In 2001, the economy was already about to go into mild recession (the dot.com bust) and then 9/11 happened. After that we we had solid growth and lower unemployment until the housing bust. That was partially due to too easy money by the fed and gov’t eagerness to encourage home ownership.

A better comparison is plotting 1981 vs 2009 recession as measured from peak unemployment. During the Reagan years, the peak unemployment was worse 10.8% vs 10.2%, but under the current circumstances unemployment is far more stubborn. To be comparable to the Reagan recovery unemployment would have to be 7.5% now rather than 9.1%. Moreover, the Reagan recovery had to occur under the head winds of extreme high inflation and interest rates.

Obama and his administration are not liberal. The stimulus was inadequate and poorly managed, much of the funds have yet to be invested.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/S8cW4-njIRI/AAAAAAAABGo/A0Z7DWoJQfk/s1600/Clipboard01.bmp

While the economy left by Bush jr is much worse than that left by Bush the elder, the challenges are the same. Obama could have passed a sane budget as Clinton did in 93 with 50 votes and Al Gore. Instead he continued the Bush tax cuts and the Bush policy of giving free money to bankers.

I hope the charts show up.

While they might want to fall back on the “protecting a source” rubric, it would seem
that if they were used to further a criminal conspiracy, they ought to a ) have an ethical
obligation to help expose the fraud; and b ) want to distance themselves
and restore their own reputation (such as it is) as truthful journalists.

Governor Palin is a courageous person, no doubt. In view of her massive following, if she would simply, briefly, tweet about the upcoming case before the US Supreme Court next week, it would change the course of American history.

November 23, 2010 marks a fork in the road for the future of America of more than historic proportions — perhaps on par with events leading to the Civil War. To date, virtually all federal and state courts where actions have been brought seeking decision on the meaning of the Constitution’s Article 2 “natural born citizen” clause as a prerequisite for Barack Obama to be a lawful President and Commander in Chief of the United States (Mr. Obama having been born to a father of British/Kenyan nationality and father not a citizen of the United States), have been shut down, never getting beyond the issue of standing. To date, courts have very strategically (narrowly if not artfully) characterized and applied law and legal procedure steadfastly to prevent the question from ever rising to the merits — this on a host of different types and classes of plaintiffs, causes and defendants — admittedly under the most intensely implicit (if not more) pressure to do the same.

The national media (some say our 4th branch of government) has aided and abetted the avoidance by mischaracterizing this as a “Hawaii birth” a/k/a “birther” issue which is nothing more than a “red herring” in that the issue for Article 2 “natural born citizen” is Mr. Obama’s father. Moreover, the legal community has aided and abetted the avoidance by mischaracterizing the 1898 Supreme Court Case, Wong Kim Arc, which dealt with the meaning of “citizenship”, not the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article 2.

November 23, 2010 may very well be the last chance for the Judicial Branch realistically to take up the issue, this on a case of legal standing solidly presented by Attorney Apuzzo and Commander Kerchner. If the Court finds no standing here, by a narrow interpretation of the same or otherwise, coming after all the rest of the “no standing” cases, it is doubtfull this important Constitutional issue can and will be resolved in any court of law. The question will nevertheless continue to fester, at tremendous national cost, never to abate, potentially to reach crisis stage, and in any event to undermine the structure of our Constitutional Republic.

It is more than chilling and says volumes that NOT ONE member of Congress will publicly speak on this or, better yet, since the Congress of the United States has more than a vested interest, opine if not as a “friend of the court” at the Supreme Court, in the court of public opinion — BEFORE the Supreme Court convenes on November 23, 2010.

The world is (should be) watching!

Here are some findings of Pew Research Center’s Global Attitude Project ( in association with the International Herald Tribune – July 2010 ) :

 There is a pronounced gap between a belief in the equality of the sexes and how that translates into reality.

 In China, India, Indonesia and Jordan, equal-rights supporters think, most of the adjustments necessary to establish equality have already been made.

 In nations ( Europe / USA ) where equal rights are already mandated, women seem stymied by a lack of real progress.

 More than 50% in 10 of 22 countries said that when jobs are scarce, they should go to men.

Surely they have not read the survey conducted by Psychology Professor Keith Laws ( University of Hertfordshire ), which found that girls are better than boys when it comes to multi-tasking !

May be my 2 unemployed grand-daughters have still some hope !

With regards

hemen parekh

www.CustomizeResume.com

Jobs for All = Peace on Earth

Thank you for your post. You make very clear why Liberals have not yet come to grips with the protesters at the town hall meetings.

Check out the first link in my post and you will see Pelosi praising disruptions when they came from the Left. It is only Conservatives that she has problems with it. I am sure you can find people who go over the edge — certainly that happens in any situation that causes passion — but the protesters are by-and-large concerned citizens.

The emphasis on the “birthers” is just a diversion on your part. No mainstream Conservative institutions support that idea and many of them have said so publicly (See National Review). It reminds me of the “truthers” who thought Bush planned 9/11. To suggest that a dominant or significant portion of the people who oppose the current suggested changes in health care system are doing so out of racist reasons is not supported by the evidence.

You are right that 34% of the people (according to the Gallup poll) became more sympathetic with the town hall protesters, but you failed to point out that only 21% became less sympathetic, and the rest did not change their opinion or had no opinion. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/122276/Town-Hall-Meetings-Generate-Interest-Sympathy.aspx) So taken as a whole, there was a 13% shift in opinion. By national polling standards this is dramatic. President Obama approval rating is now about 50%, depending on the poll consulted. He would certainly consider it a significant change if his approval went up to 63% or fell to 37%.

As a matter of partisan politics, I suppose I should encourage Democrats to continue to insult these people, but that would not be best for the country so I won’t.

That is untrue and you know it. What they wrote was, “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.” You owe Pelosi and Hoyer an apology.

Indeed, average people are more sympathetic with the protesters, since the protests began.

But the poll you cited shows that only 34 percent of Americans are more sympathetic to the protestors. Most of them are Republicans or tend to lean Conservative to begin with.

There was even the ugly suggestion that opposition to the Obama health care plan in rooted in racism against the president.

Have you forgotten Rep. Mike Castle’s town hall, where he was shouted down by a woman who claimed that President Obama is not a citizen? Undoubtedly, some of the people at these protests believe that Obama was not born in the U.S. Yesterday’s edition of The News and Observer carried a front-page photograph of a health-care protest outside the office of Senator Kay Hagan. One of the signs in the crowd read, “WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”.

Apparently, you find it acceptable for conservatives to engage in rowdy behavior for which you would condemn liberals. It’s this sort of hypocritical snobbery I sometimes find in your columns that makes it hard for me to take conservatives seriously.

1) “A Bailout for the People: Dividend Economics and the Basic Income Guarantee” presented at 8th Congress of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network. Available as PDF
http://www.richardccook.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cook-bailoutforthepeoplepublished-feb31.pdf

2) NASA Announces Plan To Launch $700 Billion Into Space
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47977

What is your opinion?

Best regards,

Marco Saba