law of the land. In addition to opting in to the Medicare Expansion, I also vow to implement the law in a manner consistent with what is best for all New Jersey residents."

Comment_arrow

CuriousGal

9:49 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013

How about showing some real leadership by saying the following:

"As I have said many times before, I have differences with the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, I am taking President Obama up on his challenge to come up with a better plan that costs less money and STILL insures the 300,000 people the current law would cover. And, here are the details of my plan......."
<insert sound of crickets in a large empty auditorium>

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

10:12 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Kevin, ignore curiouslyobtusegal. She works for Beth Mason, a very rich bored person on the Hoboken CC who couldn't get elected to the position of dog catcher without spending 7 figures on ads, political operatives, mass mailings and other nonsense. She even wasted money on a spot on Monday night football and bought shots for people in several bars, all so she could barely get 1,000 votes and win by a handful against a man with no campaign budget to speak of. She is that hated. And she absolutely hates Christie b/c she is jealous that Mason is not mayor and our mayor who has the gall to beat Mason twice has a good relationship with Christie. She is a hater, a very irrational hater.

As for your comment Kevin, don't worry, when he runs he will have a plan. He has a state to run now. He doesn't have time to twist the arms of a few hundred politicians in DC with so much on his plate in NJ. Parading around the country making noise instead of doing what you were elected to do is for people who don't want to lead, like Obama who is not in DC not dealing w/ the fiscal crisis and not getting the Senate to pass a budget like the House has done twice.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

10:51 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Ojo...save your words for someone who cares what you have to say. Christie had a chance to take on the President and he wisely took a pass, as he knew Obama would have given him the same butt whuppin' he gave Mitt.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

8:49 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Oh you bitter bitter man. You are right. You don't care. You are so blinded by your devotion to the President that you wouldn't know a bad idea if it hit you in the head. You just come here to troll, non-stop every time a post shows up about Obama, Christie or any sort of partisan debate. Classic definition of a troll.

And what is especially trollish of you is you live in freaking Hawaii and you are posting in a forum about NJ!

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

11:28 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

I still maintain a home in Washington Township and therefore have a vested interest in the community. I'll comment as I see fit. Try another talking point from a losing play book.

Comment_arrow

Dory Degen

12:43 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

absolutely. but whatever, as long as people [less fortunate] get the help they need. and curiousGal you crack me up!

Comment_arrow

b flake

1:46 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Christie just lost my vote for Govenor or any other public office. Obamacare will bankrupt NJ.

Comment_arrow

Thomas Lotito

4:00 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

We should de-fund Obama-care as part of the sequester.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

4:19 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Not going to happen Tom...Mitt lost!

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

10:51 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Sorry Jerry (aka Tom Lotito), but it seems Woodward is the one who is spewing "madness". Funny how he didn't encourage Nixon to ignore the law:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/27/17117597-woodward-its-madness-for-obama-to-follow-federal-law?lite

Comment_arrow

D Ambriano

3:59 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Curious Girl, I've got one for you: universal healthcare coverage.

stewart resmer

3:15 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Governor Christie’s election-year budget delays property tax relief and features no promised income tax cut this year.

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

6:00 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

You're not going to get income tax cuts, ever. Please feel free to whistle for property tax "relief" as well. The party is SO over. Take an aspirin...or 50.

Comment_arrow

Jack Q

10:19 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Obama said he raising taxes on the 1%. Oh oh, everyone got a 2% social security tax hit. He's looking out for the middle class alright. Save your feigned outrage Stewie.

g

8:00 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

I voted for a republican and I got a democrat.

Why have a two party system when you can't trust the party you voted for to abide by the principles of the party..

Now you wonder why the country is in such a fiscal mess.

Comment_arrow

CJV

8:44 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

g-

If you think Christie is a "Democrat" then perhaps you should consider another state. Christie is cutting funding to schools to finance corporate welfare to property developers in South Jersery. He's as "Republican" as they come here in the Northeast. No, we don't have vouchers for private schools. You need to move to the Confederacy to find those.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

9:09 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

If the man was a Democrat, the unions wouldn't all hate the man.

g

8:54 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

CJV,
The most striking truth (as Democrats pointed out even before the address) is that New Jersey under Christie has suffered from a severely troubled economy and soaring costs of government: the very things that Republicans like Christie blame on Democrats.
Errol Louis
Errol Louis

As of July, New Jersey's unemployment rate stands at 9.8%: higher than the national average, fourth worst among the 50 states and the highest level in 35 years.

Christie is a republican?

Comment_arrow

CJV

9:00 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The Republican crooks stealing taxpayer handouts at Xanadu and the AC casinos are very happy with their Republican governor.

The Stig

9:17 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

ObamaCare = More Borrowing from China. Entitlements are going to bankrupt this country, and Obama is doing everything in his power to accelerate the process. At what point will people realize that you can take all the money rich people make and have and it still won't balance the Federal Government's books?

Comment_arrow

stewart resmer

10:08 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

You go tell it to the seathing masses, I'll wait here.

Comment_arrow

VietNam Vet

1:10 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Stigg, you are so right, all this idiot knows how to do is spend money and go on lavish vacations at our expence with Moochele. This country is going down the tubes and they aren't trying to stop it.

Comment_arrow

VietNam Vet

8:00 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

I just want to add that these stupid demoncraps are ruining everything and I wish we could just put them all in jail they're such poopyheads. I got my VA and Medicare, so they should just let everyone else just die off because after all, I'm set and I don't use the government benefits, not like these mooching minorities who come to this great country and steal from us hardworking Americans. Now they want health care for free and Odummy and the demoncraps are gonna give it to them it just makes me sick to think that we might actually help other people. Maybe if I keep calling them rude names on the interwebs they'll realize how stupid they are and go back to they're African country they were really born in.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

8:24 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

NEWSFLASH!

As a result of his latest incoherent diatribe, VietNam Vet has received honorary status as the new poster boy for the United Negro College Fund; while better known as the UNCF, the organization's motto is "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". Congrats!

Comment_arrow

VietNam Vet

8:27 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Oh yeah, nedd? Well your face is a terrible thing, you butt muncher. I bet you can't even get a date because your breath smells like poopy because you munch so much Odumbo butt. Doody face! Now get off my damn lawn or I'll get my hose!

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

8:37 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Nam,

Every posting confirms the wisdom of the UNCF's selection.

Nose Wayne

10:35 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Ojo, sounds like some other idiot from the "west coast" that just gets on here and rants all the time about nothing. Sound familiar to anybody Ojo ?

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

10:41 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Reminds me of all the political operatives from out of town who swirl around a certain city councilperson in my town who likes to toss money around like it is going out of fashion....lol.

Nose Wayne

11:14 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

And when the money isn't theirs, they like to throw it around rather freely.

Nose Wayne

11:39 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Kevin, the only reason we are in a losing playbook is because your buddy Obama put us there.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

12:00 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

You are absolutely correct. The President's landslide EC victory over Mitt Romney exposed the GOP's losing play book!

Comment_arrow

Chris for Liberty

12:17 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

If politicians would have the guts to represent their constituents instead of bowing to the party leaders this nation would be united.

Comment_arrow

VietNam Vet

1:19 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Nose, I wouldn't even bother with this gut because he has his nose so far up dumbos butt, if he stopped kevin would have a broken nose. The DNC borrowed
$10 million dollars and now says they have no intention of paying it back, if the RNC did that the demoncraps would have been all over it and never let that drop, but these pigs do it and thats OK. Thats whats wrong with this country today, but the day is coming to fight this all where it belongs, and its not at a crooked voting booth, because after last years election we'll never see an honest election in this country again. It showed us that we can't trust the lying crooked judges that were paid off, and we can't trust the election officials anymore either.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

1:27 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Hey Nam,

Woolworths called...your tinfoil hat is ready!

Comment_arrow

VietNam Vet

8:03 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Hey kevin why don't you go eat a big pile of stinky boogers, you stinky booger brain demoncrap Odumbo lover? Your nothing but a big poopy face stinky butt. Hahaha I win you stink

Nose Wayne

12:04 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Don't NOSE what your smoking Kevin, but you are in a cloud of smoke not thinking Obama has "changed" this country for the better the last 4 years.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

12:35 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

I don't quite understand your last comment, but for the record, I do think the President has made us better off. Apparently Wall Street agrees!

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

1:00 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Wall Street is doing well b/c American companies slashed their workforces to stay competitive and boost profits in these troubling times. If Wall Street ran DC, every 3rd worker inside the beltway would be unemployed right now. So don't go look to Wall Street for inspiration unless you plan on following their lead.

Comment_arrow

VietNam Vet

2:02 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Hey Nedd you better answer that e-mail you just got Odumbo the " I'm not a dictator " is calling for you, he needs you to clean him up nice.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

2:15 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Nam,

Is that the best you can do? Really? Your game is pretty lame!

Nose Wayne

1:36 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Kevin, first your record is broken if you think we are better. RECORD unemployment, RECORD homelessness, RECORD troubled economy, RECORD foreclosures, RECORD borrowing, RECORD bankruptcy and on and on. Just for the record Kevin,if after all that you think he is doing a good job, your just as blind as he is as to the condition of the country, going down the toilet.

,

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

1:45 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

You forgot RECORD highs in the stock market!

Why don't you ask the majority of Americans who they blame for the conditions you mentioned? Hint: It isn't the President.

Comment_arrow

b flake

1:53 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

libs like Kevin like to mention stock market statistics as some form of proof that the economy is doing great under Blue Lips. What people like him fail to realize is that the majority of American households have most of their net worth tied up in an underwater home and not in the stock market.

If the economy was doing so great we wouldn' t have 48 million people on food stamps, millions upon millions unemployed and becoming unemployable as each day passes.

Barry is an epic failure at eveything but wasting borrowed money. He does that pretty well.

Comment_arrow

BobDee

8:20 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Kevin, any record on the stock market is the Bernake pumping it up. O_0

g

1:47 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Kevin we are better off?

“The fact that we debating raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.

It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.

It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.

Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

America has a spending and debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” …Thanks Barack Obama for your failed leadership

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

2:10 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

So all the prior GOP presidents were failures when the debt limit was raised countless times during their terms, right?

Nose Wayne

1:56 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

I did ,and they all said the president. Think you should read again( that's if you NOSE how) what Ojo stated about Wall Street and why they are doing so good, JOB CUTS !!!

PeterB

2:09 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Point to make is that everyone is failing to make is that Corzine was a big issue for this state losing jobs and for the economic crisis the state was in. We can all talk about how Christy Whitman thru the pensions down the trash shoot for the AC tunnel, however, Corzine did absolutely nothing for this state neither have Lautenberg or Menendez.

So instead of blaming Christie, take a look at the whole picture.

Comment_arrow

bush

9:09 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

so is it ok to put some of our current national problem on Bush? because lots of republicans say is not justified to blame bush even though he was soending when it wasn neccassary

g

3:13 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Kevin Nedd,

Obama’s comment on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Obama defined failure in 2006.

Nose Wayne

3:26 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Well said g, maybe Kevin will get it through his thick head what everyone has been saying. He's the ONLY one here supporting Obama, I wonder why ?

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

3:50 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The President doesn't need the support of folks in this thread (neither do I). He already won the support of a MAJORITY of the American people.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

4:02 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

It is just that sort of mentality that leads to gridlock in DC. Sorry to burst your bubble Hawaii boy, but Obama does need our support b/c the people who want to cut spending and restrain the out of control growth in government control the legislative body that originates appropriation bills and without their support, he can't spend a dime.

Kevin Nedd

4:15 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

LOL...and the American people have so much confidence in the GOP controlled House?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/house-gop-approval-ratings-sinks-86320.html

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

5:40 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

They had enough confidence to vote for them and by your own criteria, that is what matters. Bring on the sequester, the layoffs and the spending cuts. Personally I hope the government just shuts down. Then maybe people will wake up to the fact that neither the Senate or President have done a thing about passing a budget in over 3 years.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

6:25 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The GOP house got fewer votes than their Democrat counterparts in the last election. It was though redistricting that the GOP held on to the majority. With this fact your logic falls apart...surprise!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/

Beyond this, your naive' is really showing if you don't realize who will suffer the most in the event of a government shutdown!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/02/12/National-Politics/Polling/question_9762.xml?uuid=trII8HU1EeKYiWC_y7AhSQ

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

9:38 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

I know who will suffer quite a bit. Hawaii will. Hope you get laid off Kevin. You deserve it.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

9:47 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

I guess anyone exposing the illogical nature of your arguments deserves to be laid off.

Comment_arrow

D Ambriano

4:04 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Republicans won what they did due to gerrymandering, not due to the merits of their party's position.

keeping score

4:43 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The left wing, with the help of “community organizers” and groups such as ACORN, pushed to drive down the standards to secure a mortgage which made it possible for nearly anyone to get a loan. Low and behold, many people spent what they could not afford, “KA POW!” went the housing bubble and now because of the fools who aloud this to happen we are left with a national disaster far worse than damage from any super storm. Both parties are to blame, the left for the push and the right for letting it happen. To unite the country and dig out of this mess BOTH sides are going to have to make HUGE concessions and represent ALL the people, just as it states in all the oaths taken by the people who are suppose to represent us. Till then it’s going to be a sad state of affairs.

Jerry Gordon

6:35 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The Kevin Nedd show will continue from an Hawaii jail cell after a word from Patch sponsors....

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

7:27 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Why would I be in jail Jerry? Unlike Long Valley's most notorious GOP "bad boys", I haven't assaulted any school employees for having an affair with my spouse; nor did I fail to pay withholding income tax for my employees; I also didn't put my fellow citizens at risk by driving while intoxicated.

So Jerry, would you like to talk about the details of each of the aforementioned GOP indiscretions or would you rather remain on topic and talk about the pros and cons of Democrats vs. Republicans in Washington? Your pick!

RWDsRiches

10:41 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

you extremists on both sides of the political party are absurd. you no longer look to what is good for the country but what benefits your party. it's become about winning elections rather than who is best for the job. republicans say dems are idiots, democrats say republicans are idiots, all in vulgar terms. romney had political views that differ from yours, oh he is a rich snob. obama has different political views, he's a terrorist! it's very sad. the amount of hate between the two sides really just displays what is wrong with our country right now.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

11:03 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Riches,

Your argument would be palatable if the distain shown between the parties were equal, but it isn't. I challenge you to find an example as partisan as the following, where a Democrat in a position of party leadership showed this much disrespect towards a sitting president:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nrD1Rl3C4c

Comment_arrow

RWDsRiches

5:42 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Kevin,
I disagree. Both the right and the left dislike each other equally much, this is clear in the attacks from mainstream media on politicians. FOX attacks the Dems with little base, NBC attacks the repubs with little base. They all get their feelings hurt and the cycle continues.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

5:45 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Defeating someone whose policies you disagree with isn't "disrespectful," it's SOP for politics. DUH. Only an Obamaniac wouldn't want to understand that basic fact.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

7:59 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

And if you want something that's worse, how about the WH trying to suppress the truth about the genesis of the sequester - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-says-he-was-threatened-by-white-house/?hpt=hp_t2

Nice job Mr. President. Got caught LYING again, but in Obamaland, the truth is whatever they decide it is, and the press better damn well run with it . . . OR ELSE!

Comment_arrow

Drew Wilcow

8:12 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Stig – that was all true before Obama (BO) but now in the after BO world if you disagree with the President you are labeled a hate monger, raciest. Now shut your mouth, put that bible down, turn your guns in and fall in line before you get your a$$ gets thrown in jail! Junk that gas gobbling SUV too!

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

10:01 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Here is the full text of the exchange between Woodward and the WH official. So much for the big threat. Once again Stig hitched his wagon to a horse that's going nowhere fast!

http://politi.co/YBLRoe

Comment_arrow

The Stig

10:27 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Nice try with the lame WH spin. Once again, Obama tries to rewrite history and deflect attention from the true architects of the impending disaster . . His administration. The only thing to regret is giving him four more years to replicate .1% quarterly GDP growth. Good job Obamie.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

10:38 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

There you go again changing topics when your last point has been debunked. Twitter reactions to Woodward's bogus claim are hilarious!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html

Comment_arrow

The Stig

10:58 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

The HuffPo? I guess the DaikyKos was offline for maintenance.

Just own the truth, just for once Mr. President. Call off the spinmeisters.

Nose Wayne

11:17 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Kevin, he's not a "sitting" president. He is a out of touch with reality president that is putting this country, sorry, put this country in a "point of no return" economy, unemployment and ALL things "made in America" will soon be labeled "made in China". Thanks Mr. President.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

11:41 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Nose,

He is the sitting president. Until you can admit this, there is no need for further debate. Have fun in nut land!

Drew Wilcow

8:17 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

We now live in the After Obama World Order (AOWO). All are expected to be nothing more than bobble-heads. Obama speaks, we bob our heads.

Drew Wilcow

9:39 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Anyone hear the latest? NJ wants to create a $32.00 a year “Water Tax” Yeapers, that an additional $32.00 a year tax above what you already pay for water. Oh and for you people on wells, don’t be thinking you are getting off. Nopers, there is a $32.00 a year Well tax coming too!

And now our “friends” in Trenton say they will use that money to buy more Open Space, which of course we all know that won’t, (kind of like the lottery, and Atlantic city that pays for our schools … ha ha) and if they do buy land, they’ll make sure it is bought in someone’s who is connected backyard! It will NEVER help the general public!

ENOUGH! Write your State Officials and tell them you can’t afford their BS anymore and let them know if they implement a water/well tax, you will not vote to return them to office.

Nose Wayne

11:23 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013

When are our State Officials going to learn that there are a lot of seniors living on a fixed income that are just getting by now. $32 doesn't sound like a lot but to somebody just barely getting by, it's one less "half" tank full of gas and one less trip to the store. Come on NJ, give the people a break.

Comment_arrow

Drew Wilcow

12:15 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Nose -- 4 score and 7 years ago ……….. Okay it wasn’t really that long ago, but back in the days of Brendan Byrne a 2% temporary 2 year only income tax was created. We were promised in return for our 2% in just 2 years all of NJ’s evils would be fixed. Lower property taxes, better schools, better roadways ….. oh the list went on and on,-- no rain on the weekends, cancer would be cured, you name it, we were promised!

And what did we really get? A permanent 7% income tax, that’s what we got. Property taxes? Still the Highest in the NATION, Better School? You’ve got to be kidding me. Improved roadways? ahhhhh on average 3 people die every day on our NJ roadways and hundreds are maimed each and every day!

What we got was screwed, and please don’t make the mistake that our politicians give a chit about N J’s retired population, or people on fixed income, because they don’t, just like they don’t care about you, me, our anyone besides themselves!

No water tax, NO bag tax!

Adam

12:22 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

I believe that the best days for this County are ahead of us, not behind. Sorry, but you had a Republican President in 2000 inherit a $250 billion budget surplus, close to $600 billion of our national debt paid off, and a CBO estimate that if all Bush did was follow the same economic policies of Clinton's balanced approach of cuting spending and targeted tax increases, our national debt would have been paid off by 2011. 8 years later he hands the next president close to a trillion dollar budget deficit, runaway spending and an economic collapse, all before Obama put his hand on the bible. NOBODY is happy with the deficit spending like we have now, but a very real alternative was massive unemployment and folks selling apples on the corner for a nickel each. Obama has proposed a balanced approach of spending cut and closing tax loopholes (ya know, the EXACT same approach taken by someone by the name of Ronald Reagan) but that would violate most republican's oath that they took, not to the US Constitution, but to an obscure lobbyist Grover Norquist.

Comment_arrow

Drew Wilcow

12:55 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Adam, do you know the current gold to dollar ratio? Can you tell me what the value of an ounce of gold would have to be equal to for the amount of gold our government says it holds in our treasury to cover the amount of dollars that are currently in circulation?

If you did, I think you’d have trouble thinking our best days are ahead.

Comment_arrow

Michael

8:21 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

Adam you are forgetting who was in control of the money the Bush years.... Democrats!

Nose Wayne

12:38 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Adam, are you related to Kevin cause your both living in a dream world ?

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

1:18 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Yeah we both live in that "dream world" called America that recently re-elected the President by a landslide.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

7:07 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Obama won by 3%, that's hardly a landslide. He's also the first president to get re-elected with a smaller margin in ages. When 48.5% of the people vote for the other guy you don't have a mandate to be King.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

7:37 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Read and weep!

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/17/nation/la-na-electoral-college-20121218

Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races. Not even Ronald Reagan managed to do this.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

3:01 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Talk about Lies and Statistics - Reagan received 50.8% of the vote in 1980 against two credible opponents. Carter got 40%. Reagan also took 44 states and 489 electoral votes. That was a landslide. Four years later, Reagan CRUSHED Mondale by 60 - 40%. He swept all but one state and had 525 electoral votes. That's a landslide squared.

Trying to pretend that Obama did better than Reagan is a really pathetic attempt at ObamaSpin. And his re-election, although a comfortable win, definitely wasn't a landslide.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

3:11 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Unlike Obama, Reagan didn't get 51% of the vote twice. Period

Comment_arrow

The Stig

3:38 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Wonderful, keep telling yourself a 7 pt win is better than 11, and a 3 pt victory is better than 20 pts. Somewhere in Heaven Ronald Reagan is LHFAO.

Adam

12:47 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Nose, please explain. I am interested in hearing your opinion, rather than a sarcastic comment.

Comment_arrow

Drew Wilcow

1:00 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Adam, please see my questions above. Gold ratio and gold value! Thanks, waiting for your answers!

Nose Wayne

12:56 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

How much has the national deficit gone up, unemployment gone up, and on and on since your president put his hand on the bible ? By the way, on your way out stop at the corner with some "change", I'm selling apples.

Comment_arrow

B@B

11:27 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

2009 deficit: $1.4 trillion. 2012 deficit: $1.089 trillion. How do you figure that's an increase in the deficit?

Adam

1:19 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Drew, I undestand your issue, but we have been off the gold standard for quite some time and our country has done quite well with the "full faith and credit' standard, i.e., we pay our debts, a concept which will be severly hurt if congress does not raise our dept ceiling next month. This does not have to be a runaway train to econmic oblivion, nor a rush to cut spending and try and pay off our national debt immediately. That was tried in 1929 and didn't work out too well. We have to deal with the fact that we have a 16 trillon national debt. The only practical solution to realistically pay off this number, short of severaly slashing Social Security and medicare payments to our seniors, is a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases. That gets us to hopefully balancing the budget. As for the $16 Bil already racked up, we have 30-40 year plans (like most countries) to reduce it by paying it off incrementally AND growing the economy. It's a big number, but its nothing that we can't handle as Americans. Ronald Reagan would have been a failure of a President if he was dealing with a right-wing controlled House and a Filibuster-crazed Senate as Obama is now dealing with.

Comment_arrow

Drew Wilcow

1:50 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Adam, Nice post, but you did not answer the questions, so I will. Given a gold price of $1,700/ounce we are at a gold to dollar ratio of 15%, the lowest it has ever been. It is typically closer to 45% to 50%. Back in the early eights it was actually 100%.

As it stands right now, if we wanted to cover the amount of USD we have in circulation with the gold the Fed says we have in our treasury, an ounce of gold would have to be worth $14,750. Yes that is $14,750 I did not mistype that!

If we extrapolate that out it means if the value of our fiat dollars reverts back to our gold supply the dollar you have in your pocket right now will only be worth 11 cents. Put in other words, a gallon of gas will cost $33.18. Your average run of the mill car $275,000, and a house holly cow $3.85 million.

And why would the USD revert back to the value of gold we own? Oh I don’t know Adam why don’t you look up the history of the dollar in the eighties. The words “full faith and credit, of the United States Government.” Means NOTHING. Need proof, go write those words on a sheet of toilet paper and then tell me what it is worth!

Now try this. Go write -- The bearer of this piece of toilet paper can exchange it for an ounce of gold, and now tell me what it is worth!

BTW, this is no more Obama's problem then Bush's or anyone else's. This problem has been caused by a greedy society who still believes it can get something for nothing.

Adam

2:48 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Well, Drew, i guess thats wonderful for countries like Zimbabwe who really need a gold standard, because their money is about as worthless as printing "full faith and credit" on toilet paper. Counties like that need some form of "gold" standard as they have nothing to back up their currency. The United States is the 800 pound gorilla in the world. If we say our $1.00 bill is worth one dollar, that for the most part is what it is worth. Seriously, who would dispute that? The Chinese? Europe? Countries with our current manufacturing, banking and, need i say, military prowess can make their own reality; smaller and weaker countries need to rely on gold or other commodity standards. Like that old B.C Comics, where cavemen agreed that clamshells represent money (i.e. value), the "value" of our greenbacks is not tied to a comodity such as gold, but rather to the trillions of dollars of industrial output and power that we project through the world. Really not sure why you are so hung up on gold. My understanding is that the the new oil deposits discovered under the USA equal 10 times the value of the gold we hold.

Drew Wilcow

4:45 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Adam, --- “If we say our $1.00 bill is worth one dollar, that for the most part is what it is worth. Seriously, who would dispute that?”

Question it is 1985 and you are holding one ounce of gold in your right hand. In your left hand you hold $300.00 USD. It can accurately be said you are holding the same value in each hand. Fast- forward to 2013, and you still hold the very same ounce of gold in your right hand, and the very same $300.00 USD in your left hand. Are the dollars in your left hand still worth those 1985 dollar? That is to ask, can it still buy that very same unchanged ounce of gold in your right hand?

BTW, if the US can just say our dollar is worth a dollar because we say so, then why don’t we just say our dollar is worth $100.00? Or maybe even a thousand dollars. WOW, just think how cheap that new Honda Pilot would be at your local dealer?

Adam

5:10 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Which would make sense if we were on the gold standard, which we are not. There ar certainly variables that cause our currency to fluctuate, but our gold supply is not one of them, at least not for quite some time. I know what you are saying, having our currency pegged to a commodity like gold would be a good hedge against inflation. Again, going back to Zimbabwe, they also said that a dollar is a dollar; the only thing is, they had nothing to back it up and in their country a US dollar, which they attempted to peg their Zimbabwe dollar to, is worth tens of millions of their worthless currency, as they do not have such backing, gold or economic output. Backing currency with gold is a solid hedge against runaway inflation, such as Germany experienced in the last 1920's and Zimbabwe is experiencing now, but the USA does not have such issues; we do not back our currency with gold, and our currency is one of the strongest inthe world. Weak countries need to support their currency by pegging it to commodities such as gold; powerful countries support their currency by the totality of their economic output and the promise to honor the "value" by the "full faith and credit' of the USA. If memory serves me correct, we got out of the pegging gold to our currency as it was an artifical peg that did not accurately reflect the economic might of the most powerful country on earth.

Comment_arrow

Drew Wilcow

6:45 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Adam, You don't understand. The ounce of gold did not change. It is still the very same ounce of gold. What changed is the value of the USD buying it. You even mention how our gold supply has little if any effect on the value of our dollar. That’s because the amount of gold we have remains very steady, which is why we can use it to see what is happening to the USD.

In the case I put up (which as you have since the beginning of our threads, you didn’t answer any of the questions) it can be seen very clearly the value of that dollar you say is always a dollar because we say so, has actually fallen by almost 80% since 1985. You can’t argue this because the simple fact of the matter is it now takes 1,700 USD to buy the very same ounce of gold you could buy in 1985 with just 300 USD.

Now try and wrap your head around this. We (the America USD) now stands on the cusp of no longer being the world’s closing standard. When that happens you will see the value of our USD fall to match the 100% gold ratio I talked to you about. Go back and study the economics of the late seventies and early eighties under Jimmy Carter and you can see clearly what is coming today, except this time our USD has to devalue to a gold price of $14,750/ounce, not the $300/ounce it did under Carter.

BTW, I know and fully understand we after not on the gold Standard, and I’m not saying we should be. What I’m saying is the collapses of the USD is coming, and we can’t stop it!

Adam

5:28 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

in the early 1980's i took a college trip to the Soviet Union and when i got to the currency exchange in Moscow, $100 USA was exchanged for $52 rubles (I still have some of the notes). The reality is that on the street, there was nothing to purchase for those rubles, and I was able to exchange each $1.00 USA bill for $10 to $20 roubles. To put it another way, although the Soviets "said' that their $52.00 rubles was worth a $100 USA bill, the folks on the street (who approched me to see if i had US money to exchange for their Soviet money) in fact believed that the equivilent US money was actually worth closer to $2,000 rubles. This was reflected by the "hard currency" stores that were scattered throughout the City, the only places where one could buy quality western goods. I found this facinating, a real life introduction to the concept of "value" placed on currency. Even though our US dollars are not supported by gold, diamonds, etc., its "value" is in fact supported by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, reflected by our economic output, miltary power, stability and a host of other factors that we, essentially, make good on our debts. I get the saftey of being pegged to the gold standard, but I believe the the political and financial heads of this country felt that it held us back economically.

rangerssux

5:53 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

We are lucky to have such a fantastic Governor!

Drew Wilcow

6:54 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013

Adam, A buddy of mine who thinks like you told me I was a fool to invest in "Glenn Beck's fools gold" when it was still under $900.00/ounce. I got out just under $1,900/ounce when Ben Bernanke and the FED started to manipulate the price of gold by their quantitative easing BS.

Like any other fool, I laughed all the way to the bank!

You have a nice evening, and you should pray that when you wake up tomorrow morning the USD is still the world's standard. I'm ready if it isn't are you?

Adam

12:06 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

you mean you invested in Glen Becks gold at $900. an ounce and sold it for $1900 an ounce, when you could have taken the same money and invested in Apple Stock a few years earlier at $5.00 a share-and sold it a few months ago for over $500 a share. since gold's high, it has dropped close to 25%. Can't really recall when the US dollar,not backed by a gold standard, experienced such a drop in such a short period of time.

Adam

1:24 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

In 1967 my dad was the first one on our block to purchase a color TV, It was 13 inch Sony and cost close to $400 at the time, a huge investment (I remember him inviting our neighbors over to watch "Wizard ofOz" during its once a year showing on channel 2 (remember?) when Dorothy came out of the house and we saw the color scene for the first time, lots of oooohs and ahhhhs, I still remember the amazement. The point is that a similar small TV can be had for $99.00 today, and given the rise in salaries (In 1967 my dad was pretty highly paid at $20K a year), it would be the same as paying over $3,000 today. But the fact is that you can go to PC Richards and get a 50 inch color model for under $400 today. Not sure about the staying power of gold (in 1988, my friend got burned purchasing a lot of gold at $900/once only to have it drop in the $400's for close to 15 years) but you sure can purchase a heck of a lot more TV in todays dollars than you could in the past.

Drew Wilcow

8:45 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

Adam. My charts don’t show Apple ever being $5.00. It was close back around 1987, but outside of the last run up was typically selling in the $50.000 range. I, too, could have bought it a $750.00 and sold it at $450.00.

You live in a fantasy world Adam. God bless you for ignore is bliss, sometimes, no in fact many times, I wish I could be ignorant too.

The liberal left doesn’t want you to see what is coming, because they know it will end their run. You are making the same mistake that millions of Americans are making today. They trust their government. Big Mistake

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don't multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn't first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. ____ Adrian Pierce Rogers

Adam

10:26 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

Drew, I think I get it. You got sucked into Glen Beck's diatribe about how bad the US dollar is and to please buy gold from the company he sponsors. I understand that Beck is a multi multi millionaire from folks who bought into this phony line and purchased gold at inflated prices. I mean, how can one lose? Even better than buying some of the nicer homes in New Milford in early 2007 that were listed in the $900K and higher range. I mean really, how can one lose, prices will just keeping going up and up and up....Most financial advisors (i.e. liberal communists to some I guess) advise putting generally no more than 5% to 10% of your investment assets in gold and other commodities, and to put the rest in stock and bonds, including index funds (at a .02% commission generally) that do quite nicely, up close to 17% in 2012 for those funds that track the S&P. Although I question public representatives on a regular, and try and highlight the hypocrisy of many of our politicians, I do trust my government-its called being a patriotic loyal American.
"A liberal believes that big government can be good for society; a conservative believes that big government is bad for society...unless it affects him/her personally, then they become outright communists, insisting that big government helps them immediately"-Adam

g

10:42 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

Kevin Nedd,

The unemployment rate in the month of January increased to 7.9%. While the total jobless number is 12.3 million, 157,000 jobs were created in January. Still there remains a startling 4.7 million who are long term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) — 38.1% of the unemployed population. Among specific worker groups the unemployment for adult men was 7.3%, adult women 7.3%, whites 7%, blacks 13.8%, Hispanics 9.7%, and Asians 6.5%.

As our nation celebrates Black History Month, we also have to come to terms with the unfortunate reality that the average unemployment rate among blacks in 2012 was 13.8%. This has gone down significantly since the Great Recession peak of 16.7%. Still out of all racial and ethnic groups in 2012, blacks averaged the highest in joblessness (where whites were 7.2% and Hispanics were 10.3%).

Thank you President Obama you certainly look out for all the people: out of all racial and ethnic groups in 2012, blacks averaged the highest in joblessness (where whites were 7.2% and Hispanics were 10.3%).

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

11:26 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

Having endured the ups and downs of the "American Experience", we blacks are a patient and understanding people. We know the President didn't cause the economic collapse from which we continue to recover, albeit slowly. We also know which party is the biggest impediment to progress. Hence the reason we supported the President's reelection by a ratio of 96 percent to 3 percent.

Comment_arrow

B@B

11:39 am on Friday, March 1, 2013

g: Please explain what a president (who is not a dictator, contrary to what many people think) can do to "create jobs" in a private sector that is determined to participate in a race to the bottom by "creating jobs" only in the lowest-cost countries...because their compensation depends on delivering the highest shareholder value. Companies are not in the business of creating jobs out of the goodness of their hearts; it's all about propping up share price. And since much executive compensation is now in stock, it's all about share price...and whatever that takes -- closing up shop and sending all the jobs to Indonesia, whatever -- is what they will do. So...what do you expect a president to do about that, given that this office does not have absolute power?

Comment_arrow

The Stig

3:12 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Although he didn't cause the economic down-turn any more than his predecessors, he is responsible for the anemic recovery, which is a direct result of his "stimulus" plan, ObamaCare, and the current fiscal "crises" that he's fostered as part of his ongoing socialist agenda.

As for impeding "progress," given what the President considers progress, Republicans should just stay the course. Eventually, people will figure out that the impact of the sequester was all a photo-op myth.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

3:18 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Kinda explains why the President's approval rating is above 50% and the House GOP's is about half at 27%.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

3:33 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

It's always easier for the President to spin, he has a bigger microphone, he has a compliant press (look at how his colleagues savaged Woodward when he didn't hew to the liberal party line), and Congress's ratings have always been in the toilet, doesn't matter who runs the place, and right now it's half Dem, half Rep. Maybe it's all Harry Reid's fault.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

4:05 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

...and George W. Bush didn't have all of these "presidential" advantages when he left office with the lowest approval ratings (22%) in modern history?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4728399.html

The 27% approval rating quoted above is strictly for the House GOP, not the entire Congress. Try again!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/house-gop-approval-ratings-sinks-86320.html

Comment_arrow

The Stig

4:13 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Bush, you're still bringing up Bush? I guess it's easier than talking about Obama's miserable record on the Economy, even after four full years. We should be prepared for four more years of this.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

4:24 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

I'm sure the American people would prefer four more years of Obama as opposed to the final year of Bush!

Comment_arrow

stewart resmer

4:48 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

yeah I wouldnt want to bring up BUSHCO either stig after he took the historic Clinton Surplus and replaced it with the greatest defecit in the history of the world in 8yrs, when he ran 2 wars off the books and left the debt to generations yet unborn.
I dont blame ya stig, its alot easier to be in denaial about the facts than ever have to actually face up to em huh?

Comment_arrow

The Stig

8:30 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

I guess you've missed the last four years when Obama ran up the greatest set of deficits in the History of the World, and he's only halfway through his presidency. If we're lucky, we'll only be $20T in debt when he leaves office. He's already taken us from $10 to 16T. Bush only managed $5.7 to 10T.

P.S. It's also the first time since WWII that the total debt exceed the GDP.

Comment_arrow

stewart resmer

9:14 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Guess you are in denial about the historic residual damage Bushco did to the economy that the party of stupid compounded today?
Thats ok the rest of us will remind you frequently and often

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

9:38 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Bush's economic incompetence and Obamas success in "righting the ship" can be illustrated in one simple easy to read chart. However, I'm sure Stig will find a way to spin it.

http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord/

Publius Valerius Publicola

9:59 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

Mr. Nedd, referencing information from that Marxist train wreck's Web site is no way to win an argument. Obama is a Keynesian fool.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

10:16 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

While our Constitution allows you to call the President whatever name you chose, it doesn't give the right to state your own facts. So unless you have information disputing job growth under the President, your statement doesn't even make it to the level of being argumentative.

Comment_arrow

Liberty

3:03 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Wall St Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323940004578255810468323252-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwMjEwNDIyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email Also, Obama approval rating is down to 46 from a 53 less than 3 wks ago. I believe Gallup, not Nedd.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

4:37 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Following Nate Silver's lead, an examination of multiple polls beats relying on a single one.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Comfortably Numb

10:56 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013

wow, obama sure did sound like he's losing it in his speech today. Eventually as a leader there has to be some degree of accountability. The constant finger pointing has made me nauseous imagine how he must feel.

Nose Wayne

12:11 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Kevin, are you really that stupid here or are you just playing the part ? Do you have a television in either one of those houses Obama gave to you with his Obama dollars ? How much information do you want disputing job growth that your buddy Obama has been BS'IN the American people with. Listen to him, he always tells the truth, ask him he'll tell you.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

1:06 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

This from someone who probably voted twice for the last GOP president who surely told the truth when he swore Iraq had WMD.

Comment_arrow

stewart resmer

9:48 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

NW what purpose does it serve for you to make such comments?

Comment_arrow

Drew Wilcow

10:48 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

SR - What purpose does it serve to have true comments removed?

Comment_arrow

leanbean

10:54 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

@stewart resmer, I'll ask you the same question. What purpose does it serve you to make such comments on any and every posting?

Comment_arrow

stewart resmer

11:38 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

oh great, another Patch.com anon poster making demands

Adam

12:22 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Obama may very well have stopped an economic plunge that could have equaled the great depression-perhaps 25% unemployment and more than a decade or negative economic growth. Don't you remember the look of outright horror and fear in George Bush when he gave that emergency press conference in November 2008 announcing the emergency input of close to $800 Billion dollars to support the financiel sysem, which was on the verge of collapse? A balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases/loophole fixes is ideal, but I agree with Stig. The $85 billion in cuts is now law, lets see how we adapt to such cuts before wailing that the sky is falling. Solving a problemt with half a solution (spending cuts only) is better than not doing anything and watching our defecit increase.

Adam

12:35 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013

"Bush only managed $5.7 to 10T" Really, your proud of that? Bush and the Republicans were handed a $250 billion budget surplus, 3 years of national defecit reduction (I work in Manhattan-the debt clock was going backwards under Democrat Clinton) and $600 billion piad off of the national debt, with the CBO estimating that if Bush only followed Clintons balanced approach of spending cuts and tax hights, the national debt would be totally paid off in 2011 (first time sinc e 1835). Look at what the Republican party did in those 8 years-Federal spending increased by 26%, we got involved in 2 wars AND cut taxes, something which no world leader has done in at least 2,000 years (with perhaps the exception of Caligula). The hand the next President a financial disaster, massive spending, deficits, and a financial system that had ground to a hault and was fast collapsing. Republicans blaming Obama is like an arsonist who lit fire to a building and criticizing the job a fireman did in putting it out.

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

10:57 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Correction for Clueless Wilcow: "Just the factS, MA'AM" ~ SERGEANT Joe Friday.
Boom!

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

12:13 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

What does this have to do with anything? New cars are too expensive for many Americans. That's why we have used car lots.

stewart resmer

12:56 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.[7] (See Figure 2.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues, which will account for less than $2 trillion (just over 10 percent) of the debt at that time. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies do not fade away as the economy recovers.[8]

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance in this decade. Even if we regard the economic downturn as unavoidable, we would have entered it with a much smaller debt — allowing us to absorb the recession’s damage to the budget and the cost of economic recovery measures, while keeping debt comfortably below 50 percent of GDP, as Figure 2 suggests. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

1:24 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Nice summary of what happen and the impact. Given how damning this is, it is not surprising Republicans have a hard time owning up.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

4:16 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

There's just one big problem with their charts - Bush left office in January of 2009 and, the tax cuts were due to expire in 2010. Obama extended them once, and then made all but a small portion permanent. That makes them his, not Bush's starting in 2010. He promised the American people that it's what he would do if elected President, made good on his promise, so it's time to stop calling them the Bush Tax Cuts.

It's also funny how little the wars actually added to the deficit when you show them in graphical form, and the fact that they seem to cause a deficit ad infinitum makes zero sense since Iraq has been wound down, and Afghanistan is almost over.

We also notice that although there was massive yelling and screaming about TARP, its impact to the debt is almost imperceptible.

Finally, they seem to have somehow figured out a way to make none of the federal budget expansion in the past four years part of the deficit problem, which is ridiculous. Federal spending has grown dramatically under Obama, and all with borrowed money.

Kevin Nedd

4:36 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

There is a larger problem with your selective recollection of what actually happened. The Bush Tax cuts were extended in early 2011 due to the newly elected GOP House majority's insistence they remain in place. Any effort to repeal them would have had to involve the House passing against their stated policy of no tax increases of any kind. The party of NO did what it did best.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

4:58 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Both the temporary and permanent tax cut extensions had Obama's signature on them, and it was what he promised America during his campaign. As you would say, Promise Made, Promise Kept. Henceforth, they should be called "The Obama Tax Cuts," and credited to his account.

As for increasing taxes, the so-called Party of No allowed them to be raised on The Rich, as Obama demanded. Now, he's once again back looking for more revenue (this time he's calling it "The Balanced Approach") because he has no interest in attacking the government's spending issue, especially on Entitlements, which will be the ruination of this country.

Great Leadership . . . NOT

Kevin Nedd

5:25 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

What is it with you and the truth? The President's plan was not part of the 2011 extension of the Bush Tax cuts. So why should the bill that was passed be tied to him by name?

Your second point is simply drivel as the President's balanced approach involves spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and revenues gained thought closing of tax loopholes. Here it is straight from POTUS:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/05/remarks-president

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

5:57 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

That might be his plan now but that is not what he agreed to when the sequester was put in place and he got his tax hikes. The man keeps moving the goal posts. He got his tax cuts. Now it is time for nothing but spending cuts.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

6:02 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Wrong. The deal on the table at the time the sequester was initiated had more revenue that the $600B gained in the recent tax increase. The President should ask for more revenue as part of his balanced approach.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

6:36 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

That is not what Bob Woodward says and I will believe him over you any day of the week.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

6:54 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Bob Woodward? Really? You mean the same Bob Woodward who cried wolf claiming he was threatened by the White House, excerpt when the offending email was released it was so benign he is now the laughing stock of the DC press corps? Come on man, try a little harder will you?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/02/bob-woodward-throws-an-interception.html

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

10:34 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Ojo--you should actually believe ANYone over Woodward, the journalistic laughingstock: http://gawker.com/5987586

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

11:59 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Kevin, stop reading Politico. Woodward hardly felt threatened by the email he got from the White House telling him he'd regret writing what he wrote.

You just don't like the fact that Obama and his staffers came up with the sequester. You don't like that he got his tax cuts and the Republicans are now demanding that Obama live up to the "balanced approach" he said he wanted and now agree to spending cuts. And you don't like the fact that Obama has been screwing around for months instead of doing his job in DC to cut spending and deal with the budget. Actually, make that years b/c the man hasn't signed a budget since his first year in office.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

12:53 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Ojo,

Please stop. Your ignorance is so profound, you are embarrassing yourself!

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

3:10 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Ojo, you thimblewit, there are things that one would like to be true, like "moving the goal posts" (a phrase from discredited former journalist Bob http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/bob-woodward-emails/62614/ Woodward) and things that are actually true. You're flailing, Ojo, in your hatred.

One more time, Ojo, Woodward absolutely claimed that he felt threatened by Mr. Sperling's remarks, something that their email exchange proves false and proves Woodward KNEW was false way before he went sobbing to Faux. If you can read, read the emails. Afterwards, it would behoove you to STFU.

Hank

7:17 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Does anyone even know who Bob Woodward is anymore?

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

7:56 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Sheesh, Hank, even Fox & Friends know who he is!

Nucky Thompson

9:25 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

That's Bob "Deep Throat" Woodward from the Watergate days. I thought he died years ago about the same time Tricky Dick "I'm No Criminal" Nixon bought the farm. Leave it to Faux News to dig up a dead journalist!

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

10:15 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

No Google in your town, Hanklin?

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

10:17 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Nucky, career-wise, he's damn near dead after making that bogus threat claim. Long overdue payback for cheating on Nora Ephron! ;)

Comment_arrow

Hank

10:39 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

I gave up Google for lent
and that's Mr. Hanklin to you

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

10:52 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Then use Bing, Monsieur Hanklin, no one else does and they're very, very lonely.

Comment_arrow

Hank

11:10 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

I just used Bing
apparently Bob Woodward got an academy award for "Three Faces of Eve" in 1957

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

12:31 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Hankie: Bing! It's just the bestest! Now you're informed!

Nose Wayne

9:37 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Shame that yesterday at a news conference, Obama said all the cleaning people, janitors and security guards will be getting a pay cut that watch over the House. How about our president and all the other House reps take a pay cut ? They work hard all year cleaning, protecting and keeping the place nice. Guess those savings are going to put our country back on track.

Comment_arrow

Gobsmacked

3:13 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Lordy, Nose, take a freaking writing course.

Drew Wilcow

12:31 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

More inconvenient FACTS:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/02/obamas-accelerating-downward-spiral-for-america/

How anyone can defend this President's performance in well beyond me! Unless I guess he's given you free cell phones, free food, a free place to live, and free cash to boot, then I understand! How is it you get on that wagon? Should I walk into work on Monday and quit? I'm damn close to thinking that IS the answer! Why bother working when the fruits of your labors are taken from you and given to those who don't work! What's the point?

Maybe it is getting to be time for all Americans in private jobs to just quit! Just imagine! WTF would anyone in power do? Send the army to force us back to work?

Comment_arrow

Monk

2:32 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Maybe confiscate your property?

Comment_arrow

stewart resmer

2:47 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.[1][2]

yeah inconvenient huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_statement_opposing_the_Bush_tax_cuts

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

5:43 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

@ Drew:

Romney tried that line (aka 47%). Here is what it got him:

http://chime.in/user/Iria/chime/203972209338847232

Comment_arrow

BillBalls

7:04 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Let them take it! I’ll just stand there with my hand out and they’ll have to put me and 100 million other people up in hotels, with 3 squares a day severed to us, air conditioning, a pool, hot tubs, saunas, and heck free cell phones, along with WIC cards, Food Stamps, Medicare, mass transit passes, car services for where mass transit can’t reach, it is a great deal. Seriously, it is time for those of us still stupid enough to support those who don’t want to work, along with all the government workers, 85% of them having jobs because they are politically connected, to sit back, relax, plop our a$$es in a harmonic and chill out, just like they do!

Comment_arrow

BillBalls

7:08 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Steward – If one were to read your resume, one can clearly see you are one of the chosen few who financially benefit from certain people being in government. You carry their water for them, and they reward you with high paying, do nothing jobs.

paul smith

6:14 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

@Drew....most of the 47% live in Red States... that's kind of "inconvenient" for the Tea Party brethren don't ya think?....how about Tea party strongholds govern as per their beliefs... and blue state NJ can get back more than 60 cents on the buck ... the Darwinian challenged strongholds of 'bama, mississippi and the home of the human turtle majority leader to name a few mooch off of places like the garden state.

Comment_arrow

paul smith

6:40 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

WHOOPS- meant MINORITY leader! Thank God!!

paul smith

7:30 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

but the majority leader is no bargain either... both are pathetic....

Kevin Nedd

7:49 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Can you imagine the outcry from the Right if we had just reelected a Republican President to his second term by a wide EC margin and the Democrats had filibustered his nominee for Sec. Of Defense? The term "unAmerican" would be flying across the airwaves at light speed. Every time you think the GOP can't sink any lower, they prove otherwise.

Comment_arrow

paul smith

8:02 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

He could have done a lot better- Hagel is anti-Israel (at a minimum) and refers to the Iranian government as an "elected" government, as in the election wasn't rigged. Wrong example.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

8:32 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Did you serve in the military?

Comment_arrow

paul smith

8:34 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

@Kevin Nedd- No, didn't serve- didn't get called in the '73 draft. Just wish you had a different example- this guy is too easy a target for the opposition-

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

8:43 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

I didn't think so. Hagel is the first former enlisted man to serve as our Defense Secretary. This is historic and long overdue.

Having served in the enlisted ranks before receiving my commission, I fully support his appointment. He will be carrying out the President's policy with respect to Israel and Iran, not his own.

Comment_arrow

paul smith

10:25 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

I respect your opinion but I still see him as anti-Israel and borderline appeaser with Iran. But just the same, he should have been up for an immediate vote pure and simple. I agree that a filibuster was obstructionist in this case.

Comment_arrow

Kevin Nedd

10:31 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Based on what tangible evidence do you see him this way? And please be specific.

Comment_arrow

The Stig

8:30 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

Don't have to imagine it, it happened, only the Republican president's choice was voted down.

In 1988 George Bush won an 8% victory, and CRUSHED Dukakis in the EC by 4:1. Bush nominated former Senator John Tower as his choice for Sect of Defense, but senators like Ted Kennedy claimed he was unfit because he was an alcoholic and a womanizer (what HYPOCRISY), and rejected the nomination.

So don't talk about "sinking lower," every time the Reps drop a notch they are still looking down at the Liberal Dems, who wrote the playbook on dirty pool.

Ironically, Bush's second choice was Dick Cheney, who used the fame gained from managing the DOD during the First Gulf War into his eventually spot as Veep for GWB.

Sometimes unintended consequences are a B#$*@.

Comment_arrow

paul smith

8:40 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

@Kevin- he was quoted as accusing a "Jewish lobby" of intimidating people in Washington, while he said he regretted those comments it was still said- In terms of Iran, their "democratically elected government" endorsed him I guess based on the fact that he said "the Obama administration supports “containment”" and called the country an “elected legitimate government.” First it should not be containment but prevention and if you look at the last Iranian election and resultant riots, I would put their election on par the the North Korean elections. Just the same, he's in and let's hope he does the right thing.

stewart resmer

8:06 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

The GOP would fillibuster the nomination of the Pope if they could get in to the Vatican.

Comment_arrow

paul smith

8:11 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

Of course they would. The Catholic church preaches humility, compassion and charity until it hurts. They very things the human turtle and his cohorts find abhorrent. Many "GOP" members are equally repulsed by the stunts going on now from BOTH sides.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

11:25 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

I am not terribly repulsed. Obama should have started cutting discretionary spending over a year ago. He hasn't cut a darn thing. He also already got his revenue increases, the largest tax increases this nation has ever seen but he pulled a re-trade and is now demanding more and refuses to cut a dime in spending til he gets more. Personally I hold him completely to blame for the impasse. A real leader would have been cutting spending by a million her and a billion there on a daily basis each and every day since that sequester was passed. But he hasn't done that. All he does is complain and play politics.

Kevin Nedd

12:05 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

Ojo,

Why don't you go back and read the Constitution? The President doesn't have the authority to cut spending unilaterally. He can only sign bills sent to him by Congress which may authorize a reduction in spending from current levels.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

6:09 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

Government agencies are not required to spend their entire budgets. I know this as a fact. Congress appropriates the funding, they don't spend the money. The executive branch does that. And FYI you clueless Hawaii resident, he has in the past signed executive orders mandating token spending cuts w/o Congressional approval. He could have done it again and mandated substantive spending cuts. He also could have proposed cuts and gotten Congress to pass those cuts into law. What did he do instead? He jetted around the country to rally the uninformed masses like you to protect wasteful spending all in the name of raising taxes.

Comment_arrow

stewart resmer

7:15 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

"Mr. Speaker, that's just not true," Gregory said. "They've made it very clear, as the president just did, that he has a plan that he's put forward that involves entitlement cuts, that involves spending cuts. That you've made a choice, as have Republicans, to leave tax loopholes in place and you'd rather have those and live with all these arbitrary cuts."

We are seeing an oft repeated pattern here, where the right consistently attempts to substitute propaganda and talking points in furtherance of their political agenda the for facts, that is until they get outside of the Faux news studios.

Comment_arrow

Jack Q

8:12 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

Really, Stew. And the Prez's cabinet stating that the end of the world was coming if we go through with the sequestor that he came up with? That wasn't propaganda, along with factually inaccurate. Even the media is finally waking up and confronting the Obama admin and the spin is dizzying.

Comment_arrow

Ojo Rojo

8:32 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

Yeah go ahead and shoot the messenger b/c you don't like the message. Still doesn't change the fact that Obama doesn't need Congressional authority to not spend money that is appropriated. He can do that all by himself and he hasn't. He also hasn't proposed any substantial cuts. All the man has done is pass 2 massive tax increases and now he wants a 3rd. Well he isn't getting one b/c he already agreed that after that last tax increase that the next round of deficit reduction would come from cuts and the Republicans aren't going to just let him reneg like that. So if you just don't like the sequester or any of the highly visible symbolic or inconvenient cuts Obama is making b/c he refuses to find ways to cut spending that soften the blow on the public, then take it up with the man you worship blindly b/c he alone is to blame for not only proposing the sequester but also for refusing to make any spending cuts until forced to by the sequester.

The editor has closed comments for this article.