WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama faces a long re-election campaign having all but given up on the economy rebounding in any meaningful way before November 2012. His own budget office predicts unemployment will stay at about 9 percent, a frightening number for any president seeking a second term.

Obama’s prospects aren’t entirely grim, however. The GOP, heavily influenced by the tea party, may nominate someone so deeply flawed or right-leaning that, Democrats hope, Obama can persuade Americans to give him a second chance rather than risk the alternative.

Democrats say the man who ran on hope and change in 2008 will have to claw his way toward a second term with a sharply negative campaign.

The strengths and weaknesses of his prospects seem clear.

Next year’s unemployment rate is likely to be the highest in a presidential election since 1940. But the leading Republican contenders have denigrated Social Security, switched positions on critical issues and done other things that might make them ripe targets for Obama’s well-funded campaign.

Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway says GOP candidates, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, may turn off independent voters with their embrace of tea party stands on taxes, spending and program cuts.

Obama “should lump them all together and make them answer for their slash-and-burn politics,” said Hattaway, a former top aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

To do so, Hattaway said, Obama must link the candidates to congressional Republicans, blamed by Democrats for the nation’s stalled job growth and recent downgrade of U.S. creditworthiness.

Making the connection might not prove easy.

Obama’s potential challengers have avoided getting dragged into details of the bitter Capitol Hill fights over deficit spending. At least for now, they can lob criticisms at the president while offering few specific, measurable alternatives.

“President Obama oversaw an economy that created zero jobs last month, and that is unacceptable,” Romney said Friday.

But the influence of the tea party and other conservative groups may give Obama some openings, by pushing the GOP field so far to the right that the candidates risk alienating vital independent voters.

In a debate last month, the top contenders pledged to oppose a deficit-reduction plan even if it cut $10 in spending for every $1 raised by new taxes. Perry, who entered the race after that debate, also has taken a tough stand against higher taxes.

Obama’s team says independents, who might pay scant attention to ideologically driven primaries, will find such positions extreme when they compare the eventual GOP nominee and the president.

Political aide David Axelrod hinted that Obama will try to sharpen his differences with Republicans who insist on spending cuts in virtually every area and who refuse to let tax cuts expire, as scheduled, for the wealthiest.

It’s hard “to create an economy in which people can get decent jobs and raise a family at the same time we’re cutting back on our commitment to spending on education and research and development that will create innovation and jobs,” Axelrod said in an interview.

The Republicans’ “essential message is, let’s go back to the policies that helped get us in this mess,” he said, citing Wall Street deregulation and corporate tax breaks.

If GOP lawmakers, backed by the presidential hopefuls, continue to thwart Obama’s bid to mix targeted spending cuts with tax increases, Axelrod said, “we’re going to take our case to the American people.”

Recent polls underscore Obama’s challenge. A Pew Research poll found that 39 percent of independents approve of his job performance, while 52 percent disapprove.

An AP-GfK poll showed a sharp erosion of support for Obama among white voters and women. Less than half of all women and less than half of all men approve of the job he’s doing, and only 50 percent of women say he deserves re-election.

But the same polls show that far more voters blame former President George W. Bush more than Obama for the nation’s economic woes. Whether that sentiment lingers for 16 more months could prove crucial.

Hattaway said Obama must start by winning back moderates and motivating “millennials,” voters in their 20s and early 30s.

“The economy is not going to come roaring back before the election, so he has to give them a vision” for a future with jobs and with social justice for groups, including gays, Hattaway said.

Obama also must try to minimize the frustration among his liberal base supporters, many of whom feel he is too quick to compromise. Some complained loudly Friday when Obama yanked a proposal to tighten federal smog standards.

Questions about the environment, war and foreign affairs will figure into the 2012 race. But all parties agree jobs are the overriding issue.

Analysts differ on what level of unemployment is politically fatal.

President Ronald Reagan handily won re-election in 1984 with unemployment at 7.2 percent, which was down slightly from the rate at the start of his term. President Jimmy Carter lost when unemployment was at 7.5 percent and President George H.W. Bush lost with a similar level, but both faced other problems as well.

Hopeful Democrats say Obama can survive next year if people feel growth is coming soon. Another way to survive is uglier: admitting the economy is a mess, but pressing the case that the GOP alternative is so unacceptable that the incumbent should stay in office, even with no recovery in sight.

Obama’s aides say the election will be “a choice, not a referendum.” That hints at a bruising effort to divert attention from the president’s record and focus on what the Obama campaign believes are the GOP nominee’s chief shortcomings.

Democratic optimists feel the GOP nominating process will play into that strategy. The Democratic National Committee issues a steady stream of statements and videos with headlines such as “Romney makes move to embrace Tea Party.”

Several Republican candidates, including Romney, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Perry, are proven vote-getters at the state level. Soon they will show whether they can handle the scrutiny and grind of a presidential campaign.

Democrats say their records provide much to use against them.

Perry, for instance, has called Social Security “a Ponzi scheme,” and said climate change is a “contrived phony mess.”

Romney switched his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control after leaving the Massachusetts governor’s office and seeking the Republican presidential nod. He also is criticized for his role in Bain Capital, a corporate takeover firm that eliminated jobs in some cases but expanded them in others.

Bachmann has spent only three terms in the House; the last member to go directly to the White House was James Garfield, elected in 1880. If Sarah Palin decides to run, she will be asked why she quit her job as Alaska’s governor with more than a year left in her term.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (55)
  1. Nick says:

    The party is over for this socialist and another challenge to our way of government and economy fails. Back to basics with limited government, more freedoms, less taxes, more personal responsibility, and we will once again start to create jobs. Our system, although not perfect, is still the best in the world.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Nick

      We are all socialist so get over yourself! How many jobs was the economy losing BEFORE Obama took office? Was Obama handed a big surplus that the rest of us don’t know about? Sort of like the surplus Clinton handed Bush and Bush put us back into debt with two wars , two tax cuts, and other things NOT PAID for. It is also amusing that you say limited gov’t and more freedoms, less taxes, and more personal responsibilty and we will once again start to create jobs. People always say they want limited gov’t but in reality they don’t. Are you againest gay marriage, abortion? If you are then where is the freedom? Bush and the GOP enacted the Bush tax cuts back during his first term and have extended them twice and what do we have to show for it? And you say personal responsibilty how many people are actually placing some of the blame on themselves? Or how many are blaming the person in the White House for their problems? Jobs will not come back until demand returns, but since you and the GOP seem to think that lower taxes creates jobs then after those 3 Bush tax cuts we should not have been a recession. And you seem yo forget like most conservatives your party was in charge of the House , Senate, White House from 2000 – 2006 and you started seeing the end result before Obama took office!

      1. stubby says:

        Three years go by Tom, and all you libs can do is STILL blame Bush. Your guy had 2 1/2 years of complete control of both house and senate and did nothing to help the unemployment rate and put people back to work. Your buddy obama still has the senate and the white house and let’s see….unemployment above 9%, food stamp useage at an all-time high, housing values continue to fall, stock market set to take another big hit, black unemployment at 27%. Broken promises…close gitmo, end bush tax cuts, out of Iraq, reduce forces in Afgan. keep unemployment under 8%….So tell me-us, Tom what has your buddy done and just what is he going to run on to get re-elected?

        1. Tom says:

          @ Stubby

          Sort of like how the conservatives blamed Clinton for everything 3 years into Bush’s term! And you are comparing 2.5 years of Dem control of tihings from 2008 – 2010 to GOP control of things from 2000 -2006 that is a stretch. During Bush’s term came to an end the stock market was 13,000 and when he left it down to about 6,000. Obama stopped the MAJOR BLEEDING that was going on. What if he had done what the GOP / Tea Party wanted to do which was nothing where would be now? You say you want the provate sector to get us out of this mess? Private sector created 17,000 last month. And yes there are more people using food stamps than ever before and mnay of them first timers and again alot of that started before Obama took office. And yes we are still in Iraq and Afgan and Gitmo is still open. You take Iraq and Afgan yes we should get out, but when you have so many people who are more concerned about getting out and how that would hurt our image. Ira q should never have happened in the first p[ace. But considering the DEEP HOLE we dug ourselves for those who thought we would be out of this mess by now are in pure fantasy. What took 8 years to get into it will take more than 3 years to get out of.

          1. stubby says:

            So wrong there Tom on so many levels I don’t know where to start. First and foremost, it is now understood that the start of this mess was by your other buddy clinton. He and Barney Frank and their communtiy reinvestment act started the whole housing mess which in turn took the economy with it. Look it up, read about it and you’ll understand. The last 2 years of Bush, the dems had control of the house and the senate, that is where spending bills come from. Again read about it any you’ll understand funding for the wars and all the spending from 06 on is the dems. You failed to answer what your buddy obama is going to run. His numbers are so low now, he should just same the re-election money for something else. Looks like unemployment numbers are going to be over 9% at election time….bye bye obama

    2. 3rd party says:

      The independent vote put this guy in office, the choices weren’t so good. The indpendent vote isn’t voting for Obama this time around. So, it doesn’t matter how hard the dems fight for this, he lost the independent vote and the votes of specific organizations (ie unions) within his own party. The dem. party in shrinking. The rep. party is shrinking and the independence party is growing. Keep an eye on the independent vote, not the opposite party.

      1. Tom says:

        @ 3rd Party

        Everybody who gets angry and say that they want an alt never vote that way! It is sort of like how woman who complain that not enough woman run for office but when they do run they don’t vote for them. And there are alot of good woman out there.

        1. 3rd party says:

          That’s not true. You have it backward. It’s not the candidate. It’s the vote. Where the independent vote goes–so does the nation. Quote: The Harris Poll has been measuring political affiliation since 1970, asking Americans, “Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself—a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or some other party?” Between then and 2008, the last year for which data are available, Democrats dropped from 49 percent to 36, Republicans dropped from 32 percent to 26, and independents jacked up a dozen points: from 19 percent to 31. Where independents go, so goes the country. When Democrats regained the House of Representatives in 2006, independents favored them by 18 percentage points over Republicans, 57 to 39. By the November 2010 election, those numbers had almost exactly reversed, giving Republicans a 56-to-37-percent edge. Barack Obama won the independent vote in 2008 by 52 percent to 44 percent over John McCain but has seen his approval rating among independents plummet from 60 percent in April 2009 to 35 percent in April 2011.

  2. Sue J says:

    This is a good thing for President Carter, now he will not go down as the worst President!

    1. Tom says:

      @ Sue J

      You forgot one who was in the White House from 2000 -2008? Bush!

      1. Sam I am says:

        @Tom – why don’t you just overdose on the kool-aide you are drinking.

        Good grief – Obama is the worst president in history. Its filled with union thugs and corruption. Not to mention the stomping of the constitution.

        1. Tom says:

          @ Sam I Am

          You are delusional!

          While the Dems have the unions the Repubs have the Tea Party and Religious Right. While the Dems want to tax the rich the Repubs want to protect them. Dems want the middle class to protect themselves threw unions while the Repubs want the Middle Class to keep bending over. The Dems didn’t stomp on the constituion that was started under Bush and Cheney and the Religious Right also want to rewrite the constitution to fit their nutty views. Some how the conservatives have come to conclusion that adding debt unto existing debt is much worse than being handed a surplus and blowing that within a year. Or are you saying that Bush paid for both wars, both tax cuts, and other spending?

          And by the way Bush is the worst in hisotry!

          You are on the one who drinking the FOX NEWS kool-aid not me!

          1. 3rd party says:

            Adding debt to the existing debt is a bad idea, no matter how you slice it. I’m not a tea partier but I do agree with that small detail. You do realize that we have so much debt—that it is impossible to pay it off, right? So, I suppose your view is that if Obama had his way and could spend us into the oblivion, that would be okay since it’s all imaginary anyway? Nonsense. He has, i don’t know, some 5-8 different programs in operation right now for the housing crisis and every single one of them has failed. That’s just a small example of this large humble pie. He’s gotta go. He doesn’t have a clue of what he’s doing!

        2. Phillip says:

          Totally agree Sam!!! I bet Hennepin county will be the only county or Obama in 2012, let alone state!!!

    2. The real Tom says:

      Carter was bad and Obama is even worse if there is such a thing!!!

  3. Elmo says:

    Well He sure changed things around. Or was that threw out more money then any other President with so little return? Sure glad when he will be gone, and this Country gets on track again. I’m tired of this Part Time, min wage job just to survive.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Elmo

      Who did you vote for 2004? IF you say Bush then you voted to keep a BIG SPENDER in office for another 4 years. Or did Bush pay for those two wars ( that he did not put on the books like Obama did), two tax cuts, and other things?

      1. Tom says:

        Did Obamy pay for increasing the troops in Afghanistan only to fail with his surge and Bush’s succeeded. What about Libya? I better get my Kool-Aid quick!!

  4. IntheMidwest says:

    Historical perspective on why we are where we are economically.

    Why Inequality is the Real Cause of Our Ongoing Terrible Economy By Robert Reich

    Sunday, September 4, 2011

    THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

    When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?
    The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

    Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

    During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

    Starting in the late 1970s, the middle class began to weaken. Although productivity continued to grow and the economy continued to expand, wages began flattening in the 1970s because new technologies — container ships, satellite communications, eventually computers and the Internet — started to undermine any American job that could be automated or done more cheaply abroad. The same technologies bestowed ever larger rewards on people who could use them to innovate and solve problems. Some were product entrepreneurs; a growing number were financial entrepreneurs. The pay of graduates of prestigious colleges and M.B.A. programs — the “talent” who reached the pinnacles of power in executive suites and on Wall Street — soared.

    The middle class nonetheless continued to spend, at first enabled by the flow of women into the work force. (In the 1960s only 12 percent of married women with young children were working for pay; by the late 1990s, 55 percent were.) When that way of life stopped generating enough income, Americans went deeper into debt. From the late 1990s to 2007, the typical household debt grew by a third. As long as housing values continued to rise it seemed a painless way to get additional money.

    Eventually, of course, the bubble burst. That ended the middle class’s remarkable ability to keep spending in the face of near stagnant wages. The puzzle is why so little has been done in the last 40 years to help deal with the subversion of the economic power of the middle class. With the continued gains from economic growth, the nation could have enabled more people to become problem solvers and innovators — through early childhood education, better public schools, expanded access to higher education and more efficient public transportation.

    We might have enlarged safety nets — by having unemployment insurance cover part-time work, by giving transition assistance to move to new jobs in new locations, by creating insurance for communities that lost a major employer. And we could have made Medicare available to anyone.
    Big companies could have been required to pay severance to American workers they let go and train them for new jobs. The minimum wage could have been pegged at half the median wage, and we could have insisted that the foreign nations we trade with do the same, so that all citizens could share in gains from trade.

    We could have raised taxes on the rich and cut them for poorer Americans.
    But starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It cut spending on infrastructure as a percentage of the national economy and shifted more of the costs of public higher education to families. It shredded safety nets. (Only 27 percent of the unemployed are covered by unemployment insurance.) And it allowed companies to bust unions and threaten employees who tried to organize. Fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.

    More generally, it stood by as big American companies became global companies with no more loyalty to the United States than a GPS satellite. Meanwhile, the top income tax rate was halved to 35 percent and many of the nation’s richest were allowed to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax. Inheritance taxes that affected only the topmost 1.5 percent of earners were sliced. Yet at the same time sales and payroll taxes — both taking a bigger chunk out of modest paychecks — were increased.
    Most telling of all, Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses. In so doing, it allowed finance — which until then had been the servant of American industry — to become its master, demanding short-term profits over long-term growth and raking in an ever larger portion of the nation’s profits. By 2007, financial companies accounted for over 40 percent of American corporate profits and almost as great a percentage of pay, up from 10 percent during the Great Prosperity.

    Some say the regressive lurch occurred because Americans lost confidence in government. But this argument has cause and effect backward. The tax revolts that thundered across America starting in the late 1970s were not so much ideological revolts against government — Americans still wanted all the government services they had before, and then some — as against paying more taxes on incomes that had stagnated. Inevitably, government services deteriorated and government deficits exploded, confirming the public’s growing cynicism about government’s doing anything right.

    Some say we couldn’t have reversed the consequences of globalization and technological change. Yet the experiences of other nations, like Germany, suggest otherwise. Germany has grown faster than the United States for the last 15 years, and the gains have been more widely spread. While Americans’ average hourly pay has risen only 6 percent since 1985, adjusted for inflation, German workers’ pay has risen almost 30 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of German households now take home about 11 percent of all income — about the same as in 1970. And although in the last months Germany has been hit by the debt crisis of its neighbors, its unemployment is still below where it was when the financial crisis started in 2007.

    How has Germany done it? Mainly by focusing like a laser on education (German math scores continue to extend their lead over American), and by maintaining strong labor unions.

    THE real reason for America’s Great Regression was political. As income and wealth became more concentrated in fewer hands, American politics reverted to what Marriner S. Eccles, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, described in the 1920s, when people “with great economic power had an undue influence in making the rules of the economic game.” With hefty campaign contributions and platoons of lobbyists and public relations spinners, America’s executive class has gained lower tax rates while resisting reforms that would spread the gains from growth.

    Yet the rich are now being bitten by their own success. Those at the top would be better off with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a large share of one that’s almost dead in the water.

    The economy cannot possibly get out of its current doldrums without a strategy to revive the purchasing power of America’s vast middle class. The spending of the richest 5 percent alone will not lead to a virtuous cycle of more jobs and higher living standards. Nor can we rely on exports to fill the gap. It is impossible for every large economy, including the United States, to become a net exporter.

    Reviving the middle class requires that we reverse the nation’s decades-long trend toward widening inequality. This is possible notwithstanding the political power of the executive class. So many people are now being hit by job losses, sagging incomes and declining home values that Americans could be mobilized.
    Moreover, an economy is not a zero-sum game. Even the executive class has an enlightened self-interest in reversing the trend; just as a rising tide lifts all boats, the ebbing tide is now threatening to beach many of the yachts. The question is whether, and when, we will summon the political will. We have summoned it before in even bleaker times.

    As the historian James Truslow Adams defined the American Dream when he coined the term at the depths of the Great Depression, what we seek is “a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone.”
    That dream is still within our grasp.

    1. Sue J says:

      Lame comment, no facts to back it up!!!

    2. Sue Velure says:

      cool story bro

    3. 3rd party says:

      The economy of right now, is not the economy of then. It is a world economy. The economy we will soon see, will be so far from what this writer can imagine that this blip of history and bad editorial will seem a silly antique.

    4. Tom says:

      Times change buddy. Even I can’t keep up with your logic!!

    5. Lance says:

      reich is a hack (jimmy carters economic advisor) as we discussed before, and your dribble is old.

  5. Tom says:

    @ Sue J

    You are oviously a FOX viewer since you are that delusional and nuts! I would believe Robert Reich over you anyday!

    And do you like Bachmann, Plain, Perry, Santorum? IF you do that says it all!

    1. The real Tom says:

      You’re obviously an MSNBC viewer so therefore unimportant! Check the ratings and step away from the computer!!

  6. Sam I am says:

    No chance in he!! that Barack Hussein Obama will be re-elected. He will lose in a landslide.

    When a gallup pole shows that his approval is down to 42 percent – and it continues to decline. No way he will be re-elected.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

    Remember – no jobs created in August.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Sam I am

      I thought those Bush tax cuts were supposed to create all those jobs? There should never have been a recession!

      1. Jim says:

        4-5% unemployment under Bush. 9-10% under Insane.
        Any fool that can’t follow that needs their head examined cause it ain’t gonna happen again!!!!

        1. frozenrunner says:

          A little forgetful Jim. Unemployment started to go up in 2008 under President Bush. The curve kept going up that year. Republicans claim the good times under Clinton were due to Regan’s policies growing. Funny how they shy away from the ball rolling downhill from events during the Bush years

          1. frozenrunner says:

            Whoops-checked my facts and I’m wrong yet again. How can that be? Sorry.

  7. I'm Just sayin' says:

    So since you all want ot either blame President Obama or President Bush for this mess, then why do you all keep voting for them? When was the last time that an independent caused this much trouble? Pretty easy to see that our problems are all the fault of the republicans and democrats, but will any of you admit that? Will any of you actually go to caucuses and try to do something about it? I did not think so.

    1. 2 party system up against a growing 3rd says:

      Voters free from the affiliation of party membership are more inclined to view political claims with the skepticism they richly deserve, to hear the atavistic dog whistle of partisan politics as a deliberate attack on the senses rather than a rousing call to productive action. By refusing to confer legitimacy on the two accepted forms of political organization and discourse, independents (especially of the libertarian flavor) hint strongly that another form—something unpredictable, fantastical, liberating—is gathering to take their place. –Nick Gillespie

      1. frozenrunner says:

        The problem with the libertarian philosophy is that there needs to be government oversight in matters. Government cannot protect you from the schemes of others but sets in place the mechanism to detect and clean up the mess. Looser regulation leads to things like the mortgage fiasco. A third party can only arise when the moderates of one party leave to form another as in the case of the Whigs morphing into the Republicans. It would take an enormous change in the American mindset as Theodore Roosevelt was the last third party candidate to finish second. At the time Roosevelt was also an ex president. Perot managed to get 19 %

        1. frozenrunner says:

          Point being that it would take a cenerist candidate to beat the extremes of either party. Not that those in the center would consider Obama a left wing candidate.

        2. 3rd party says:

          Governement does a horrible job detecting a potential mess and, from what we can see, a bad job in cleaning it up. Regulating after the fact, is hindsight. Deregulating was the problem. Obama has gone from a far left liberal to a moderate repub in the last year. Just got rid of his EPA focus among other things. We will watch him move further right as the election nears, same thing Clinton did to win re-election. A candidate need not say that they are independent to detect that they are. A 2 party system will stick around for the boomers, but the boomers I know–my parents–are active independents. Libertarians are often confused as THE independence party. Not true.

  8. I'm Just Sayin' says:

    My pitch was not for the libertarians, let me make that perfectly clear. It is for anything other than the far right and far left.

    1. 3rd party says:

      That would be a moderate, I’m just sayin’. The independence party, like all parties, have many blips on it’s spectrum. Some like to think of us as confused, we just fall on the line somewhere far from the right and far from the right but nestled perfectly in the middle.

      1. 3rd party says:

        that would be far from the right and far from the left, guess I just put out there where I am!

  9. Waste says:

    Here is the issue

    5 million manufacturing jobs lost since 1997….

    Debt to high to pay.

    50% of Americans are now free loaders who pay nothing for the government.

    1. frozenrunner says:

      Stupidity comes in to play as people fail to realize the reason most are not paying into federal income tax is either a they don’t make enough money or b they tax credited themselves or otherwise shielded their money. Group a are called freeloaders yet stupid people fail to realize these people are generating a lot of payroll taxes. The people in group b are shielded by the politicians. See Warren Buffet.

  10. Peter Schiff destroys Obozo says:

    ”Owe”bama is just a puppet of the Federal Reserve Bank (which is private, unconstitutional, and as ”Federal” as Federal Express). He is a failed community organizer running a formerly great nation into the ground. No amount of freshly printed Owebama bucks or Monopoly Money is going to solve this rather just make the correction that will eventually come that much more painful. I am glad I left the country with my business. I will never return to MN or the US(S)A. Our problems started under Bush and his regime and have gotten much much worse. The media presstitutes are trying their hardest to provide this President excuses for his utter failure.

    1. 3rd party says:

      COULD NOT AGREE MORE, thank you! I would just adjust that to say that our problems started under President Greenspan and his Fed regime and have gotten much much worse under Bernanke.

  11. stubby says:

    Someone PLEASE tell me what obama can hang his hat on, that the American people will vote him in to a 2 term.

    1. You're right stubby says:

      he’s not a releigious nut job, that’s about it. But, he did hold some kind of Muslim brotherhood dinner at the White House a couple of weeks ago, so someone could make the claim that he’s still a little nuts.

    2. frozenrunner says:

      If one looks at the current group of Republicans running, I would guess that all he has to run on is “I am not a far right ________” Pick your own term for the blank. There are zero solution coming from the Republicans that are that are no different than the thinking that got us to the point we were at when Obama took over. The Republicans are counting on people not remembering the economic conditions of late 2007 and 2008.

      1. Stubby is right says:

        I hope you don’t believe that. If you do, you may want to pick yourself up a 6-pack and a warm blanket for election night. It will be harder to take then– if you don’t start with the acceptance phase now.

  12. mama says:

    GOOD RIDANCE OBAMA- can’t get you out of office fast enough!!!

  13. frozenrunnner says:

    OBAMA STINKS!!!!

  14. Citizen says:

    As commented by the Dismal Political Economist:
    “Mr. Obama has consumed almost all of the political capital he generated upon entering office. His re-election now depends upon the voters finding the Republican candidate less desirable than Mr. Obama. The good news for the President, the Republicans seem to be doing everything possible to make that happen.”

    1. Hold on to that dream as long as you can says:

      “President Obama’s job approval ratings plunged to a new low ahead of his major economic speech Thursday, with widespread discontent among Americans over his handling of the economy and jobs, according to a spate of polls released. Tuesday…Obama’s overall job approval rating is at a low of 44 percent, down 3 percentage points since July, while his handling of the economy stands at 37 percent… suggests Obama is no longer favored to win re-election in 2012.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.