jump to last post 1-40 of 40 discussions (177 posts)

Poll: 44% of Americans Worse Off Under Obama

  1. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Yes, the "Summer Of Recovery", what a joke.


    Two years after the official start of the recovery, the American people remain pessimistic about their current economic circumstances and longer-term prospects.

    Fewer than a quarter of people see signs of improvement in the economy, and two-thirds say they believe the country is on the wrong track overall, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20.

    “Gas prices are higher, grocery prices are higher, transportation prices are higher,” says poll respondent Ronda Brockway, 54, an insurance company manager and political independent who lives in a suburb of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. “The jobs situation nationwide is very poor.”

    By a 44 percent to 34 percent margin, Americans say they believe they are worse off than when President Barack Obama took office in early 2009, when the U.S. was in the depths of a recession compounded by the September 2008 financial crisis and the economy was losing as many as 820,000 jobs a month.

    The gloom covers the immediate future, with fewer than 1 in 10 people expecting unemployment to return to pre-recession levels within the next two years, and it extends to the next generation. More than half of respondents say their children are destined to have a lower standard of living than they do, upending a traditional touchstone of the American Dream.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-2 … -poll.html


    FED DOWNGRADES ECONOMY...

    By Luca Di Leo and Jon Hilsenrath

    WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Federal Reserve officials downgraded their assessment of the U.S. economy's performance Wednesday, but gave no indication they intend to take new steps to boost growth and jobs.

    After a meeting of the Fed's decision-making body, officials said they're sticking with plans to end the purchase of $600 billion U.S. Treasuries as planned on June 30 and would keep short-term interest rates near zero for at least several more months.

    The recovery is continuing at a moderate pace, though "somewhat more slowly" than previously expected, officials said in a statement following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, echoing remarks made by Fed chairman Ben Bernanke ina speech earlier this month. Officials also said job market indicators have been weaker than anticipated compared to when they last met in April.

    The Fed will release details of its updated economic forecasts at 2.00 pm ET. Downward growth projections for 2011 look certain, and some downshift in expectations for 2012 are also possible.

    Though the Fed is less comfortable with the economic outlook, it has less leeway to take new steps to fix it. That's because underlying inflation also has crept up, making the central bank leery of injecting more money into the financial system.

    Even without further stimulus, the Fed remains in a very accommodative stance. As expected, the central bank said Wednesday it will hold onto its vast $2.832 trillion portfolio of securities and loans. As part of that strategy, it is reinvesting the proceeds from maturing bonds into Treasury bonds. It also reiterated plans to keep interest rates near zero for an "extended period."

    "The FOMC is firmly on hold pending more information," said Jim O'Sullivan, chief economist at MF Global in New York.

    Just a few weeks ago, Fed officials were focused on plans for exiting from their easy-money policies. Discussions at the April meeting focused on strategies for reducing the securities portfolio and eventually raising short-term interest rates. But a slew of discouraging economic data convinced many officials they need to stay on hold as they assess whether the bumps to growth and inflation seen in recent months are transitory, as officials believe.

    http://www.gfmag.com/latestnews/latest- … .0578238E7

    But hell, I am just a racist. Couldn't be his policies and Socialist tendencies that are driving us down.

    And 55% of Americans say they expect their children to live under worse conditions than they did. Also we will be in debt 190% of GDP a year by 2035... what a joke!

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, Tom, for your really cool post about the new Bloomberg survey. Did you notice that the stat quoted was rather odd? 44+34=78. I was wondering what happened to the other 22%. So I went directly to the survey results and I was startled to discover a few facts your source left out of the article.
      1. In reply to the question “Are you better off or worse off than you were at the beginning of 2009?” 55% said they were better off or about the same. Only 44% said they were worse off.  Isn’t it amazing how your version and my version are BOTH technically true and neither version reveals the total picture? But, that’s not all I learned.
      2. Who is to blame for the current levels of unemployment? The survey said: “I’m going to mention some possible reasons the unemployment rate has not changed much in the last two or three years. For each, please tell me if you think this is a major reason, a minor reason, or not relevant to the unemployment rate.”  More than any other reason, “U.S. companies are investing in jobs overseas instead of in the U.S.” was identified 78% of the time as a major reason for today’s unemployment. 
      3. Who seems to have the best vision? When surveyors asked “Who do you think has laid out a better vision for a successful economic future for the U.S.— President Obama or the Republicans?” 40% answered President Obama, only 37% said Republicans, and 23% said neither or not sure.
      4. Regarding the next national election, the survey asked respondents to identify which outcome they thought would be worse for the country. “Thinking ahead to the election in 2012, which worries you more?”  Nearly half (49%) said they were more worried that “Republicans will gain control of both houses of Congress and the presidency and will implement their proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and many other domestic programs.” In comparison, 40% replied that “Democrats will retain the White House and at least one house of Congress and continue current spending policies” was more worrisome. 11% were not sure.
      5. On approval rating, the survey question read “Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?” Approve was the reply most often heard (49 to 44%).

      There seems to be much more in the survey results than the Bloomberg article and its author want to share. But please don’t rely on me or on a news outlet designed to pander to the interests of big business. All of the survey results, not just some, can be found here: http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rLCZb_QxP4kE 
       
      Thanks again, Tom, for making us aware of this interesting survey.  I always manage to learn from looking into your posts.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nice job. Honesty is too much to expect from our McCarthyite hubber.

        Bush put us in the current hole with tax cuts for the rich, an unfunded Medicare give-away to the drug companies, two unnecessary and costly wars. He turned the Clinton surplus into a huge deficit, failed to regulate the banks and put most of the world into a deep recession. Since Obama was elected the GOP in Congress along with a few Blue Dog Democrats undermined Obama's efforts to deal with the recession by preventing an adequate stimulus program. The deficit has increased under Obama for several reasons--the need to provide economic stimulus, the failure to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          VERY nice job, Quill. Good research and summary.

      2. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that out-sourcing and trade agreements have been a major factor. Those policies are the fault of both the Socialist Democrat Left and the Progressive Right.

        I agree that the RNC's plan, and Ryan's (another Progressive Est. Repub) are not what we need to the greater extant, and niether is Obama's.

        As far as the election of 2012 there are many polls out having Obama beat by any repub... so that doesn't hold water with me.

        And the same can be said of the approval.

        All these stats are current an updated daily...

        "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends)."

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll

        -Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-two (52%) at least somewhat disapprove.-

        Only 47% now believe that buying a home is the best investment a family can make. That’s down from 73% in February 2009. Just 16% of homeowners expect the value of their home to increase over the coming year while 37% expect a further decline. Even looking out five years, only 35% expect that the value of their home will go up.

        Overall, 10% rate the economy as good or excellent while 57% say poor.

        So...

        A majority of Americans continue to favor placing strict sanctions on those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and those who knowingly sell or rent property to illegal immigrants. Most also want police to check the legal status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation.

        The EPA gets mixed reviews from voters nationwide, 47% favorable and 45% unfavorable.

        The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

        Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-two (52%) at least somewhat disapprove.

        A Generic Republican presidential candidate continues to hold a two-point advantage over President Obama in an early look at 2012. On the Generic Congressional Ballot, the GOP holds a six-point advantage. Both these figures are updated weekly.

        Rasmussen is one of the best pollers out there.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think I covered all your ?'s Quill.

          And Ralph, there are some honest stats for you... but just ignore those ones. You want to take up the spin, go see Bloomberg, not I. And I am tired of you calling me a liar. So stop it. I don't call you a liar everytime I talk to you. And I expect the same. You have a difference of opinion, fine, then get over it. But do not continue to call me a liar.

          It is amazing how you call me that, and never support your assertion that my writings and comments are wrong. Because that is all you can use is that tactic. Shame... really sad.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As Quill clearly pointed out yours was not a fair summary of the material you cited. By your own avatar and words you are a McCarthyite extremist. And your version of history is made up out of whole cloth.

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              BS...

              And I didn't write the article, simply posted it. And the Stats from Rassmussen clearly show Obam's position is worse than what Bloomberg said. Go read them stats.

              And you don't have a clue about the true history of what went on with McCarthy, cause your to closed minded to ever have l;ooked into both sides.

              I on the other hand, was a dyed in the wool Massachusetts Democrat from the day I was born, till I finally figured the game out and saw through the lies. So I have not only looked into, but have spouted those same revisionist histories as yourself, and many others on here even now do.

              So if you want to say I am wrong... fine. But if you do point to facts. Don't just call me a liar, such as on my hubs, and then ignore when I tell you to point it out. That is just an absurd way to act. If it's a lie, prove it.

              And I have backed up my assertion in this topic by supplying and even more comprehensive list of stats that show Obama is not doing well.

              Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-two (52%) at least somewhat disapprove.

              A Generic Republican presidential candidate continues to hold a two-point advantage over President Obama in an early look at 2012. On the Generic Congressional Ballot, the GOP holds a six-point advantage. Both these figures are updated weekly.

              "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends)."

              A Generic Republican presidential candidate continues to hold a two-point advantage over President Obama in an early look at 2012. On the Generic Congressional Ballot, the GOP holds a six-point advantage. Both these figures are updated weekly.

              http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll

              So go look at those and then talk to me about stats.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ralph called you 'our Mccarthyite hubber' and you protest you are being called a liar.

                Which makes McCarthy a liar by your complaint. It's great when we all find areas of agreement to build on.

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, Noug. That is not what my objections are to.

                  So figure it out.

                  Go back and read, he infers I am a liar every time he talks to me and I am sick of it. It has nothing to do with his comment about ole joe, so your twisting is as worthless as your psuedo-knowledge.

                  I expect you all not to like Joe. I do not conseder infering and stating that I am a liar, acceptable, though. I do not call anyone a liar. I debate with all my heart and with veracity. But I do not call you or anyone else a liar over and over.

                  Two different things, so go spin somewhere else.

                  1. recommend1 profile image72
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So you got caught out distorting material that you quoted yourself - got caught directly  putting a 'spin' on it - so your response is to tell others they are spinning.

                    Then you have the bare-faced cheek to complain about being called a liar big_smile big_smile big_smile big_smile

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                McCarthy was a monster--alcoholic, amoral, self-promoting, liar. I remember the period well.

          2. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In fact, Tom, you didn’t. But, I only asked two questions and I didn’t expect you to answer either one:
            1. Did you notice that the stat quoted was rather odd? And,
            2. Isn’t it amazing how your version and my version are BOTH technically true and neither version reveals the total picture?

            Actually, the gist of my comment, which you missed or ignored, was that the Bloomberg article is riddled with omissions that contradict the title of your thread.  I don’t really care if you choose to ignore this, or you disagree with most of the survey results. Nor do I challenge your view of the political landscape.  I’m just a friend who thought you would want your readers to know about the parts Bloomberg withheld. Perhaps I was wrong.

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I wasn't ignoring it, I went through your #rd questions.

              I did note the oddness, but it is not the only poll that does not address an unaccumalatted total of 100%; see my Rassmussen poll which does not leave holes, and which does support my assertion of the numbers that Obama is in a bad way come 2012 and now.

              And yes, I see alot of twistings that touch on truth here while the opposite twisting touches on truth in the other direction. So yes I agree. Again see the rassmussen poll for full accountings..

              http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll

              So Bloomberg may have a twist to it, which alot of leftist sites also have in their favor, and that cannot be denied by you or me, but the Rassmussen is more complete and still supports my assertion. I hope that did it.

              And I always answer ?s... I simply get tired of having to answer 50 of them from you while others pile on theirs also. I can only do so much... if you don't like that then do not ask me any questions. roll

              1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You can’t mean me, Tom. I didn’t ask 50 questions.  I asked two questions and I didn’t expect you to answer either one. I’m sorry if each of my questions seems like 25.
                BTW, if promoting your ideology in the forums is more than you can handle, why do you?  Never mind.  You don’t have to answer that.

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Didn't you list a bunch to me the other day? Granted I am exagarrating it for dramatic puposes... but you get the gist. I am bombarded by questions daily, of which I get almost none of mine answered, and I do my best to answer them all. But I will not sit and answer list, after list, after list,...

                  And I can handle it just fine...

                  But when I do not answer one or two, it is more likely I got side-tracked and just didn't include them. So, simply asking me again, or pointing my attention to them, would be respectful Accussing me of not answering them on purpose. is not.

                  See the difference Quill.

                  I don't mind answering most peoples questions, Quill. I do not think I have ignored anyone's questions, but yes I may have missed a few here and there.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                    Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No.

              2. profile image0
                Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The Ras polls only poll from land-line phones. The only people who still have land-line phones are old people. Old people are skewed towards a more reactionary and right wing perspective. Your polls are skewed and invalid.

                http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barac … roval.aspx

                1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                  thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, will you look at that.  Quantifiable information about the Rasmussen polling procedures.  Let's ignore it, what do you say, Mason?

                  1. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I say oh well... lolhahahaa.

                    You guys are a laugh a minute.

                    Gallop is far from non-biased. So whatever.

          3. nightwork4 profile image59
            nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            one of the reasons america is hurting so bad is because too many people haven't accepted how badly the bush admin, hurt the country. too many americans are hating on Obama because he is black whether you folks want to admit it or not. no matter what he tries to do, teabaggers and racists fight it tooth and nail. just so you know, obama could do more for the U.S. then any of your last 5 or 6 presidents ever did if people would put away their prejudices and back up the leader of their country.

            1. DannyMaio profile image62
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              here we go with the racism $hit again! No it can not be because he is a horrible leader and his policies suck! The man is a community organizer and not even smart enough to surround himself with qualified people! he took people he knew because of favors or he is just to stupid. He had an opportunity of a lifetime to fix the country but instead he made it even worse! that is a fact. Stop blaming Bush he has not been president for 3 years and the Democrats had the congress for 6-7 years. When a company is doing bad and they hire another to fix and change things it is on them! grow up and do some research, It is all there if the eyes want to see it! Wake up and stop with the Racism BS it is soooo old already!

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Another one that is spelling and grammar challenged.
                These things matter, because they indicate the level of education and intellectual discipline of the poster.  If you can't handle the grade school stuff, parsing more complex information is certainly suspect as well.
                Joe McCarthy was a sad  chapter in American history.  If this is your hero, who needs villains.

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah the elitist mentallity of Leftists. It never ceases to amaze me. roll

                  Because someone isn't as anal as yourselves about a post in a forum, they must be dumb. You should really come down among us lil people for a while and learn a few lessons in life. We value a person for their thoughts and actions, not for their grammer and spelling.

                  Arrogant whiners. Can't stand being schooled by the lil people.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There is a reason you will remain "lil people".  You won't take yourself seriously enough to establish your credibility through a proper use of the language.  Do you think your hero M. Stanton Evans would have gained his traction among conservatives if he wrote like you two do?  Of course not.  His only followers would be among the people that were not educated enough to notice he was butchering the King's.  Not a very serious constituency.  Your followers will be equally truncated to those that can't parse the difference between good writing and bad.
                    This is a writing site.  It is about the writing.  Much of what appears on these pages in the hubs as well as the forums is horribly fractured and poorly realized.  People's scores reflect that.  This is not a political forum, but a site about writing on all kinds of topics.  When the writing is amateurish, one can only wonder what has brought that writer to this site.  If you don't want your writing evaluated, go somewhere that writers don't congregate.

                2. DannyMaio profile image62
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Mr. Know it all show me where the spelling mistakes are? You are just a big mouth liberal who thinks he knows everything! History has shown that the Socialist left pushed McCarthy out but he was right all along! He is known a Great American. Spelling and grammar doesn't make a person, but I guess when you have nothing intelligent to say just try and demean everyone. Great work Einstein!

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you really want me to point out all the errors?  I can do it on just about every post you've ever made.  Would that help you?

                3. DannyMaio profile image62
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Here a re-post from the dutchman.

                  some research from historians about Mcarthy, if you would even consider it that is.  It is not as slanted a story as you make it.

                  JOSEPH MCCARTHY;
                  Senator Joe McCarthy is one of the strongest pro-American figures in the history of the United States. Despite many attempts by socialists to demonize McCarthy and "McCarthyism" with revisionist history, McCarthy's achievements shine through the propaganda. At a time when America was threatened by a murderous, backward, anti-freedom ideology of Soviet communism, Joseph McCarthy was a champion of capitalism and Democracy. Even when his career was threatened because of his vocal anti-communist speeches, McCarthy did not back down from the cause of freedom. For the courage Senator McCarthy showed in sticking to his American principles, he is today considered to be a hero by many.
                  Joseph McCarthy was born in 1908 in a small Wisconsin town. In 1935 he earned a law degree from Marquette University and was admitted to the state bar. After an unsuccessful district attorney campaign in 1936, McCarthy was elected to district judge in 1939, becoming the youngest judge in Wisconsin state history.

                  After America was attacked on December 7th, 1941, Joseph McCarthy enlisted in the Marine Corps. He served his country honorably, flying eleven missions and earning a Distinguished Flying Cross award. While on duty, McCarthy made a hasty attempt at a US Senate campaign in 1944 but was defeated by Alexander Wiley. Determined to reverse his fortune, McCarthy again ran for Senate in 1946. This time McCarthy's campaign was much better planned and he found success, narrowly defeating the Republican incumbent candidate in the primary and going on to easily win the general election.
                  In the late 1940s, Russian spies infiltrated the deepest levels of the US government, including the Rosenbergs who had stolen the plans to the nuclear bomb. America was threatened by a ruthless enemy in Soviet Communism that would not stop until the world was enslaved. When Senator Joseph McCarthy learned of the Russian infiltration of Washington, DC, he was determined to take the evidence public to the American people.
                  In his famous speech on February 9th, 1950, McCarthy brought public a list of 57 known communists working for the state department. These revelations took the American public by storm. Out of all the Senators and public figures in Washington, only McCarthy had the courage to stand up against communist infiltration. It was a deed that McCarthy's leftist critics would never forgive him for.

                  For the next four years, Senator Joseph McCarthy stood undeterred against the strong socialist influence in Washington, exposing literally hundreds of anti-American operatives working incognito for the US Government. The American people generally appreciated McCarthy's brave efforts and he was well-liked all across America.
                  McCarthy's enemies also followed his activities with a strong interest. Determined to stop McCarthy from spreading the truth about their communist agenda, many anti-American Hollywood insiders found willing accomplices in the budding liberal media. These propaganda-mongers added a new word to the dictionary, defining "McCarthyism" as a senseless political witch hunt. In fact, McCarthy had exposed scores of known communists in the capital without a single known false accusation. Joseph McCarthy's critics were never interested in the truth however.
                  The leftist counter-offensive against McCarthy was beginning to take its toll in late 1953. Many Senators became fed up with McCarthy's showmanship as the liberal media relentlessly launched baseless attacks against his character. On a dark day in American history in December 1954, American hero and patriot Joseph McCarthy was censured by the US Senate.
                  Following his censure, McCarthy sunk into alcoholism from which he never recovered. He died of hepatitis on May 2nd, 1957 at the age of 49.
                  Even after his death, McCarthy's critics continued to crucify him posthumously. Not satisfied with merely ruining a man's career and driving him to alcoholic suicide, the liberal media courageously dragged McCarthy's name through the mud for the next fifty years, continuing to this day. Leftists have never forgiven McCarthy for his crime of exposing them for who they truly are, inventing phrases like "The Red Scare" to demean McCarthy's anti-communist efforts.

                  The VENONA Project files, declassified in 1995, provided indisputable evidence that nearly all of those McCarthy accused were traitors to America. Not surprisingly, the media ignored these documents completely, instead choosing to run yet another round of anti-McCarthy propaganda. As if that wasn't enough, in 2005 Hollywood released the greatest propaganda film since "Triumph of the Will", an anti-McCarthy slander picture known as "Good Night and Good Luck". Dead for fifty years, McCarthy's body has now been tarred, feathered, crucified, cremated, and his ashes shot into space by a leftist media who cannot handle the truth of their own miserable existence. The anti-McCarthy media claims the Senator wrongly implicated many. Despite their accusations, no critic has ever brought forth a single documented case of someone being wrongly accused by McCarthy.
                  McCarthy's achievements to America are undeniable to those that view history with an unbiased eye. At a time when America was being infiltrated by agents of the most murderous empire in human history, McCarthy was the lone voice who stood against tyranny. He exposed hundreds of agents determined to destroy America. Had McCarthy not had the courage to speak up, it seems possible that the USSR might still exist today. Hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans who once lived under the Soviet fist today owe their freedom to Senator McCarthy.
                  McCarthy's patriotism cost him his job and eventually his life. For his determination in protecting American freedom, Joseph McCarthy is undoubtedly an American hero and patriot.

                  Sounds like a hero to me!

      3. TheWorldNow profile image73
        TheWorldNowposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That was an incredibly in-depth response. I need to follow more people like you. Thanks for the great read!

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          @TheWorldNow
          yvw

    2. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      for a 100% random samplying of the group?   These numbers are skewed..?    No good, biased result

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Both of the Parties are garbage, I am sorry

        I mean The Ivy League's best, I meant to say...     lololol

      2. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Which #'s Dutch? Rasmussen, or the original in the topic post? I agree Bloomberg spun that but Rasmussen lays it out very well and clear.

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll

        1. dutchman1951 profile image60
          dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          original, they seem skewed to me

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Check out the Rasmussen today, updated daily.

            http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll

            And they are a good poll, and supply the full numbers to look at. I should have just used Rasmussen to begin with, but I pasted the other, bloomberg, so... shit happens.

            And how are you today Dutch. Well I hope.

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Ok. I'm worse off. I do not blame Obama. Repeat. I do not blame Obama.

    My finances began spiraling down when Bush was in office. My 401k and profit sharing have never rebounded. I just got my first pay raise since the market fell. I still haven't seen the return of a job bonus or a year end bonus. I blame several administrations for the policies that went into effect that created the crisis. Not the man who inherited it.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Deregulation and well cloaked corruption has taken a giant dump on the middle class of this country.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Darn tooting.

  3. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Thats okay, you can all have a lil Medicaid to make up for it.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 … 81412.html

  4. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    So in a two party system about half of people feel better off.

    1. John Holden profile image62
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

    2. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We have not been a two party system in decades now. We are one party system, Democrats leftists, and Progressive Rights, they have been running both sides of the plays, and writing both sides of the script, for 60 years now.

    3. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually only 34% feel it is better. That is far from half. So try again.

  5. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Stop printing money, artificially inflating the markets, let them crash out and correct, and we would pull out alot sooner then if we continue with these Keynsian Policies which have never worked. It is like being trapped in a bad nightmare with FDR laughing histerically at us all.

    -Bernanke said at a news conference Wednesday that the slowdown could be due, in part, to the depressed housing market and other factors that aren’t likely to fade soon.

    “Maybe some of the headwinds that are concerning us, like the weakness in the financial sector, problems in the housing sector – some may be stronger and more persistent than we thought,” he said.

    Bernanke described the debt crisis in Greece as a “very difficult situation.” He said that if Greece defaulted on its debt, the impact would go beyond Europe and threaten the global economy.

    In answer to another question, Bernanke said the impact on financial institutions would likely be “very small.” But he said a spiraling Greek debt crisis that roiled financial markets would pose more severe threats.-




    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bernank … next-year/

  6. Mikeydoes profile image79
    Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago

    You are right.

    Too bad it would have been no different if a republican would be in office.

    Neither party is worth a rat's butt in my book. In fact it is almost sickening thinking of how our kid's kids will realize just how dumb we were.

    I'm very interested to see where the world heads now that the internet is out there, none of you seem to realize that we are no longer cavemen. Everyone just sits back and yells at the gov't while they can give a rats as and will continue to do what they do.. Know why?! Because you vote for it!! Republican or Democrat.

    From now on when I hear someone say I'm an idiot for not voting.... I'll probably say nothing, because I hate the argument the comes along with it. Still wake up a realize Democrats and Republicans are the same dam thing. Whether you vote for one or the other DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST BIT.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      well said Mikey, well put

      1. Mikeydoes profile image79
        Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you

  7. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Poll: 44% of Americans worse off under Obama.

    This is not a fact. It is based on a bias sampling of America's population. Nothing more.

    The actual truth about polls is that they are just that, a sampling. It does not in any way, shape or form, represent ALL Americans. Media, forces citizens, to see that it does, so as to influence.

    Media and it's corrupted influences is no a source to get information. You need to get your info from those who see things happening also. When you and that person are on the same page, then you go out and find more information. All said and done, as an individual, it can be difficult to find real answers.

    Who and where did the polls actually take place? Would be the first question to ask. What specific questions did the poll ask and how were the questions phrased? Would be my next question.

    Polls are just a tool, to keep perpetuating fear and misrepresentation which seems to be missing from almost all politicians.

    So, no. The poll is actually invalid. Thus, meaningless.

  8. TheManWithNoPants profile image73
    TheManWithNoPantsposted 5 years ago

    Sorry my man.  The poll is wrong.  100% of the people are in worse shape, just 44% really get it.  I'm not an Obama basher.  I'm just a small business a businessman, and I understand math.

                            j

  9. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    Mason,
    You seem very excited that a generic GOP candidate would be the projected winner by the thinnest of margins against Obama, and take hope in that.  You shouldn't.  When the polls pit the the president against an actual human, he beats them all in the current polls.  It won't be enough to run against Obama, you will have to have someone bring forth a plan for the country, and the public doesn't support these candidates plans nor the baggage they all seem to drag around with them.  If only you didn't have to run an actual candidate.

    We all know why you select Rassmussen as your go-to poll.  While legitimate, they are also well known for their conservative bias.  Rather than choose any one poll, I suggest Real Politics for their agenda free compilation of all the polls.  They have a predictive track record second to none and take their information from many credible sources.  You like Rassmussen because they tend to support your agenda, not for any quantitative reasons.  If I'm wrong, please share the quantitative reasons, the data, as to why you have selected them as your view into the future.

    As to your namesake, he was a small man with huge ambition which colored his judgment and his ethics.  He had no problem using innuendo and speculation as a way of attacking his political enemies and ultimately was undermined by his ethics, with a healthy assist from old John Barleycorn.  A worthy model for you to emulate.

    I'm always entertained by your posts.  Keep it up.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I use Rassmusen cause I feel like using them.

      As for who I suppport it is not any of the ones up there now. I would support Col. Allen West and very few others at this moment.

      As to Seantor Joseph McCarthy, American Hero and Patriot, all his assertions have been shown to be true, eveyone he accussed has since been shown to be a Fellow-traveler, a KGB or GRU or Commintern active.

      And that is now a matter of fact....

      Here is just a few of the people we KNOW to have been active Communists in our Govt... and there is many more he named, all of which have been confirmed to be KGB, GRU and Communist actives.

      Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;[29]

      Virginius Frank Coe [30], Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;

      William Ludwig Ullman [31], delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;

      Nathan Gregory Silvermaster [32], Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;

      Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
      Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;

      Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board;
      Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong;

      Robert T. Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the
      Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;[33]

      Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare;

      Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives;

      Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; [34]

      Leonard Mins, [35] Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the Office of Strategic Services;

      Cedric Belfrage [36], British Security Coordination; founder the National Guardian.

      Gerald Graze, U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the

      Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;

      Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov, Daily Worker; [37]

      David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

      -"Venona transcripts confirm the Senate Civil Liberties Subcommittee, chaired by former Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr., whom McCarthy defeated for election in 1946, had at least four staff members working on behalf of the KGB. Chief Counsel of the Committee John Abt; Charles Kramer, who served on three other Congressional Committees; Allen Rosenberg, who also served on the National Labor Relations Board, Board of Economic Warfare (BEW), the Foreign Economic Administration (FEA) and later argued cases before the United States Supreme Court; and Charles Flato, who served on the BEW and FEA, all were CPUSA members and associated with the Comintern.

      While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage. Recent scholarship has established of 159 persons investigated between 1950 and 1952, there is substantial evidence nine had assisted Soviet espionage using evidence from Venona or other sources. Of the remainder, while not being directly complicit in espionage, many were considered security risks."-

      -Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved Department of State security cases compiled by Lee for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. [41] The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. In addition to some of the person involved in espionage identified in the Venona project listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:-

      Robert Warren Barnett & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;[42]

      Esther Brunauer, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;[43]

      Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;[44]

      Gertrude Cameron, Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;[45][46]

      Nelson Chipchin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;[47]

      Oliver Edmund Clubb, U.S. State Department;[48]

      John Paton Davies, U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;[49]

      Gustavo Duran, U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;[50]

      Arpad Erdos, U.S. State Department;[51]

      Herbert Fierst, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;[52][53][54]

      John Tipton Fishburn, U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;[55]
      Theodore Geiger, U.S. State Department;[56]

      Stella Gordon, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45[57]

      Stanley Graze, U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;[58]

      Ruth Marcia Harrison, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;[59]

      Myron Victor Hunt, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;[60]

      Philip Jessup, U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;[61]

      Dorothy Kenyon, New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;[62]

      Leon Hirsch Keyserling, President Harry Truman's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;[63]

      Mary Dublin Keyserling, U.S. Department of Commerce;[64]

      Esther Less Kopelewich, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;[65]

      Owen Lattimore, Board member of the communist-dominated Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal Pacific Affairs;[66]

      Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee, U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and
      Lee list #66;[67]

      Val R. Lorwin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;[68]

      Daniel F. Margolies, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;[69] [70]

      Peveril Meigs, U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;[71]

      Ella M. Montague, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;[72]

      Philleo Nash, Presidential Advisor, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations;[73][74][75]

      Olga V. Osnatch, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;[76]

      Edward Posniak, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;[77]

      Philip Raine, U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;[78][79][80][81]

      Robert Ross, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;[82]

      Sylvia Schimmel, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;[83][84][85][86]

      Frederick Schumann, contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;[87]
      John S. Service, U.S. State Department;[88]

      Harlow Shapley, U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;[89]

      William T. Stone, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;[90]

      Frances M. Tuchser, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;[91]

      John Carter Vincent, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;[92]

      David Zablodowsky, U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case

      http://conservapedia.com/Joseph_McCarthy

      So you can say what you want about McCarthy... HE WAS RIGHT! and that is undeniable. You alla really need to get real... McCarthy saw you all fo4r what you were... and now the American public sees you all for what you are and what you have done.

      Traitors all of them and they sould have been hung for their treson.

      And lets not foget the Left wing hero of Journalism, Edward R. Murrow, Traitor and all around scum...

      http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeche … eitnow.htm

      All of the above were Govt employees and as such were under the jurisdiction of McCarthy's committee. And ALL guilty of treason to one degree or another.

      So try to spin someone who doesn't know the truth of the Leant Leftist Progressive treason in this nation.

      And I did not reply becasue I did not see it. Gets a lil crazy in here trying to keep up with all you guys at times.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "I use Rassmusen cause I feel like using them."

        Your response regarding Rasmussen confirms exactly what I said.  You have no quantifiable reason for liking them.  You have no knowledge of their methodologies.  They  support your agenda.  You make it sound in your posts like you have carefully vetted the processes and procedures they use and have determined they are unquestionably accurate, when in fact you are a political sychophant and have chosen an ally to support you.  But at least you have now publicly admitted it, and that is the first step to a cure.

        As for McCarthy, here's a quote from what you posted.

        "While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage."

        For the most part, these people weren't criminals.  They were people that had a different political persuasion.  He destroyed their lives for doing nothing illegal.  He was an evil opportunist that ruined people strictly for personal political gain.  There is a Socialist Party in this country today.  Do those people who are members of it deserve to have their lives torn apart by some political opportunist of today?

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nice cut out of context Bruce...

          While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage. Recent scholarship has established of 159 persons investigated between 1950 and 1952, there is substantial evidence nine had assisted Soviet espionage using evidence from Venona or other sources. Of the remainder, while not being directly complicit in espionage, many were considered security risks."-

          Security risks were what that committee looked into. So try again.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nine out of 159.  The others were considered risks simply because they had communist connections.  They had done nothing illegal.

            No response on Rasmussen.  No response as to whether or not todays Socialist Party members should have their lives destroyed.

            Who's being selective?

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I responded. Not me putting replies everywhere. Go find it like I do. Think where was the last response at?

              And yes Communist affiliations are a security risk and they should have been removed from the Govt.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What about Hollywood people?  They weren't in the government.  He attacked them, too.

                You aren't answering the questions that are being asked of you.  Do the members of todays Socialist Party deserve to have their lives destroyed like McCarthy did to his contemporaries?

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  NO he did not... that was HUAC, the HOUSE committee, not McCarthy. His committee only went after secutiry leaks, people working for the US Govt.

                  McCarthy was a Senator-, not a Representative HOUSE, he had nothing to do with HUAC. At all!

                  Just as it was Woodrow Wilson in WWI who unlawfully imprisoned people and FDR in WWII who did the same... not McCarthy.

                  And no ones lives were destroyed by McCarthy, not one person other than McCarthy was destroyed.

                  That is HUAC and the Democrats. the Hollywood blacklists were HUAC under Martin Dies, Dem.

                  And as I said there is not one person who was destroyed by McCarthy... none! If fact most of them were embraced by the Socialst/Democrat left and gained in ther standing

                  HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE,

                  "The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) or House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)[1] (1938–1975) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. In 1969, the House changed the committee's name to "House Committee on Internal Security". When the House abolished the committee in 1975,[2] its functions were transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.

                  The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy.[3] McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.[4] McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House."


                  Hollywood blacklist

                  "In 1947, the committee held nine days of hearings into alleged communist propaganda and influence in the Hollywood motion picture industry. After conviction on contempt of Congress charges for refusal to answer some questions posed by committee members, the "Hollywood Ten" were blacklisted by the industry. Eventually, more than 300 artists—including directors, radio commentators, actors and particularly screenwriters—were boycotted by the studios. Some, like Charlie Chaplin, left the U.S. to find work. Others wrote under pseudonyms or the names of colleagues. Only about ten percent succeeded in rebuilding careers within the entertainment industry"

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-A … _Committee

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    1951  The second wave of HUAC hearings begins with McCarthy leading the charge.  Over the next three years McCarthy is a mainstay in the public eye, and he subpoenas some of the most prominent entertainers of the era (e.g. Orson Welles, Lucille Ball, Dashielle Hammett, and Lillian Hellman) before HUAC, demanding "the naming of names."

                    You are badly misinformed about the man.

  10. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    It's all moot there is no government. Obama says the war in Libya is legal. What will the government do about - nothing. There is no government. It is kind of like
    show-trials.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Stalin was great at those, wasn't he. And the NY TIMES, with all their media friends, hid the truth of their being from the American Govt. They claimed Stalin was a great man who was just trying to save his nation from the bad people who wanted to over-throw the "Great Society"... what a laugh! The American Liberal Left and Progressives did all they could to hide Stalin's crimes, and to propagated that Russia was the future of the world... and America should learn from Stalin and his country... again, what a laugh.

      This is not the first time the media and Govt have colluded to dupe the American people nad screw us all.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Stalin was great at those, wasn't he. And the NY TIMES, with all their media friends, hid the truth of their being from the American Govt. They claimed Stalin was a great man who was just trying to save his nation from the bad people who wanted to over-throw the "Great Society"."

        There you go again! Making stuff up. I'll apologize if you can document that statement. It is true that the U.S. welcomed Russia's help in defeating Hitler.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is a well documented fact that the NY Times covered foir Stalin and lied to the American People.

          See here...

          http://hubpages.com/hub/A-Short-History … In-America

          It is a well known fact of history that Durranty and the Times lied over and over to the American People as regarded Stalin and his Russia. Along with so many of the Lefts iconic jounalists of the day.

          What a bunch of losers they were.

          It is simple, Ralph, google Walter Durranty and the New York Times, Stalin's Show trials.

          Plenty of Americans see the lies they have been fed by the Leant Left and Progressives in the last century. A bunch of liars they were and are.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      From what I've read the law isn't clear. But I do agree that the US for some time has been too quick to use the military at great cost in lives and money without justification. The CIA got Bin Laden, not the military.

  11. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    the media and Govt are controlled by the corporate oligarchy. The left is unions and not communists. All government is socialist,
    except where controlled by capitalists. The US oligarchy supported Hitler as a check against communist Russia. It was Stalin who won Word War II, decimating the German armies on the western front.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There you go again, re-writing history.

    2. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Stalin won WWII in that he played all sides and came out on top. So that is a correct statement. WWII was a 3 sided war, and is to often spoke of as a 2 sided war. It was the Allies on one side, Stalin on the other, and both fought against the axis of evil. Jst cause we had similar objectives and FDR loved "Uncle Joe" as if he were family, that didn't make Stalin on our side at all.

  12. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "From what I've read the law isn't clear." The law both nationally and internally is very clear and the wars the US is engaged are illegal. Don't matter there is no law.
    Bin Laden was a CIA creation and operation.
    Notice with the Arab Spring the Libyan theft, the sudden erasure of Bin Laden so a pretend Afghanistan draw-down, because too many wars become so difficult for the media to spin.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That "war powers act", is unConstitutional. The only way to supercede the Constitution is by an ammendment, not a law. So it is illegal and should be called such by the Supreme court... good luck on that though.  So that makes Libya illegal

  13. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Another indicator Obama is in trouble..

    -In the week ending June 18, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 429,000, an increase of 9,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 420,000. The 4-week moving average was 426,250, unchanged from the previous week's revised average of 426,250.

    The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.9 percent for the week ending June 11, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.9 percent.

    The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending June 11 was 3,697,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,698,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,709,500, a decrease of 5,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,714,750.-


    http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

  14. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Sorry Mason ,but with at least a late planned exit from Afghanistan (Where we don't belong anyway) and a release of oil from the reserves to send the fund managers (Parasites) running for the exits,someone in his cabinet has at least one brain cell left.The republicans have who? We need a lot more than promises of tax cuts now.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. You won't see me sticking up for any of the Repuiblican Progressive Establishment and their plans. I have yet to see anyone I will back, unless forced to. But all can see this is a political tactic. And to release our reserves without any discussion at all is not a good thing either. So it may backfire on him yet.

      1. HattieMattieMae profile image68
        HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't really see much improvement either, and most prices have gone up, and in my state of Michigan it's still a problem with not enough jobs for the people. Yet cutting budgets and taking more help away, but not providing jobs. It's a sad world out there in America! If we could just go get a whole new crew and throw them all out this minute! smile lol

      2. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        When congress talked to the oil co. execs, one stated that without the speculators oil would sell at around $68.00

  15. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "When congress talked to the oil co. execs, one stated that without the speculators oil would sell at around $68.00" Got that right.

  16. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    If we began drilling today at full force then the price would drop tomorrow. All we have to do is drill. And before you all say, no no no... think about the Speculators you say are the problem. All they do is speculate on the amount of supply and demand in the coming months. So if it works one way, then it will work the other. Say's Law.

    Our market is based on, Say's Law, and is self correcting. To continue to stimulate it is not the answer. Let it crash and correct itself. It would be alot less pain in the end. What has been going on is nothing more than a managed decline of our economy by those in power. Not only the speculators, but politicians and others, through market minipulations.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Let it crash and correct itself. It would be a lot less pain in the end. What has been going on is nothing more than a managed decline of our economy by those in power. Not only the speculators, but politicians and others, through market manipulations. 

      100%

    2. thebrucebeat profile image60
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is a silly assertion and factually incorrect.  The oil that would be removed from our offshore drilling would belong to the oil companies and be sold on the world market.  All the oil we could produce would not change the total amount of oil available by more than 1-2%, which would not impact global oil prices by much, if at all.  The only thing the U.S. would be getting was the the lease payments on the drill sites.  The oil would not be ours.

      Some reason you didn't reply to my last post?

  17. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    For me I am not worse off, but if this continues, yes I will be.

    we have 0 growth and little hope of it increasing. We have become Europe I believe.

  18. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    I will stick to Rasmussen...

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … cking_poll

    I was reading the powerline article. Here's your rass. Thats in your other thread now.

    1. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Powerline - written by 3 guys who write for the Weekly Standard and are from the Claremont Institute. Yeah...very credible.

  19. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    And like Kaiser Sozay...............

    he was gone.

  20. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    No ones lives were destroyed?!  People committed suicide over these hearings after having their livelihoods stolen from them and their reputations falacitiously destroyed.

    Whoever is sopping your head is grossly whitewashing history.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The HUAC hearing had nothing to do with McCarthy... go read the HOUSE records of the committee. You will not find his name in there.

      house unamerican activities committee (51) unamerican (12)

      http://search.archives.gov/query.html?q … rch+social

      You go read them and tell me where in them you find McCarthy on that committee.

  21. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    http://huac.tripod.com/

    On 9th February, 1950, Joseph McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin, made a speech claiming to have a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party (late he reduced this figure to 57). The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. If screened, McCarthy's own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The members during the 1947 Hollywood Ten hearings were Reps. Parnell (New Jersey), Nixon (California), Vail (Illinois), John McDowell (Pennsylvania), and John S Wood (Georgia).[26] Robert E Stripling was the Chief Investigator[27] and appears on many recordings and transcripts of those hearings.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-A … _Committee

      Again nothing to do with Hollywood blacklists... that was HUAC. If you do not know the difference between a Senator, and a House Representative, then you should not even be discussing the Govt.

      And here is a list of the chairmen... McCarthy chaired his committee...

      House Committee on Un-American Activities: chairmen

      Edward J. Hart, 1945–46
      John Parnell Thomas, 1947–48
      John Stephens Wood, 1949–53
      Harold Himmel Velde, 1953–55
      Francis Walter, 1955–65
      Edwin Edward Willis, 1965–69

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-A … _Committee

      McCarthy was the chairmen of his committee, and he is not there. So give it up. Just like a leftist to blame ole Joe for everything the Dems and Progressives have done.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        McCarthy gave HUAC it's power, by making the issue a front page phenomenon.

        If this man is your hero, your role model, we need to know nothing more about you.  You have said it all.

  22. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[1] laws that would be declared unconstitutional,[2] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[3] or actionable,[4] or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

    From the Wikipedia article you sourced.  Paints McCarthy as an evil, power-obsessed madman.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Right at the top of the article...

      -The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy.[3] McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.[4] McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House.

      Yes as in... "were government employees", HUAC was the blacklist, not McCarthy. I have said he investigated fed employees.

      No one who was before McCarthy's committee ever went to jail. Period. HUAC ruined lives, Private ind. fired people... and some went to jail for perjury before HUAC.

      None before McCarthy's committee went to jail or lost their careers.

      And of course it would, it also says he had nothing to do wioth HUAC.

    2. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      HUAC- "The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee. McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House."

      http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/House … ittee.aspx

      No connection to HUAC! Period!

      Communists in Hollywood

      It has been estimated that from the middle 1930s to the middle 1950s as many as three hundred Hollywood actors, writers, directors, and designers joined the Communist Party. The former secretary of the Southern California Communist Party estimated that membership in the party reached a wartime high of four thousand. When the Soviet Union was allied with the United States during World War II, ultrapatriotic organizations, such as the Hollywood Writers' Mobilization and the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, attracted people from the leftist extreme of the political spectrum. In addition, the emerging leftist theatrical unions in Hollywood, and their calls for higher wages for screenwriters and actors, had a large part in recruiting Hollywood movie people into the Communist Party.

      Backlash

      In 1947 the United States adopted a policy of containment toward the Soviet Union, proposing to stop further Soviet territorial expansion. The change in policy soured U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations and raised wariness about Communists in the United States. In March 1947 Rep. John Rankin, a member of HUAC, called for a cleansing of the film industry. Some HUAC members, such as chairman J. Parnell Thomas, were concerned with possible "Communist propaganda" being injected into Hollywood movies.

      Witch-Hunt

      At hearings before HUAC on 28-30 October 1947, actors, directors, and writers were "investigated" to determine their political leanings in an effort to purge Hollywood of Communists. The list of witnesses included forty-one names, nineteen of whom were classified as unfriendly. The list of witnesses was filled with stars and industry bigwigs: Walt Disney, Gary Cooper, Rod Taylor, and Ronald Reagan, among others. The one question the committee eventually asked each witness was "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"

      The Hollywood Ten

      Ten individuals, including Dalton Trumbo, Ring Lardner, Jr., Lester Cole, and Albert Maltz, refused to answer the question during the hearings. In November 1947 they were cited for contempt of Congress for invoking either their Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination or their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly. They were indicted by a grand jury in December and were found guilty of contempt in April 1948. The convictions were upheld on appeal, and the Supreme Court, following the deaths of two liberal justices (Frank Murphy and Wiley Blount Rutledge were replaced by Tom Clark and Sherman Minton, who both supported the government in Cold War cases), declined to hear the appeal in April 1950. The Hollywood Ten went to federal prison, where they were incarcerated with committee chairman J. Parnell Thomas, who had been convicted of padding the payrolls of his congressional staff.

    3. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy.[3] McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.[4] McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House."

      Did you even read the article? I bet not. Considering it states that clearly right at the top of the article for the people who do not know.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is not in question, Mason.  But the whole movement would have been dead in the water without Joe Barleycorn making headlines and pushing the issue.

        Still no answers.  What are you afraid of?

  23. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    LOL.
    The Chairman went to jail for being an unethical scumbag.  Perfect.  The HUAC wouldn't have made any noise at all without McCarthy grabbing headlines and  making the issue a media frenzy.  He was a despicable self promoting drunk who got exactly what he deserved.

    Are you ever going to answer the question of whether or not you believe the current members of the Socialist Party in the U.S. should be arrested, harrassed, abused, blacklisted?  Ever?

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      HUAC was around for a decade, (1935 on), before McCarthy ever stepped foot in Wash. in 1948. That is a rediculous spin you are trying there. All that

      I say is anyone who has an ideology in conflict with the U.S.Constitution, is inelegible for Federal and State office or employ with the fed or State. Other than that believe as you wish. If they are cought actively subverting our country, or spying, as many were with McCarthy, then you should be emprisoned and ejected from the country when released.

      And I know what your thinking... that list said a few... but that is not all the names McCarthy had and pointed to.

      And did you see that HUAC and McCarthy were not related to one another at all..

      -"The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy.[3] McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.[4] McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House."-

      That is from the article you cherry picked from. Right at the top of the page Bruce... so you cannot miss it if you read the page.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        True, and it had no traction until Joe entered the picture.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thats BS.. that committee had hearing and emprisoned people for 12 years before McCarthy came to town. What a laugh.

          And insults show you lost and cannot come up with any facts to hold your BS story together. First HUAC was McCarthy... then he caused HUAC even though they were 12 years into it when he came along... now it is personal attacks... you leftists never change. Just embrace the fact that your Leftists were the Blacklisters and the career destroyers... NOT McCarthy.

          It was the Democrats who started HUAC, and did all the damage, just like FDR in WWII and his locking up Americans illegally... Just like Woody Wilson and his illegally locking up Americans. Jst like the Dixie-crats of the south democrats they were, and the KKK was the Democrat party's terrorist wing... but no you all do not want to hear that history either. Just go stick your heads back in your holes and hide from the truth.

          You all just cannot handle that the lies cannot hold water. The Leant Left has blamed all their crimes on McCarthy... and you all cannot even accept the truth... cause that means you all have been fools for 70 years.

          Wake up and figure it out. You have been duped.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What insults are you referring to?

            McCarthy created the environment where the overreaching of both the Senate and the House could occur, and he hung himself on his desperate attempt to obtain power.  He died embarrassed and ruined.

            The Democrats don't run and hide from their shaky history.  They learn from it and evolve.  No one is proud of the internment of Japanese/Americans during WWII.  The Dixiecrats caused a split in the party the national party wouldn't tolerate them and broke away.  The Republicans saw a power vacuum and swooped in and gladly embraced the racist vote, and the south has been Red ever since.  The Republicans have had a very hard time shaking the impression that they embraced the racist mentality when it represented an opportunity for political power, while the Democrats drew a line and let that block of voters go, not willing to carry that ideological baggage.
            The history you present is true, but incomplete.  The Democratic party has learned from some of these political errors and evolved.  The Republicans have embraced these same errors, and refined them.

  24. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    It is nice to see you coming out for people with addictions and the gay community, though.  It's sad that he was an uncontrolled drunk and had to live his life in the closet as a gay man due to the attitudes of the times.

    Good for you!

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is funny that in an aera when that hate existed, it was Joseph McCarthy, and McCarthy alone in the Govt., who had a Black man, a homosexual, and a woman on his staff... no one else was as tolorant as he and didn't judge people by their skin color, gender, or sexual preference. McCarthy didn't care who you were, just that you were honest hard working and loived this country. And you all throw his tolerance up like it was evil... shows you true colors...

      And it is so funny how all you tolorant leant leftists accuse him of being a closet gay, as if it is an insult if he was... shows the truth of what you feel about gays.

      here read the real histoiry of HUAC in their own records.

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/08/huac.html

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I for one find it terribly sad that he had to live a life in the closet and feel ashamed of who he was.  It undoubtedly had an effect on  his becoming an unrecovered alcoholic who died from the disease.  It was witch hunters like himself who would have turned their pitchforks toward him had they known who he really was behind closed doors.

        Do you think Cohn was an honest, good-hearted, tolerant good guy?

        As for hiring gays, Joe felt untouchable because the ungovernable J.Edgar Hoover was feeding him information and doing the illegal investigations that made Joe possible.  But you know that.

  25. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    Still no answer as to whether the current Socialist Party members should be abused like in the '50's?

  26. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
    So I guess you got going.
    Seeya.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      read my reply above it states clearly the answer to your question.

      Stop playing games... that answer has been there for... well lets just post the reply and it can speak for itself...


      30
      TMMasonposted 78 minutes ago in reply to this


      HUAC was around for a decade, (1935 on), before McCarthy ever stepped foot in Wash. in 1948. That is a rediculous spin you are trying there. All that

      I say is anyone who has an ideology in conflict with the U.S.Constitution, is inelegible for Federal and State office or employ with the fed or State. Other than that believe as you wish. If they are cought actively subverting our country, or spying, as many were with McCarthy, then you should be emprisoned and ejected from the country when released.

      And I know what your thinking... that list said a few... but that is not all the names McCarthy had and pointed to.

      And did you see that HUAC and McCarthy were not related to one another at all..

      -"The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy.[3] McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.[4] McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House."-

      That is from the article you cherry picked from. Right at the top of the page Bruce... so you cannot miss it if you read the page.

      Your just another game playing Leant Leftists... you got your answer then ignored it and accuse me of not answering.

      What a joke... you and tex make a good pair.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What does "Leant" mean?

        Should members of todays Socialist Party be brought before a Congressional Committee and answer McCarthy's question, "Are you now or have you ever been affilliated with the Socialist Party"?  That is all people were accused of by McCarthy.  That was all that was necessary.  Would that be ok with you?

        McCarthy pointed at others, but only nine people were actually accused of espionage.  Nine.  His list of 250 people dwindled to a little over 50 when he had to actually bring any evidence.

        To me this is like coming on here and saying Bernie Madoff is your role model.  How humiliating.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That was out of one of the list he put forth. hahahaa your too funny bruce and the answer is right above you... learn to read, not just act like you are.

          here is just a few that are known to KGB actives and Fellow-travelers from Vennona and KGB records...

          Mary Jane Keeney, a United Nations employee, and her husband Philip Keeney, who worked in the Office of Strategic Services;[28]
          Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;[29]

          Virginius Frank Coe [30], Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;

          William Ludwig Ullman [31], delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;

          Nathan Gregory Silvermaster [32], Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;

          Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;

          Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;

          Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board;

          Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong;

          Robert T. Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;[33]

          Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives;

          Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; [34]

          Leonard Mins, [35] Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the Office of Strategic Services;

          Cedric Belfrage [36], British Security Coordination; founder the National Guardian.

          Gerald Graze, U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the

          Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
          Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov, Daily Worker; [37]

          David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

          Robert Warren Barnett & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;[42]

          Esther Brunauer, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;[43]

          Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;[44]

          Gertrude Cameron, Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;[45][46]

          Nelson Chipchin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;[47]
          Oliver Edmund Clubb, U.S. State Department;[48]

          John Paton Davies, U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;[49]

          Gustavo Duran, U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;[50]

          Arpad Erdos, U.S. State Department;[51]

          Herbert Fierst, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;[52][53][54]

          John Tipton Fishburn, U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;[55]

          Theodore Geiger, U.S. State Department;[56]

          Stella Gordon, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45[57]

          1. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What does "Leant" mean?

            You have not answered the question.  Wait.  Maybe you have.  You are saying "no", that shouldn't have been done.  That is not enough to bring people in front of a committee and humiliate and taunt and destroy them.  There needs to be more evidence than that.  You are saying what he did was appalling and wrong and an attack on all that is most beautifully American.  What you said above was that if people were risks to the country they should be investigated, but you are not willing to say the current members of the Socialist Party pose any risk to this country.

            You are out of the closet!  You are condemning what Crazy Joe did!  Oustanding!

            Of your list, how many were convicted of anything?

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree HUAC shouldn't have done what they did.

              McCarthy did not do that BS you and your leant leftist friends accuse himn of

              Here are a partial list of guilty people McCarthy dealt with. And again he was no part of your Leftist HUAC.

              That was out of one of the list he put forth. Here is just a few that are known to KGB actives and Fellow-travelers from Vennona and KGB records...

              Mary Jane Keeney, a United Nations employee, and her husband Philip Keeney, who worked in the Office of Strategic Services;[28]
              Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;[29]

              Virginius Frank Coe [30], Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;

              William Ludwig Ullman [31], delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;

              Nathan Gregory Silvermaster [32], Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;

              Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;

              Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;

              Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board;

              Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong;

              Robert T. Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;[33]

              Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives;

              Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; [34]

              Leonard Mins, [35] Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the Office of Strategic Services;

              Cedric Belfrage [36], British Security Coordination; founder the National Guardian.

              Gerald Graze, U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the

              Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
              Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov, Daily Worker; [37]

              David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

              Robert Warren Barnett & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;[42]

              Esther Brunauer, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;[43]

              Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;[44]

              Gertrude Cameron, Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;[45][46]

              Nelson Chipchin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;[47]
              Oliver Edmund Clubb, U.S. State Department;[48]

              John Paton Davies, U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;[49]

              Gustavo Duran, U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;[50]

              Arpad Erdos, U.S. State Department;[51]

              Herbert Fierst, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;[52][53][54]

              John Tipton Fishburn, U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;[55]

              Theodore Geiger, U.S. State Department;[56]

              Stella Gordon, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45[57]

              Stanley Graze, U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;[58]

              Ruth Marcia Harrison, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;[59]

              Myron Victor Hunt, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;[60]

              Philip Jessup, U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;[61]

              Dorothy Kenyon, New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;[62]

              Leon Hirsch Keyserling, President Harry Truman's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;[63]

              Mary Dublin Keyserling, U.S. Department of Commerce;[64]

              Esther Less Kopelewich, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;[65]

              Owen Lattimore, Board member of the communist-dominated Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal Pacific Affairs;[66]

              Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee, U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;[67]

              Val R. Lorwin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;[68]

              Daniel F. Margolies, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;[69] [70]

              Peveril Meigs, U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;[71]

              Ella M. Montague, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;[72]

              Philleo Nash, Presidential Advisor, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations;[73][74][75]

              Olga V. Osnatch, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;[76]

              Edward Posniak, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;[77]

              Philip Raine, U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;[78][79][80][81]

              Robert Ross, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;[82]

              Sylvia Schimmel, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;[83][84][85][86]

              Frederick Schumann, contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;[87]

              John S. Service, U.S. State Department;[88]

              Harlow Shapley, U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;[89]

              William T. Stone, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;[90]

              Frances M. Tuchser, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;[91]

              John Carter Vincent, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;[92]

              David Zablodowsky, U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;[93]

              Oh yeah just a few and that isn't even all of them, so get real.

              And that is nothing, you should see the treason your great Democrat/Socialist Leant Leftist buddies and the Progressive Right have commited. Someone should hang for it... traitors, all of them.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So you don't think the Socialists should be bothered?  You don't think investigating ties with with that is enough to investigate people for?
                McCarthy did.  He used illegally obtained information to attack people with.  He was a criminal.

                What does "Leant" mean?

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It is when they are Govt. employees. Yes. And that is what McCarthy did, Govt employees. And his information came from the FBI, CIA, and records of the State Dept and other agencies. Nothing illegal about that. Excuses excuses... just like a leant leftist.

                  What about the list...no comment eh? I figured. Speaks volumes.

                  Here is a dictionary... you are aware of how to use one right? I shouldn't have to look it up for you?

                  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leant

                  And note the comment at the bottom of the page for the definition.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I looked it up.  It makes no sense in the context you use it in.

                    Why do you call HUAC leftist?  It was split between Republicans and Democrats.  That's simply spin.

  27. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago

    Leant Leftist doesn't mean anything.  It's not a term on the internet.

    Bit puzzling.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The internet is how you define and determine if a word, phrase or term is valid? wow...

      It means your a leftist, leant is used as a generalization... cause you all lean to the left by different degrees.

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
        Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that's how I would look up an expression I have never heard before.  So, it's something you invented?  Cool.

        Does it mean he leans or has previously leant.  And could you be a Leant Rightist?

        Pretty cool though to make up your own words like that.  Respect man.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Leant rightists, just doesn't have the ring "Leant Leftists" does. And yes it is a TM original, I have even sent for the copy-right to it. As I sadi it is a generalization of them... they all lean left... it is just a matter of degrees.

          I will be seliling t shirts, cause I am a capitalist after all, that will say, "Proud Leant Leftist", and,  "Leant Left 4 Life"  "Leant left", and alot more as I make them up... I love capitalism.

          It would be ironic if I made mad loot from it, don't ya think.

          And thank you.

          I didn't mean to snap at you back there... been gettin ran around for about 4 hours though and wasn't keep'n track anymore of who was who.

          My avatar tend to make the Leant Leftists see red and scream in anger... lol I love it.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            When you do your research you'll find out you can't copywrite a word.  Writers already know this.

            Please put your life savings into your new venture.  You will be broke in a week.  It does show that your real allegiance is to money, as you would be willing to help your ideological enemies show their pride in their position for the love of a buck.  But they won't buy it, as the phrase is non-sensical and the libs will know it immediately.  Try "Leant Right".  They may not pick it up.  LOL!

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am not copy-righting a "word". I am copy-righting the phrase, "Leant Leftist", and the plural and a few mixes, big difference. And you can copy-right a phrase. If you were a writer you would know that.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You can trademark it.  Copywrite is something different.  Please don't go there with the writer thing.  I can prove my published history.  Your spelling and grammar precede you.  Start with looking up "copywrite".

                1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                  thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Goodnight.  Going to watch a movie with a warm, live body.  Enjoy your internet relationships.  Later.

  28. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    Going to dinner, little man.

    Rant on!  Your followers are depending on you to make sense. Good luck!

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yes, bow out... and I know your such a big man. lol

      And what doesn't make sense is continuing to repeat lies that can be shown to be lies from the actual records as though you can wish them into truth.

      You cherry pick a comment that lists a bunch of individuals and then apply it to McCarthy. Yet you skip the very first paragraph that states in no uncertain terms that McCarthy had NOTHING to do with HUAC.

      You all  just cannot handle that your Democrats caused all the horrors you blame on McCarthy. God forbid you have to recognize the truth and your lil dellusions come crashing down.

      What a joke...

      1. thebrucebeat profile image60
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What you continue to re-assert has already been acknowledged.  Look it up.  It's only a few comments back.  What you can acknowledge is the whole thing wouldn't have gotten ginned up if McCarthy wasn't such a publicity whore.  He was seeking power, not a pure government.  Cohn was his hit man, Hoover his eyes and ears, doing blatantly illegal investigations and passing on the information to Drunk Joe to use in the most vile ways possible.  This was a sick, twisted, vicious man who self destructed on his own appetites.

        No running away here.  Just have real people in my life to!  Dinner with her was lovely.  Thanks for asking.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The information was already there and collected by the FBI and others. Some of it would have been inadmissable in a court of law, but the committee is not a court of law and does not run on the same rules of evidence as a court of law.

          What you seem to fail to understand is that the Left and Progressive have blown McCarthy and what he did up to a point of legendary, just to cover their own crimes and treason.

          The hit job was done by Murrow and Millard tydings to cover up their, the Dems, appointing traitors into positions of power and influence and where they could write American foriegn policy.

          McCarthy was and still is the ultimate escape goat. You may not like the man personally... but in the end he was right about everyone he pointed to. And the evidence is now in the public eye to show that fact. And as I keep saying, more and more Americans are learnig the truth about it everyday.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you believe Joe was the fall guy for a major conspiracy of democratic operatives and the the media to turn the country to communism?
            Wow.
            Wow.
            Just wow.

          2. thebrucebeat profile image60
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Just so you know:

            "Legendary" is an adjective, not a noun.

            There is no such thing as an "escape goat".

            "Tydings" is not a word.

            All of your posts can be corrected like this.  Are you going to repeatedly use the excuse that this is another term you are making up?  Will you "copy-right" these as well?

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Tydings" is a name... ? roll your kddin me right Bruce? ie; Millard tydings, Democrat... look him up and learn.

              So you have summed and put on display your own lack of knowledge and comprehension in that question.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Most people capitalize proper names.  Has there been a change that I'm not aware of?

                1. DannyMaio profile image62
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You were schooled! I know it is hard for a know it all to accept but you were clearly schooled.

                  Your tedious remarks show you do not even have a good answer.

                  Go get that live body again, You were schooled!

          3. DannyMaio profile image62
            DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Mason, You schooled his know it all a$$! Him and Tex are the biggest mouths that think they know it all. You clearly showed facts and referenced all links. Look back before the 2010 election and see how they thought they were going to do well and got their A$$ handed to them! watch again in 2012, Obama will go down, The guy doesn't have a clue! Isn't it funny how Obama makes major Gaffes and you never hear about them in the media? He screwed up with the names of a dead medal winner. If this was Palin they would have crucified her. The socialist left is a joke!

            How come this so called socialist party is not out in the open? Is it because if most Americans actually knew about it the would have no chance to get elected.

            Capitalism is what made this country great if these fools want socialism they should go to Greece!

            Good Job with the big mouth. Did you also notice how he had to put your spelling and grammar down, He had nothing!

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanx, bro. Gave ma a headache though. It was like teaching a preschool class.

              1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The preschool class would use the language better than you do.

  29. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Doesn'that mean that 56%, the majority,  are better off?

  30. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    Poll: 44% of Americans Worse Off Under Obama

    Jan 2009 Barak  ‘’I’’ Obama  takes the office of the presidency with a super Democrat majority control of Congress. The Democrats have 100% control of the government and the promises of Senator Obama, presidential candidate. Prior to Obama winning the presidency he was in Congress , the Democrats had majority control of Congress since  Jan 2007.
    In 2006 unemployment was 4.6% in Jan 2009 it was 6.5% and today it is 9.1%. In 2009 unemployment of blacks was 8%, today it is 16%.Today, there are 14 million out of work,43,000 citizens on food stamps, gasoline over $5.00/ gal. ( California ),food prices  up 25%, meat prices up 20%, value of housing market down 25%,insurance rates increasing 15% , the value of the dollar losing 20% and inflation on the horizon. Let’s not forget at a cost of $1 + trillion and a increase of $3.5 trillion in the national debt.

    The polls are ALL POLITICAL BS  depending on how the poll is worded and by who is conducting the poll. The Obama Administration has been over 40% wrong in their projections. The CBO continues to revise previous reports due to incorrect and over ambitious reporting by the Obama group.

    The Obama presidency is ALL smoke and mirrors, what he says to the public in many cases is just the opposite  of what the Obama Administration is doing.

    Anyone who believes that the people are better off today than in Jan 2009 are either FOOLS or BUFFOONS.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We are better off, because we are recuperating from that criminal regime.
      ...That reverse Robin-Hood way of governing.
      It takes a lot of pain to erase 30 years of highway robbery. Too bad everyone must suffer for the ones who did the robbing.

      8 years of Buscho did 100 years of damage.
      And the people who want to go back to it are the fools and buffoons, imo.

      1. JON EWALL profile image47
        JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Lovemychris
        STILL BLAMING BUSH
        The first 6 years of Bush and a Republican Congress wasn't too bad. The last 2 years of Bush with a majority Democrat controlled Congress helped turn things around, not for the good but for what you blame Bush for. The recession started in Dec 2007, it didn’t take the Dems too long to screw things up.
        The Bush caused  recession ended in June 2009.
        The way the .gov websites  report ( propaganda ) everything is great, the president is doing great and the economy is getting better. The only problems that Barak Obama and the Democrats haven’t resolved is how to get unemployment under control, stopping uncontrolled spending and record DEFICITS.
        LET’S give the Democrats credit for something since they have had 2/3s control of the government since 2007 up to today,6/28/11.

  31. Dublin profile image60
    Dublinposted 5 years ago

    Here in Ireland I can say with certainty 100% of people are worse off following 14 years of corrupt government led by Fianna Fail (political party, now evaporated after general election) Praise the Lord smile

  32. Johnathan L Groom profile image60
    Johnathan L Groomposted 5 years ago

    I have written several 'hubs' on this topic.  Mr. Obama is the last of the butter in a bowl of Country Crock!

    -Johnathan-

  33. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Lets move down here...

    Simple English.

    I am tired of having to search for replies because this page will not go to last post. I am just trying to save time and effort here... post where you want, I will find it when I get to it.

    1. John Holden profile image62
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What Danny says.

      This post is notable because it sees one of the few times when Danny and I will agree!

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually I just got back on the site cause when I hit that button it said... "HTTP 500 Internal Server Error" so that was a 15 minute experience.

        But yes... much better. Thank you, Danny.

        1. John Holden profile image62
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't even get an error message, just a blank screen!

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thank God... i don't feel so alone now. I thought it was just me.

        2. DannyMaio profile image62
          DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No problem, I knew that would help!

          And just for the record, John the socialist actually told me about that. So Thank you John.

  34. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    I am out... bad storms here and I don't want to have to get another comp. See you all later.

  35. DannyMaio profile image62
    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago

    Hey I like the way that sounds. It is similar to john the baptist.

    Your new name.

    JOHN THE SOCIALIST.

    1. Johnathan L Groom profile image60
      Johnathan L Groomposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think the point is that Mr. Obama, is running in 2012, doesn't have a strong following and will cripple under the pressures of American ideals.  The Republican party is in drought, and the Democrats are looking like bthe Beaurocratic Party.  An Independent may look better, but wouldn't be better for the country.  We HubPages writers should join together and create the Democratic Hub Party, or DHP, to run in unicon in the 2012 elections!  (I am not the pres... but I'd make a great cabinet leader of Vice...)!

      1. Johnathan L Groom profile image60
        Johnathan L Groomposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        *if not is

  36. Johnathan L Groom profile image60
    Johnathan L Groomposted 5 years ago

    We should the public a mild congratulations too!  We've noticed the Mr. Obama administration's lack of policy as a group!  The Democrats' blue still flies, but it will need a kick in the rear before it can achieve anything...

    1. DannyMaio profile image62
      DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The only thing they are trying to achieve is destroying America.

      The man is no leader. His policies are horrible and surrounds himself with socialist and Marxist. That should tell you something.

      The left is trying to spin as hard as they can, It didn't work in the last election and now that he has a record it will be even worse.

  37. Johnathan L Groom profile image60
    Johnathan L Groomposted 5 years ago

    Socialism...maybe.  The elections represent a somewhat social ideal (2 parties + limited).  Marxist, not really.  Although we enforce forms of Marxist policy, the president himself cannot embody Marxism, because, as far off as it is and has been, the president supposedly represents the American people, which is growing more and more untrue everyday!

    -johnathan-

    *The key thing to note here is 'supposed to.'  smile

  38. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    Johnathan L Groom

    PRESIDENT OBAMA represents big unions, wallstreet and big big business. The poor are getting poorer, the middle class is becoming the poor and small business is no where in sight.

    Looking back oh his previous promises and pledges to change America, we now know the change was not for the betterment of our country.
    Obama held a press conference today. As usual he blamed Congress for not ''getting things done''. He came up with the same old promises on how Congress needs to raise the National debt. The Obama administration still don't get it on how to change the economy around.For starters try Less regulation on business, lower tax rates and stop federal waste spending.

  39. Johnathan L Groom profile image60
    Johnathan L Groomposted 5 years ago

    Thank you TheWorldNow!

  40. Johnathan L Groom profile image60
    Johnathan L Groomposted 5 years ago

    The Curb + I:  The Art of the Homeless

 
working