Skip to main content

Bar graph showing that 52 percent of self-identified middle-class people believe Barack Obama's policies will help the middle class to 42 percent believing that of Mitt Romney's policies. 71 percent believe Romney will help wealthy people to 38 percent for Obama, while 62 percent believe Obama will help poor people and 33 percent believe that of Romney.
The reality of Mitt Romney's favoritism toward the top 0.1 percent appears to be getting through to people.

When the middle-class people surveyed by the Pew Research Center were asked who would be helped by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's policies, the thing that came through loudest and clearest is that Mitt Romney will help the rich. A whopping 71 percent thought that (correctly!). Following that up, 62 percent believe President Obama's policies would help poor people and 52 percent thought Obama would help middle-class people. By comparison, just 42 percent think Romney's policies would help the middle class—barely more than think Obama's policies help the rich (38 percent). It's a pretty stark visual comparison, with the bar representing the wealthy absolutely dominating the middle class and poor people on Romney's side.

Republicans will be pretty happy to have middle-class people most likely to think Obama's policies will help the poor—that's fodder for Republican divide-and-conquer tactics—but again, 71 percent see that Mitt Romney wants to help the rich.

Graph showing that more middle class people blame Congress, then the banks, then large corporations, then the Bush administration, for economic woes.
As for where we are now, Congress is most likely to be seen as the culprit for the bad economy, followed by banks and financial institutions, then large corporations. This can be accurate by the logic that Congress should have reined in the banks and large corporations and kept them from doing the economic damage they've done—of the three categories, Congress is the only one that should have done better. And while Republicans keep hoping that people will have forgotten about George W. Bush's role in the recession, that doesn't seem to be the case. Bush is 10 points ahead of President Obama on being blamed "a lot" and eight points behind Obama on being blamed "not at all."

So there's plenty of bad news for Republicans here. But I'm sure Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers are taking out their checkbooks right now to make it all better.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:56 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I would like to personally meet... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Larsstephens

    the 18% of responders who think Bush is "not at all" to blame for the recession.  

    Who are those people and how can we collectively knock some sense into their heads?

    Facts are liberally bias

    by SuzieQ4624 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:15:50 AM PDT

  •  Laura do you read comments here? (4+ / 0-)

    I replied to an e-mail .
    I said : Where are the jobs the GOP ran on in 2010??

    this is the reply

    Where are the job bills?  I suspect the issue is that you read too many think tank literature.  So, just so you know, Obama's American Jobs Act is not characterized as a "job creation" bill.  Yeah, that's right, look it up.  The way that Congress' database is organized, there are very few, if any, bills, over the last umpteen years that have a tag as "job creation".  As for the GOP job bills, again you can look it up, there have been 64 economic development bills, 55 economic performance and conditions bills, 24 employee hiring bills, 172 employment and training program bills, 151 labor and employment bills, 107 unemployment bills, and 143 wage and earnings bills.  I have a sneaky suspicion that at least a few of these bills might satisfy your request for GOP introduced bills.  It takes two, or in this case three (house, senate and Obama) to dance on this one.
    •  and 35 of the 55 ecomonic performance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541, Brooke In Seattle

      bills were about abortion.

      ok, I exaggerate this is an example of one of those bills:

      S. 706: 3-D, Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act of 2011

              Sec. 101. Leasing program considered approved.

              Sec. 102. Lease sales.

              Sec. 103. Applications for permits to drill.

              Sec. 104. Lease sales for certain areas.


              Sec. 201. Definitions.

              Sec. 202. Leasing program for land within the Coastal Plain.

              Sec. 203. Lease sales.

              Sec. 204. Grant of leases by the Secretary.

              Sec. 205. Lease terms and conditions.

              Sec. 206. Coastal plain environmental protection.

              Sec. 207. Expedited judicial review.

              Sec. 208. Rights-of-way across the Coastal plain.

              Sec. 209. Conveyance.

              Sec. 210. ANWR Alternative Energy Trust Fund.


              Sec. 301. Commercial leasing program for oil shale resources on public land.

              Sec. 302. Jurisdiction over covered energy projects.

              Sec. 303. Environmental impact statements.

              Sec. 304. Clean air regulation.

              Sec. 305. Employment effects of actions under Clean Air Act.

              Sec. 306. Endangered species.

              Sec. 307. Reissuance of permits and leases.

      so, pander to the oil companies is it
  •  I just cannot see election turning for Romney. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind
  •  These graphs show that... (3+ / 0-)

    the Obama team's strategy to define Rmoney early is working.

    “For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.” President Obama 1/24/12

    by BarackStarObama on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:34:28 PM PDT

  •  Everyone did better under Clinton than Bush (3+ / 0-)

    except for a few crooks in the arms business and the financial business.

    Everyone except crooks do better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. The historical record is clear.

    Romney's policies will benefit tax cheats like himself.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:38:31 PM PDT

  •  Hey 'congress' they don't mean Harry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind, Brooke In Seattle

    Reid and Nancy Pelosi.........Where are the JOBS dude?

  •  Eureka! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind

    The middle class is absolutely right, too!

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:40:14 PM PDT

  •  With all the rhetoric about the richies (0+ / 0-)

    why is it that this presidential race is currently so close?  I mean, I read just so much about how the wealthy in our country need to pay just so much more into the government coffers so that more and more government help can be given to our citizens.  But, it just isn't resonating on a big level, methinks.  Is that what we should be trying to do...divide our classes?  It does seem that it would get more of those not rich and those that don't have the advantages the wealthy in our country have to vote against the republicans that, arguably, are the people that are most wealthy in our country.  But, is that really what is gonna win elections for us?  

    Don't we need to find a path...a direction...for those that don't have what the wealthy have to get what it takes to achieve that?  And, isn't that jobs?  Isn't that understanding that everything doesn't come while you're young but comes as you progress in your working career and saving and investment strategies?  Isn't that how just so many of the better off in our country got to where they are now?

    It's about jobs...improving the economy to make that happen for our citizens.  Government can keep people in food and housing and so forth.  Government, in the U.S., can't make people be achievers and be frugile and be savers and be those that are responsible for their own future.  We don't have that kind of country.  It's not how we work here in America.  Unless that changes, America is about giving people the ability to be responsible for themselves and to grow and to achieve and to create their own wealth.  That's what I know of America...that's the country I live in.  If that's not what we want for our America to be, then we should say so.

    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:41:22 PM PDT

    •  Why so close? The Media WANT it that way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle, a2nite, MarcKyle64

      because a close race means more ratings, which means more ad money, which means more PROFITS.

      They don't make as much PROFIT from a landslide - no matter which side gets buried.

      The rest of your blah blah blah overlooks the very important fact that the rich have robbed this country blind and left nothing but crumbs for the 99.9%. It's very hard to "be frugal" and "save for the future" yada yada yada if you have no money TO save.

      The wealth inequity has grown so great that it is openly damaging this country, and there are only two ways to stop it. One, by voting out the greedy rich and their enablers and their sycophants and their lapdogs, and passing sane and reasonable laws to distribute the wealth less unfairly. The other...does the phrase "Les aristos a la lanterne!", or the word "Guillotine!" mean anything to you?

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:56:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, your remedy is???? (0+ / 0-)

        It used to be that wealth for most "wealthy people" was from inheretance.  Today, it's from those that have built it.  

        What is your remedy to what some people believe is the big discrepancy between the wealthy and the "others"?

        What do you think should happen.  Taxing the weathy has been proven be something that doesn't bring about any kind of wealth equality.  What is your solution?  Be honest.

        The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

        by commonsensically on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:01:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  when did taxing the wealthy get proven (0+ / 0-)

          to be something that didn't bring wealth equality?
          from 1917-1981, the trend was better: Average incomes rose by $26,000. The richest 10% captured 31% of that growth, and the other 90% captured 59%.

          then came the trickle down tax cuts
          In the past 30 years, 96% of the growth of average incomes in this country have gone to the richest 10% of the country. And in the past 10 years, the incomes of the other 90% have declined.

          so, this would seem like proof that keeping a high upper rate would help lift the 99%

          •  And, if you check it (0+ / 0-)

            We didn't have 47% of the populace of the country's working people not paying any federal income taxes.

            So, it's totally apples and oranges.

            But, thanks for the response.

            The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

            by commonsensically on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:52:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That "statistic" is PUTRID TEABAGGER BULLSHIT (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askyron, MarcKyle64

              and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for believing it - or worse, pretending to believe it so you can spread the bullshit farther.

              It isn't apples and oranges - it's apples and tarantulas, or something equally loathsome and poisonous. The Baggers are NOT counting "the country's working people" - they are using RAW POPULATION NUMBERS, including CHILDREN UNDER 18 (23.7% of the population as of 2011). They are also counting seniors retired on Social Security, stay-at-home housepersons, disabled  persons, and other people who are not in "the workforce" and should not be counted.

              It should be further noted that unless someone is working under the counter without a W2 form, they ARE paying federal income taxes, and Medicare taxes, and Social Security taxes - it is mandatory to withhold these taxes from paychecks. If they earn under  the "minimum requirement", they can get it back after filing an income tax return - but in the meantime that money is not in their hands, nor in their bank accounts, nor do they have it to invest.

              The people who should be paying more taxes and aren't, are the ones who do not depend on working for a living: the fatcats who live off investments and dividends and capital gains and all the other fancy dodges the super-rich have for acquiring more money than they have a clue what to do with - not to mention tax-dodging corporations that use elaborate accounting schemes to "prove" that they "lost" money and don't owe taxes, while they're actually rolling in obscene profits.

              There is an EXACT and DIRECT relationship between the level of taxation on the top brackets and the health of the country's economy - it takes a special breed of lying liars and obfuscators to obscure that relationship.

              If it's
              Not your body,
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              And it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 03:25:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  why?too many GOP lies to contradict. I'm serious. (0+ / 0-)

        The number of GOP lies by Romney, Ryan and their whole pack makes it very difficult to attack.....I mean where does one start? For them, they take one single Dem slip up and the ENTIRE GOP IS ON THE SAME TALKING POINT PAGE OVERNIGHT......but never the Dems. They just cannot coordinate in a politically effective way.

    •  Savers? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Abelia, MarcKyle64

      It's kind of hard to save anything if every penny is spent on daily requirements to stay alive.

      Maybe if our jobs (for those of us who still HAVE jobs) paid better wages, there would actually be money left at the end of the month instead of the way it's been for the last 30 years.

      And some of us DID save, in that crappy financial instrument known as the 401(k). Three different downturns have left my paltry account empty.

      Your mileage may vary.

      "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

      by Brooke In Seattle on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:11:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I struggled for years (0+ / 0-)

        I had two kids, not the best job, worked and worked to find another job and then, another job.  I ended up finally getting something that between my wife and I could see the light and we started saving a little, then a little more.  Our kids got what they needed...all from our effort.  We worked and we worked hard...many hours of overtime sometimes.  But, now....we're doing well.  We struggled.  Struggling isn't what we want to see our populace doing these days, it seems.  Get it now...have it now...lots of "toys" and lots of going out to eat and lots of the niceties that we older folks never, ever got to do.  It's a very different America today...a VERY different America. But, it's not up to anyone except the individual to get those niceties, IMO.  Those that need the help because of just so many hard times should get that help.  But, that shouldn't be the norm...just a short-term, temporary involvement from we citizens/taxpayers.

        Call me any name you want...if we here don't see that about our "citizen-help" efforts, then we're looking at a very different America than I grew up in.

        I hate it that our "politicians" are more about trashing the opposition than finding ways to get our economy and the jobs picture back to where it should be in our country.

        Nope...I'm not a "troll" nor am I a republican.  I am a pragmatist and a realist.  I make no excuses for that.

        The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

        by commonsensically on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:30:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just realize you had a lot of LUCK (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          One bad decision, one ill-timed major repair, one major illness, and you could have wound up so far behind the 8-ball you'd never have seen daylight again.

          That happened, and happens even more now, to a lot of people. The difference between them and you ISN'T that they were any less hard-working or any less motivated or any less parsimonious - they were not lucky.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 05:45:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Republican rant "Taxing job creators" is BS. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, MarcKyle64

      Here is an explanation why tax cuts for the 1% DO NOT generate jobs. I will also explain what might generate more jobs.

      Low tax rates do not cause anyone to invest, because just holding the profits costs the low tax percentage, and there is NO RISK.  At a 10% tax rate, $1.00 profits pays $0.10 tax, and owner keeps $0.90.  At ZERO tax rate, as Paul Ryan would institute for capital gains, there is ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to invest any of the gains in a business, when you can spend them on YOURSELF, and pay NO TAXES.

      During the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations, the top individual income tax rates ranged from 92 % in 1952 to 70 % in 1980, and the economy grew.
      In the same time period, the top corporate rates ranged from 52 % to 46 %.  

      HIGH tax rates, (say 50% or above) would force a business owner to make the following decision:
      A. Hold $1.00 in profits and pay $0.50 in tax, keep $0.50; or
      B. Invest some of the profits in growing the business (new equipment, additional wages, additional advertising, whatever additional business expense), deduct the expenses from profits, and pay taxes only on the remaining profits.
      Example: $1.00 in profits, less business expense of N percent of profits (say N = 30%) leave $0.70 taxable. Tax at 50% = $0.35. That leaves $0.30 invested (tax free) plus $0.35 cash profits remaining.

      Investing all the profits (assuming the owner takes a salary which is already subtracted from profits) runs the business tax bill to ZERO.

      Pass through entities (S Corps, partnerships, LLCs) already pay no business tax.  All the profits flow through untaxed to the owners.  Investing (or reinvesting) some of the profits cuts the owner's personal tax bill in such an instance.

      So, to summarize:

      If you are in the 1% and make a bundle and you get a tax cut, there is no risk involved with putting aside the EXTRA money the tax cut provides in as RISK-FREE a vehicle as you can find (for example in a nice, safe investment like a T-bill or a tax free government guaranteed municipal bond).  Why invest in a business unless the investment will generate additional income?  But a business investment involves RISK.  You might invest in a loser. (Facebook stock, anybody?)  If there is insufficient demand, there is no reason at all to invest in business activity, if you will increase your risk.

      However, if tax rates are raised, there is an incentive to shelter income or profits by investing that extra money in business activities (i.e., buy property, buy equipment, hire more workers, do more advertising, etc.) because only PROFITS net of business expenses are taxed.  But then you take on RISK.  The question then becomes whether the tax savings are sufficient to take on the extra risk of the investment. But at least there is a reason to look for some useful application of the money, because letting it sit as profits only guarantees that you are subjected to taxes.  

      The higher the taxes on income and profits, the bigger the incentive to invest.

      The Republicans have their argument UPSIDE DOWN. Under their argument, the owner wins, and does not have to invest ANYTHING to keep his profits (which generates NO JOBS). And THEY want to run the business tax rate to ZERO.

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

      by BornDuringWWII on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:30:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have never worked for a poor person (0+ / 0-)

        I can't say anything other than that.

        Good presentation, though.  

        The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

        by commonsensically on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:33:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not saying poor people are job creators. (0+ / 0-)

          I AM saying that letting a rich guy pay ZERO tax on his business profits gives him EVERY reason to keep the money in his pocket (proverbially) and NO INCENTIVE to try to find another good place to invest.

          I NEVER SAID POOR PEOPLE ARE JOB CREATORS, and that is a false equivalence.

          "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

          by BornDuringWWII on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:40:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Zero taxes on business profits (0+ / 0-)

            I'm sure there are those businesses that do that...but, it's not the norm.  I don't know that you can show links that show this is true.  

            Democrats and republicans alike have given businesses/job creators a business break when it comes to taxes.  We have to get jobs and the economy going again so our American citizens can achieve...can buy homes...can feed their families...can have a life.

            Working in jobs created by businesses is where the vast majority of that kind of activity comes from.  It's advantageous to help the businesses and those that hire and employ our citizens.

            I don't see how that's anti-liberal/anti-progressive/anti-democratic.  It's just America.  That's how we roll....unless our party wants to see something different than this as how our country should go forward.

            The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

            by commonsensically on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:46:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  2009 annual report of GE, paid ZERO tax. (0+ / 0-)


              page 25, 2009 Annual Report

              We then discuss various key operating results for GE industrial (GE) and financial services (GECS).

              Page 31

              GE and GECS file a consolidated U.S. federal income tax return that enables GE to use GECS tax deductions and credits to reduce the tax that otherwise would have been payable by GE. The GECS effective tax rate for each period reflects the benefit of these tax reductions. GE makes cash payments to GECS for these tax reductions at the time GE’s tax payments are due.
              Note 14 says GE paid NEGATIVE taxes in 2009.  They made something over 10 BILLION that year.

              GE has about 1000 employees who do NOTHING BUT WORK ON REDUCING TAXES.

              Recently, there was a diary about 26 companies that paid their CEOs more money than they paid in US taxes.  

              What I am saying is that HIGH tax rates make these people LOOK for ways to reduce their taxes, INCLUDING ways to invest more in their businesses -- which will create JOBS.

              If tax rates are LOW, they don't have to bother looking at all.

              I never said that they should not be permitted to run their tax to ZERO.  Read what I did say.

              Real simple idea.

              "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

              by BornDuringWWII on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 02:25:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes...I've seen that (0+ / 0-)

                Let's not make the exception the rule here.  We're above that, I think.

                The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

                by commonsensically on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 02:35:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know my position is "different," but ... (0+ / 0-)

                  1. it is consistent with historical experience.

                  2. it passes the "logic" test.

                  It is obvious that just cutting taxes for the wealthy does not AUTOMATICALLY cause lots of jobs to be generated, as history since 2000 shows.

                  I suggest it makes sense to give the "old way of doing things that seems to nave worked" another try.

                  I just thought it might make sense to present an explanation (one guy's opinion) of WHY the old method does work, and why the more recent approach does not.

                  Exceptions are not the basis for the argument, but they might show what people who are trying to cut their effective tax rates do, sometimes by the financial equivalent of "scratching their left ear with their right hand" or other contortions that are only intended to reduce tax and often serve no useful business purpose.

                  "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

                  by BornDuringWWII on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 02:43:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Let's not make the RULE the EXCEPTION either (0+ / 0-)

                  which is what equivocators, obfuscators and LIARS do.

                  If it's
                  Not your body,
                  Then it's
                  Not your choice
                  And it's
                  None of your damn business!

                  by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 05:48:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  oh...the hell with it! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Stove Top Chicken

          1 package (5 pieces) Costco boneless skinless chicken thighs
          1/4 cup flour
          Seasoning of choice (suggestions: Cajun seasoning, poultry seasoning, lemon pepper, etc)
          Salt and pepper (if not included in seasoning)
          1/2 cup yellow onion
          2 Tbsp olive oil
          Optional: splash of white wine, sherry or Marsala
          Optional: small can mushrooms and/or other vegs

          Mix flour and seasoning(s). Cut chicken into small pieces and dredge thoroughly in flour mixture; Fry onion in oil in large frying pan until translucent and yellowish. Add chicken (make sure to include any leftover dredgings), brown about 5 minutes, then cover and simmer for 15-20 minutes until tender. (Optionals should be added after browning but before covering.) Serve over noodles, rice, or spaghetti. Makes 5-6 servings.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 06:46:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  seems like an appropriate diary to leave this in (3+ / 0-)

    Uploaded with

    This is a test, as I've never tried to imbed an image before...

  •  too bad obama is goldman sachs employee of year (0+ / 0-)

    it is good the middle brows don't trust romney.   but why do they trust obama.   he gave away trillions to the wealthiest bankers and never did anything like what FDR did.  

    he really is the perfect decoy for the rich.  he talks a great game for the middle and screws em hard.    

    what a scary time.   obama is to the right of nixon and hoover and romney is just plain cuckoo.  

  •  obama should be landsliding (0+ / 0-)

    if obama had done what FDR did,  and was required the past 4 years,  he would be on his way to a 50 state landslide.  

    the fact that this race is close with an obvious charlatan like romney shows how pissed off the middle class is at him.  

    he feathered the nest of goldman sachs and the pentagon......and let tens of millions move from middleclass to 21st century penury.   foodstamps to forclosed homes.  

    what a disaster.  he had so much great rhetoric and potential.  i just finished the maraniss bio on obama.  he was such a bright young man with compassion.   what a sell out.  

    he is rubin's and dimon's best friend.  wall st employee of the century.  

    •  The blue dogs killed us in 2009 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle

       And, yes, Obama deferred to them WAY too much.  They watered down just about every initiative that could have tangibly improved the lives of Americans, thus blunting the effects of any progressive legislation.

        Of course, the blue dogs did this to protect their seats, because "appearing too liberal" would have hurt their re-election bids and all.

         Worked out great for them, didn't it?


      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:59:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think this view is realistic. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      FDR had enormous majorities in Congress that just handed him carte Blanche to fix things. Obama has a closely divided country and a highly partisan Congress. Just a tad more difficult. Also, the first black President gets a few points chopped off just for that. Given the realities, he has done pretty well.

      The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

      by Anne Elk on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:04:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We had big Dem majorities in both houses (0+ / 0-)

          If the Democrats in Congress had REALLY wanted to accomplish anything, they would have lowered the filibuster threshold and let 'er rip.

          Who knows, they might have actually passed a stimulus and a health-care law that would have had an actual, direct, immediate impact on people's lives. The public option would have been enacted, and once people started actually using it they would have liked it, making it impossible to run against. The Bush tax cuts would have expired, the deficit would have narrowed, and THAT talking point is off the table. And maybe, just maybe, we get to hold on to the House in 2010 as a result, and Obama actually has significant accomplishments to point to in his re-election campaign.

          But nooooo... we had to suck up to the blue dogs and chase this "bipartisanship" magic pony. So our majorities were wasted, and eventually lost.

          And Obama bears his share of the blame. As soon as he appointed Rahm Emanuel to be Chief of Staff, it was obvious that the DINO's were in charge.


        "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

        by Buzzer on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:21:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let's hope the middle wakes up in time. (0+ / 0-)

      If they vote for R-MONEY/Ryan they are SCREWED.

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

      by BornDuringWWII on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:34:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  uh Romney to be Wall St Employee of the Millenium (0+ / 0-)

      I think you should get over your disappointment and reread the Senate rules. The Rethuglicans aimed to defeat Obama at all cost on day one and they are still praying for the destruction of the economy up until election day so they can win. So pick your candidate.

  •  This is excellent news! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, skillet

    But we must not be complacent!  LOSING IS NOT AN OPTION!!

    PLEASE help me support
    President Obama's re-election!  ALL royalties donated directly to
    Aldus Shrugged is a pro-Obama book which destroys Ayn Rand, paul ryan, the gop, fox news, and all who worship at that sickening twisted altar.
    Aldus Shrugged by Floyd Blue tears Ayn/fox/gop a new one!

    Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand. @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 12:52:33 PM PDT

  •  The middle class is correct. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brooke In Seattle

    Romney and his pie-eyed extremist sidekick would finish off what's left of the working class in this country.

  •  middle is correct (0+ / 0-)

    obama is a corporate shill.   obama care is the biggest give away to pharma and insurance boys.   he had already given the us treasury to wall street, so fair is fair.  

    and yes romney is just cuckoo and would be more of the same on steroids.  

    obama is a corporatist.   though not his rhetoric.  

    romney is who an lbo artist.   he would just finish the job that all the presidents since raygun have done, including obama.    

    obama is horrible.   but better than romney.  

  •  do the right thing. (0+ / 0-)

    the irony of course is if obama had the guts to do what fdr did, and he did have a mandate and tons of goodwill in 2009,  he would be rolling to a landside in a nation with a thriving middle class.  

    he sold out bigtime,  and might pay the price.  

    he kept all of W's lying thieving players around from geithner to pentagon......

    obama had the opportunity of a century.  and blew it.   sorry, this is the facts.   reality based kos people should be able to handle this.  

    from wall st bailouts to drone assasinations to whistleblower treatment,  obama is to the right of nixon.  

    •  Obama is still a ton better than R-MONEY would be. (0+ / 0-)

      I hope that Obama has finally figured out that if he gets a second term, trying to "compromise" with Republicans is a waste of time, and that he won't do that again.

      Better late than never.

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

      by BornDuringWWII on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:55:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now's not the time (0+ / 0-)

      to focus on all the bad shit he's done but focus on the good stuff he's done.  He's all we got and a lot of people are going to be suffering if he's not re-elected.  Those are the facts.

      "I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking." Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by djbender on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 02:14:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  hope and change (0+ / 0-)

    yes,  i agree.  we now need to hope obama is actually gonna morph into fdr.  

    now that would be a change.  

    i voted, worked and donated to obama.  he campaigned like fdr and ruled like goldman sachs.  

    the biggest bait and switch in a century.    

    reality based kos,  ought to deal with this.  

    love the blog.  it ain't the dnc, though, so no blowback, please.

  •  this news (0+ / 0-)

    is certainly encouraging, its nice to see that the voters might actually be placing blame where it belongs.

  •  None of this matters to the GOP base (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's black. End of story. They're all back in Kansas, Toto, voting against their own interests.

  •  bs (0+ / 0-)

    many white people in amerika voted for obama.  and gave him a great deal of good will, to do the right thing.  

    making excuses for his corporatism and not his FDR rhetoric without action,  is the height of arrogance.  

    let's call it like it is in reality based dkos,  obama is a corporate shill.   black or white or purple.   many of us out here don't give a crap about his melanin count

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site