.

Issa Warns U.S. Still Faces 'Serious, Long-Term Financial Crises'

Issa said he voted with the Congressional majority because even a brief default would have had "immediate and catastrophic effects on the U.S. and world financial markets."

Rep. Darrell Issa. Patch file photo.
Rep. Darrell Issa. Patch file photo.
Rep. Darrell Issa warned Monday that Congress' vote to re-fund government and avoid default "resolves none of the serious, long-term financial crises" facing the country.

"I voted in favor not because I thought it was a good deal — it clearly is not — but because it is necessary to move the country forward on several key fronts," Issa said in a statement on his Web site.

Issa, a Republican who represents Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside, Del Mar, Camp Pendleton, San Clemente, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and Ladera Ranch, voted with the largely Democratic majority on Thursday.

He said the nation has a "moral obligation to cash the checks we have already written" and even a brief default would have had "immediate and catastrophic effects on the U.S. and world financial markets."

In addition, he said, the deal brings Democrats in Congress back to the negotiating table to "finally tackle our massive and unsustainable government spending."

He said the battle over the shutdown and default also took the focus away from problems with the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

"The end of the temporary budget impasse may appear like a victory for the president today, but it is by no means the end of discussion on Obamacare or runaway government spending," Issa said.



Jon Nadelberg October 22, 2013 at 08:48 AM
How can any of you people living in OC vote for this complete sleazebag almost-felon? For god's sake, get a Republican who didn't set fires or steal cars.
Mariano Cisneros Jr. October 22, 2013 at 09:00 AM
It's really sad when as hominen attacks pass for serious discussion because the author lacks concrete analytical skills. All Congressman Issa has been trying to do is publicize how the good of our country take a back seat to politics in this and frNkly all American administrations. In Benghazi our diplomats and servicemen were attacked by a mob probably taking orders from Moscow because this was ground zero for the operation to arm the rebels in Syria. Instead of coming clean with the Ameeican public about it however, and quite frankly showing a small modicum of respect for the dead, our fellow countryman, Secretary Clinton shifted immediately into coverup mode. Where's the decency in that? Or are we so callous now as a populace that we can't recognize a desecration when it occurs. I think perhaps so. To my complete and utter shame I voted for President Obama. I believed he would reign on the extra-judicial drone murders of American citizens and many other innocents. As far as the debt is concerned I don't blame anyone for accepting handouts from the government except those that don't really Ned them but still take them out of greed. I mean if the devil offered one bolt cutters who wouldn't take them to exit out of hell? No one. Still this does nothing about our humongous out-of-control debt that has surpassed 17 trillion dollars with another 70 to 80 trillion of unfunded liabilities. Once the rest of the world bails on the US dollar we will be unable to pay even the interest on this massive debt. How will that help the poor? It won't. Theta will be the ones who will pay dearly for this irresponsible spending. I see persons attacking Congressman Issa and I wonder is that person better. My experience tells me unlikely so. I hope the Democrats take control of the entire government because when it comes time for an accounting, and that time is fast approaching, I want the American people to place the Lion's share of the blame right where it belongs, on the steps of the Democrats and those voters like yourselves who think I suppose that 100 trillion dollars can actually be paid back while we confine to spend at unsustainable levels. One last point, Congressman Issa May not be the best spokesperson for these issues but at least he appears to be on the correct side of the argument here. It's better to me than burying one's head in the same and pretending this administration and Senate are looking out for our best interests. Stop drinking the Kool aid and don't buy the hype.
Jim Corbett October 22, 2013 at 09:43 AM
And yet, the deficit, as a percent of GDP has fallen faster under Obama than under any President in the last 70 years. "unfunded liabilities" may be a good buzz term, but SS and Medicare have been "unfunded" since the the first check was cut for the first recipient. To insure that both programs are stable as far into the future as anyone can see, all that is necessary is ask the rich to pay on more than the first 115,000 in income, or at least index the income limit to inflation. BTW-how do you like our Gov? He balanced the budget in one year, something a string of Republican Govs were unable or unwilling to do.
Mr Salty October 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Warmonger Corporatist Plutocrats like Issa are the ones who put the nation in the dire straits we find ourselves in. TAX THE 1% END THE WARS The US Military spending in 2011 was nearly SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS! Outspending the Chinese by 6-1. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Socio Economist October 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM
I guess democrats don't really need to negotiate again in January when the debt ceiling is hit again because Republicans are all talk...
sweetcakes October 30, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Manuel Cisneros, you speak like a true Tea Party member. Don't forget that Bush had more embassy attacks under his watch than any other president in US history.
Johnny Johnson December 21, 2013 at 12:00 PM
We are 17 trillion in debt and Obama is racking it up twice as fast as any other Pres ever. So yea eventually it's immoral to hand this burden to the younger generation to pay for it
Rusty Inman December 21, 2013 at 02:51 PM
@Johnny: It is demonstrable fact that, during the past four years of President Obama's tenure, the federal deficit has fallen at the fastest rate since the four-year period of 1946-49. Handed an economy decimated by both George W. Bush and Republican economic policies, the federal deficit in the first year of the president's first term was 10.1% of GDP. By 2012, it had fallen to 7.0% of GDP and is estimated to be as low as 6.5% of GDP for 2013. Our problem is not the national debt---interest rates are at all-time lows and inflation is virtually non-existent. Our problem is unemployment. Your prescription for the economy is that same prescription that has forced major EU countries into double- and triple-dip recessions---the IMF took the extraordinary step of actually apologizing to the EU for recommending austerity measures. The economy doesn't need to be cooled down but heated up. And it is heated up by spending, not austerity.
Welfare Dad December 22, 2013 at 02:05 PM
Rusty try some basic math, Obama has racked up over six trillion in debt so far and has trillion dollar or more in annual deficits every year in office. The fact that Obama had annual deficits as high as 1.5 trillion and now they are only one trillion is hardly room for celebration when no other President ever had deficits higher than 500 billion. Our problem is the unprecedented debt Obama has accumulated which he will double while in office but also the record food stamp usage , record poverty, and never ending joblessness that Obama has had his entire Presidency. Unemployment is going down because millions have left the workforce giving up hope of finding a job. It's not moral for our generation to live off the back of the younger generation with debt.
Jim Corbett December 22, 2013 at 02:40 PM
Aren't we all Californians? Let's just be thankful that we now have a Democratic Governor (Remember Mr. Moonbeam?) with a hostage proof overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. After years of fiscally irresponsible Republican Governors backed by barely 40% of the legislature producing fiscal crisis after fiscal crisis. We can all breath easy, Gov. Moonbeam balanced the budget, increased money from most government programs, and has the California economy in full recovery. Let's see, who was the last President to produce a surplus? Oh yeah, President Clinton. Each President handed a terrible economy, each adopted conservative policies that worked, although many liberals believed neither President went far enough, and so delayed recovery.
Welfare Dad December 22, 2013 at 03:12 PM
We should go back to Clinton policies. A budget half of Obama's , Clinton cut welfare and said the " era of big govt is over " while also cutting dividend taxes. This while Obama has racked up over six trillion in debt and yet to have even one strong economic year. Many cities and counties in CA have depression like unemployment numbers.
Rusty Inman December 22, 2013 at 08:22 PM
You make it too easy or me, Welfare Dad! Here's some math for you: (1) Your statement that no president other than Obama has run deficits higher than $500 billion is false on its face. Bush's FY2008 deficit nearly made it, coming in at $468 billion. His FY2009 deficit was projected at $1.2 trillion, but came in at $1.4 trillion. Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett noted that the additional $0.2 trillion in red ink "was not due to the stimulus package or 'counter-cyclical entitlement programs'...but to the fact that tax revenue had fallen off a cliff under President Bush." That $1.4 trillion deficit belonged to George Bush, not Barack Obama---his spending, his deficit. (2) It is noteworthy that none of Bush's deficit figures include the costs of two wars or the cost of the Medicare Part D drug program. He funded these "off the books." They were not part of his budget but funded as "supplemental appropriations," which enabled him to bypass the publicity that attends huge budget requests from Congress. Add this spending to Bush's deficits---as it should have been---and he looks even worse than he already does. President Obama immediately added these line items to the budget rather than try to hide them, which upped his deficit and spending numbers. (3) Tho you and your ilk perpetuate the false narrative of Obama's "out-of-control spending," it doesn't pass the fact-check. Both the CBO and the JCT agree that "federal spending during the present administration has flattened." The CBO estimates federal outlays for FY2013 at $3.46 trillion, which is less than the budget Obama inherited from Bush for FY2009. (4) Deficits as a % of GDP, as I stated above, have fallen during every year of Obama's tenure, with the steepest drop coming from FY2012 and FY2013---from roughly 7% of GDP to what CBO now projects (as of mid-November) to be just 4% of GDP (I just found that report this afternoon). It further estimates that the deficit will fall to 2.4% of GDP in FY2017, though Medicare and Social Security increases will have it rising again at the close of the decade. (5) As to revenues, CBO estimates revenues for FY2013 at $2.8 trillion, which takes us back to pre-recession, FY2007 levels for the first time. This, of course, signals recovery, though it is weak due to decreased spending/austerity, which only lengthens a recessionary economy but is the program the GOP House has decided upon. (6) Food stamp usage, continuing poverty numbers derive, as any economist will tell you, not from Obama policies but from the fact that no modern president since Roosevelt has inherited an economy as decimated as the one inherited by this president. Furthermore, just in 2013, GOP sequester cuts have cost us over 600,000 jobs and 1.75% annualized GDP. And the GOP government shutdown took $24 billion out of the economy, cost us 125,000 private-sector jobs that aren't coming back, and 1% of annualized GDP. The Republican House has not passed a single bill in three years that has either produced an iota of economic growth or created one job. And it has not even brought to a vote the American Jobs Act or the president's proposal for a National Infrastructure Bank, each of which would provide a massive stimulus to the economy up-and-down the spectrum of commercial markets. (7) You don't have any math that is credible, Welfare Dad. You've just got talking points from Faux News. Argue the math I provided you with the CBO, the JCT, and the CBPP---they'll laugh you out the door. And, here are a couple of additional links for you (pay special attention to the work done by Ezra Klein and the CBPP): http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/deficits-are-rapidly-shrinking-spending-flat-under-obama http://www.forwardprogressives.com/show-a-republican-this-to-expose-their-hypocrisy-about-deficit-spending/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/02/1060866/-Bush-beats-Obama-s-deficit-spending-by-5-to-1-but-Romney-targets-the-wrong-guy-to-whine-about#
Jim Corbett December 22, 2013 at 09:04 PM
Great Post Rusty. What I really can't understand is how, when the economic growth rate, under Democratic Presidents, over the past sixty years, has been TWICE, the growth rate of Republican Presidents, rationality doesn't dictate reality?
Rusty Inman December 23, 2013 at 01:36 PM
You are exactly right about the economic growth rate. Indeed, Jim, there are other economic indicators that show how much more the economy has prospered under Democratic policies than under Republican rule---and, equally important, how much more the middle- and working-classes have prospered. But you used two words that almost serve as an answer to your own question: Rationality and Reality. Facts simply do not matter to the vast majority of those on the GOP/Tea Party/Christian Right spectrum. Their response to issues is visceral/reflexive rather than thoughful/reflective, which means that conversation and dialogue are ruled out from the start. Which is also why, I think, they tend to vote against their own interests. And history will not be kind to their leaders, who have figured out how to play on these visceral/reflexive/reactionary responses and have demagogued and manipulated them into a movement defined not by rationality and reality but by ignorance/resentment/bigotry. Their leaders are not statesmen but carnival barkers.
Johnny Johnson December 24, 2013 at 10:40 AM
There is no prospering for the middle class and poor with Obama. We have record levels in poverty , food stamps usage and joblessness. At the same time the wealth income gap widens with stock marketing booming, who owns stock well mainly the affluent. So I guess that is change we can believe in?
Rusty Inman December 24, 2013 at 01:07 PM
I beg your pardon?????? The policies that have led to the decimation of the middle- and working-classes do not belong to President Obama or the Democrats. Those are GOP/Tea Party policies. (1) Both the CBPP and TPC report that the Bush tax cuts raised average after-tax income for top 1% by 6.7% (or, average of $66,618), for top 20% by 4.6% (or, average of $7,860), for middle 20% by 2.8% (or, average of $1,039), for bottom 20% by 1.0% (or, average of $99). Obviously, these tax cuts made the tax code less progressive, continuing Republican-supported efforts that for 35 years have focused on redistributing wealth upward while falsely claiming that wealth was being redistributed downward. (2) The GOP/Tea Party continues to tout an economic policy that begins with restoring tax cuts to the wealthy, knowingly lying that "trickle-down economics" helps the bottom 99% when it has been proven that these tax cuts only help the wealthy. (3) The GOP/Tea Party sequester cuts cost us over 600,000 jobs and 1.75% of annualized GDP (not to mention the loss of tax revenue or the additional cost required for unemployment benefits) for FY2013 alone. (4) The GOP/Tea Party government shutdown took $24 billion out of our economy, cost us 125,000 private-sector jobs that aren't coming back (thus, less tax revenue and more unemployment payouts), and we lost 1% of annualized GDP. (5) Despite GOP mythology led by Rand Paul (who was charged with knowingly lying about this!) that "black unemployment in America is double white unemployment," the black unemployment rate is now lower than it was when the president took office and the white/black unemployment gap is "below the historical average" (FactCheck.org). The JCT states that "under President Obama, the economy has added two-and-a-half times more jobs than it did in his predecessor's entire eight years in office" (as of April, 2013). Your statement that joblessness is at record levels is a false and unsubstantiated meme that you've borrowed from some right-wing website. Furthermore, the GOP/Tea Party House has not passed a bill in three years that has created a single job or an iota of economic growth (meditate on that!). (6) Under President Bush, 14.7 million people were added to the food stamp program. Under President Obama, 15.8 billion have been added. According to FactCheck.org, "the increase under Obama is due mainly to the economic downturn that began during the term of his predecessor, George Bush." (7) Do you seriously believe that Democratic policies have led to Wall Street gains primarily going to the 1%? Are you joking? The constant GOP/Tea Party rant against regulatory changes and the refusal of congressional Republicans to incentivize investment that would create manufacturing, technological and research & development jobs has resulted in Wall Street profits being made not per investment in the U.S. economy but per financial instruments accessible only to the affluent. The president and congressional Democrats have been obstructed at every turn by the GOP/Tea Party when they have tried to pass initiatives that would stimulate the general economy and create jobs up-and-down the entire commercial spectrum---i.e., the National Infrastructure Bank, the American Jobs Act, just to name two. You seriously need to pay attention to the facts and stay away from those right-wing websites. The people you support are the people who are doing you in.
Edith Murcer December 26, 2013 at 03:57 PM
More food stamps will not help the middle class and poor, and that is all Obamanomics has to offer them. Obama has record Americans living in poverty, on food stamps and never ending joblessness, that is why and how Obama has harmed families. There is nothing about another failed $800 billion dollar stimulus, Obamacare or food stamps that will stimulate this economy. All Presidents have an opposing party while only Obama claims he needs to be a dictator to effectively govern-laughable !
Edith Murcer December 26, 2013 at 04:06 PM
CNN October 22, 2013. - The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided not to participate in the nation's labor force has climbed to a record 90,609,000 in September, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Rusty Inman December 26, 2013 at 10:11 PM
@Edith Murcer: It's hard to know where to start with your collection of non-factual opinions. First, I have never known President Obama to claim that "he needs to be a dictator to effectively govern." Have you? Share it with us or admit that he neither said it nor insinuated it---indeed, that it is just something you made up or heard on some right-wing radio show. No modern president has faced the kind of opposition that this president has. When the opposing party meets on the night of your first inauguration to plan how to obstruct any and every initiative you propose, as McConnell and Boehner admit they did, it is difficult to engage in effective governance. There is a reason why even conservative commentators talk about the danger of a political party whose philosophy is "investigate, don't legislate" (Jim DeMint gave them the slogan. The only problem with the president's stimulus program early in his first term is that it was too small. And the GOP/Tea Party will not, of course, even bring the American Jobs Act or the Infrastructure Bank up for debate in the House, despite what economists says about the stimulus benefits of both. I'm sure you're joking about the ACA not having stimulus benefits in those states that accepted the Medicaid expansion---no one would want to be laughed at by seriously opining that the introduction of $8.3 billion over six years into the economy of a state as small as South Carolina would not have stimulus benefits. And you're joking, I know, when you deny the job benefits that would have accrued to South Carolina had this governor accepted the expansion---the USC School of Business study concluded that 44,000 jobs would have been created by 2020. Of course, if you weren't joking, then you need to pass your research along to them over at the university---I'm sure they would want to look at your corrections. As I stated earlier, the JCT reports that "under President Obama, the economy has added two-and-a-half times more jobs than it did in his predecessor's entire eight years in office." It further finds false your claim that joblessness is at record levels---it isn't. And your amnesia has returned---you conveniently forget that the president did not create this recession but inherited it from a big-spending GOP president who was handed a budget surplus of $250 billion from President Clinton and, in eight years, turned it into a $1.4 trillion deficit. Your political party has done nothing over the five years of President Obama's tenure to create either economic growth or jobs---feel free to tell us all of the GOP/Tea Party initiatives that have done so, if you know of any. In fact, it has done the opposite---see my sourced statements above as to job losses caused by irresponsible GOP/Tea Party policies and loss of GDP caused by the same. Your statements are simply not backed up by the facts. I'm sure you don't like President Obama and that is your prerogative. But it is not acceptable to make false and misleading statements without supplying any substantiation.
Rusty Inman December 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM
@Edith Murcer: As to your post about the labor force, one notes that it is dated October 22. The wording of your post makes it seem as though your are providing information released today. I am looking at the November jobs report released by the Dept of Labor on December 6 right now. As CNN notes, the more than 200,000 jobs added during November have brought the unemployment rate to its lowest point since the Bush Recession began in 2008. The CNN report for October 22, 2013---the one you report as saying that over 90 million Americans over 16 had dropped out of the labor force---actually doesn't say that at all. Its headline is "Unemployment at Lowest Level Since Obama Elected." Actually, it couldn't say that anyway, given that the current number of unemployed is estimated by the Labor Dept. to be around 11 million---I have no idea where you got your 90 million number but it is, of course, false on its face. Furthermore, the Labor Dept. report of December 6 reports that 2.1 million unemployed people were "marginally attached" to the labor force (had not searched for work in 4 weeks previous to the report) and that, of these, 762,000 were what are called "discouraged workers" who have quit looking for work out of the belief that jobs aren't available---this is down by 217,000 from a year ago. Certainly not your 90 million number, is it? These reports are available online and are helpful in making sure that the information you post online or talk about in discussions with friends is accurate.
Welfare Dad January 02, 2014 at 10:15 AM
In Obamanomics 99 weeks of unemployment is not long enough to find a job. Historic high. Add it record food stamp usage and record poverty levels and you can easily understand the record wealth gap explosion the past 6 years
Rusty Inman January 02, 2014 at 11:31 AM
First, get rid of your anonymity---man up and put your name beside your comments. Second, explain to us what you think the president's economic policies are---be specific and don't use disparaging references to the president to hide your total lack of an argument. Third, as more than one of us has patiently tried to explain to you, the economy---and employment---were doing fine prior to the crashing of the economy by George Bush. Just take a look at the numbers. Graph them out. Neither the numbers nor the lines on that graph lie. Furthermore, many of the middle- and working-class jobs aren't coming back because of company failures during the Bush recession. And, GOP economic policies under Bush encouraged increased globalization by innumerable major corporations, sending those jobs to other countries---read Robert Reich's book "Beyond Outrage" (Labor Secretary under President Clinton, Reich occupies a chair at Cal, Berkeley and is considered one of the top ten Cabinet members in U.S. history) Many of those will not come back to the U.S. in our lifetime. Fourth, we would not have had food stamp usage and high poverty levels if we had not been pushed over the cliff by Bush's economic policies---two wars unpaid for, a Medicare Part D program unpaid for, perhaps the largest tax cut in history unpaid for, unprecedented (since the Great Depression) deregulation of the markets, banks and Wall Street). And the recovery has remained weak because of the obstructionist efforts of the GOP/Tea Party. Along with cutting spending in the midst of a recession---they learned nothing from the EU---they have obstructed all but one stimulus effort and every jobs bill the president has proposed. At the same time, the GOP House has not passed a bill in three years intended to create one iota of economic growth or one job---yet they say they are the party of "jobs, jobs, jobs." Indeed, their sequester cuts cost us 650,000 jobs and 1.75% of annualized GDP. And their government shutdown cost the economy $24 billion and 123,000 private-sector jobs that aren't coming back. Their record is one of creating unemployment and then wanting to deny unemployment benefits. Their record is one of creating poverty and then wanting to deny food to the hungry. All of this while Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn) and his family have received $12 million in Farm Bill subsidies since 1998. You've got a bad, bad argument. As to record inequality, it didn't begin six years ago. The inequality gap began to expand 35 years ago and the same pro-1% policies that put it into high gear under Reagan are still pushed by the GOP/Tea Party. Which is why, while many Americans struggle to just stay where they are financially, the GOP fights against anything that would help everyday folk and fights to the death for tax cuts for the wealthy. Like I said, you can't factually justify the actions of the GOP/Tea Party as to growing our economy or cutting unemployment---they've done nothing but stunt both efforts.
Welfare Dad January 02, 2014 at 01:06 PM
Facts are clear; wealth gaps are record high, record poverty levels , record food stamp usage, record 99 weeks unemployment , 9 million less people in workforce, over six trillion in added debt. It's called Obamanomics and yes we can!
Rusty Inman January 02, 2014 at 04:32 PM
First of all, we don't average 99 weeks of unemployment, so that point is totally debunked. That was the highest number of weeks of unemployment benefits any combination of state/federal funds provided to unemployed persons. As to your facts, what matters are the facts as to how this economy came to be the way it is. You're blaming President Obama's economic policies, which you can't even name. I provided facts as to what role GOP/Tea Party policies played in the devastation of the economy and you are totally unable to rebut them. Totally unable to rebut them! Otherwise, you would. Finally, you say that you can "factually justify the actions of the GOP/Tea Party as to growing our economy or cutting unemployment." Do it! Either justify their actions which have, in reality, slowed economic growth and created more unemployment or admit that you're just running your mouth.
Rusty Inman January 02, 2014 at 04:35 PM
Come on, Welfare Dad, explain the Obama economic policies and how they have devastated this economy and created the situation in which we find ourselves. You said you could do it. Do it! And then justify GOP/Tea Party actions and explain how they have helped the economic recovery---remember to use factual data. You said you could do it---"yes we can!"---so do it!
Jim Corbett January 04, 2014 at 05:11 PM
The stagnation and even decline in middle class income turns on one year, 1980. The same year that the Reagan "tax cuts" on the wealthiest were implemented. While it's absolutely true that "correlation is not causality," any reasonable student of economic history would, at least, acknowledge the fact that while growth under Democratic Presidents (last sixty years) has been almost TWICE that of growth under Republicans and that growth in wealth has been distributed to more Americans under Democrats. At the same time, while growth is smaller under Republicans (just read the data, don't argue from BS), what growth in wealth there is goes to the top 2% (mostly to the top <1%). It's easy to see why the Kock Bros. lover the Right, but why do those Tea Party types--they keep getting screwed by the bozos who feed them paranoid fantasies of a "
Jim Corbett January 04, 2014 at 05:12 PM
moral crisis.
Edith Murcer January 04, 2014 at 06:03 PM
The middle thrived under Reagan with 22 million new jobs and as a result won 49 of 60 States on his 1984 reelection. Obama has dismantled the middle class with workers needing 99 weeks to find a job, We all know about unprecedented poverty and food stamps levels. This jobless economy of Obama has hurt the middle class the most
Rusty Inman January 04, 2014 at 08:53 PM
Ronald Reagan began the process of dismantling the American middle-class (and his own director of OMB admits it---read David Stockman's book on Reagan's economic legacy sometime; he resigned during Reagan's presidency in protest over the effect Reagan's policies were having on the middle- and working-classes): http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/09/how-reagan-wrecked-the-american-middle-class-and-came-out-smelling-like-a-rose/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/ http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1 Also, you might want to note that this isn't President Obama's jobless economy. He has created as many jobs in 4.5 years as Bush did in 8 years---and that's after inheriting an economy decimated by Republican economic policies (don't you remember the fall of 2008?). And the 99 weeks you reference have nothing to do with an average of how long it takes to find a job. It references the longest time one could have received combined unemployment benefits (which has since been reduced). In other words, get your facts right. Unprecedented poverty and food stamp levels? Again, why don't you check what state the economy was in when President Obama took office? You simply can't evaluate his policies apart from understanding the context. Or, apart from a GOP House which cost us 650,000 jobs this year through sequester cuts and cost us 125,000 private-sector jobs (that aren't coming back) through the government shutdown. I realize you don't like "the black man in the White House." But at least use facts and use them in context.
Johnny Johnson January 05, 2014 at 09:02 AM
Food stamps , poverty levels , wealth gaps are all at record highs. That is just factual information. The middle class did far better with both Reagan and Clinton. Remember Reagan Democrats?? Government can only provide bare minimums which is welfare , food stamps and a home in the ghetto. That is why jobs are so key for the middle class and jobs is Obama's greatest failure.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »