I-495 Closure Update



WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Open Friday / Weekend Forum

So what's on your mind here at the end of the week?

Christine O'Donnell addressed a crowd at a Sussex County fundraiser for state Senate candidate Eric Bodenweiser, who defeated incumbent Joe Booth in the September 11th G.O.P. primary. Bodenweiser praised O'Donnell as a "heavy hitter". The talk about Christian values and principles at this gathering again underscored the split within the Delaware G.O.P. between upstate and downstate Republicans. Christine O'Donnell has already suggested she's looking at another Senate bid in two years.



Sunoco will give new life to its moribund refinery in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania -- just north of the DE/PA line -- by processing natural gas liquids from fracking. They'll have to revamp much of the infrastructure. Up to 450 jobs. Jobs vs. potential environmental ills.



Bank of America recently sent a letter to all of its employees, saying it would close its child-care centers offered to workers around the country, including Delaware, by June. Those child-care benefits were the legacy of the then Wilmington-based MBNA America Bank under founder Charles Cawley. Different times. Different culture. The pity is that this sort of thing destroys the psychological bond that once united a company and its workers.



Mitt Romney appears at a big-money breakfast fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday morning; then appears at a Republican rally at Valley Forge Military Academy & College in Wayne, Pennsylvania -- even though Pennsylvania looks increasingly out of reach for Romney.



According to new state polls by The WASHINGTON POST and the Kaiser Family Foundation: "Voters in three critical swing states (Florida, Ohio, & Virginia) broadly oppose the far-reaching changes to Medicare associated with the Republican Presidential ticket and, by big margins, prefer President Obama to handle the issue. For seniors in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, Medicare rivals the economy as a top voting issue. And by majorities topping 70 percent, seniors say they prefer to keep Medicare as a program with guaranteed benefits, rather than moving to a system in which the government gives recipients fixed payments to buy coverage from private insurers or traditional Medicare, as Romney advocates.

Among all voters, the desire to keep the system as it is peaks at 65 percent in Florida, where more than one in five Americans who voted in 2008 were 65 and older.

Generally, the more voters focus on Medicare, the more likely they are to support Obama's bid for re-election."

Later in the article:

"Now, the challenges for Romney in the aftermath of the Ryan selection are becoming clear.

Although Obama faces his own problems among voters over health care, the fresh attention to Medicare appears to be blunting the negative fallout from his 2010 health-care reform law..."

The Romney Campaign faults the poll for not telling respondents that Romney has promised NOT to change Medicare for Americans older than 55. Fair point, but senior citizens voting won't get a prompt on that point as they cast their ballots. And some of those who are AWARE of that distinction still don't trust Romney and the Republicans.



From The HILL: "Mitt Romney has muddied his message on the GOP's signature issue of taxes at a time of growing frustration in the party about the direction of his campaign.

Now struggling in the polls, the Republican nominee said this week that President Obama had not raised taxes and downplayed the tax relief in his own proposal. Both statements left some on the right dumbfounded..."



A new poll from FOX News: President Obama enjoys a stable, 5-point national lead over Mitt Romney, 48% to 43%. However, a plurality of voters now disapprove of the President's handling of Libya. But the Libyan issue failed to move voters overall.


Veteran political strategist Charlie Cook writes in NATIONAL JOURNAL: "If the Presidential race stays on its current course for another week or 10 days, Romney faces the very real prospect that Republican donors, super PACs, and other parts of the GOP support structure will begin to shift resources away from helping him and toward a last-ditch effort to win a Senate majority -- which once seemed very likely -- and to protect the party's House majority..." Echoes of what happened to Bob Dole in 1996.


Looks ominous for Romney. But a Republican New Castle County councilman I saw Thursday night at a County chamber function at the Chase Center at the Wilmington Riverfront told me -- Let's wait for the unemployment numbers in October.

(Speaking of that County chamber event, I saw Democratic New Castle County Executive nominee Tom Gordon and Democratic County Council President nominee Rev. Chris Bullock working the room. Looks like Gordon is raring to go! But in other circles, worries about Gordon persist.)



Imagery should matter NOT at all, but it can make or break a candidate in politics: In Springfield, Virginia, Thursday, a Mitt Romney supporter handed the candidate a baby for a photo op. The infant immediately burst into tears. Unfortunately for Romney, this is NOT the first time such a thing has happened. It's all over the tabloids.



This also should not matter at all, but two UCLA researchers have found Republican female politicians look more "feminine" than Democratic female politicians. But contrary to the researchers' expectations, Democratic politicians looked more masculine than their G.O.P. counterparts...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209635/Republican-female-politicians-feminine-Democrats-according-study.html?ito=feed




Posted at 10:01am on September 28, 2012 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

EarlGrey
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 11:47am
Scott Rasmussen’s weekly newspaper column shows that the debates are not likely to change the Presidential race much, although even a small change could be decisive. At this point, Rasmussen has Obama at 47% and Romney at 46%...looks like this race could end in a "photo finish"...hopefully no hanging chads or missing ballots in car trunks.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

EarlGrey
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 11:51am
I'm also curious how the photo ID proof to vote will effect Pennsylvania this year for the Democrats. Didn't that just pass this year?

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 1:39pm
This voter ID issue kind of makes the case for all LEGAL Americans to have to have at least a state-issued ID, even if they don't drive. Most folks are against having to have a Federal ID. My wife doesn't drive and she has a Delaware ID; it looks a lot like a Driver's License with all the other same info including a photo, other than it says in big letters NOT a Drivers License. This shouldn't be such a big deal, but apparently many Democrats don't drive or have an ID. The problem is that this came up with not much time to implement, since it's never been required to have a legal ID to vote, it does look suspicious. This voter ID thing does have the appearance of being a tool for the GOP to keep potential DEM voters from getting to vote (kind of like the literacy tests the South used to use to keep Blacks from voting back in the days of Jim Crow - they had to answer questions about something like Nuclear Physics or Chinese. The point is, it kept many blacks, if not all in the South, from getting to vote.

With the large number of ILLEGAL Mexicans in this nation the possibility of voter fraud has greatly increased, so the idea of doing this is a good one, but it probably should wait until after this election. Because IF Romney wins, the DEMS will be accusing the GOP of stealing this election due to the voter ID issue, much as they did with the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000 (I've got Lib/DEM friends who still rant about that election and the Supreme Court.)


teatime
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 2:02pm
Sure, Romney claims he won't change Medicare for those over age 55, but what about for all of us under age 55?

It's becoming increasing clear that Romney has a disdain, a disregard, and disrespect for working-class Americans. In his own words, he doesn't care about the 47 percent of working-class people...and a Romney Presidency would reflect exactly that attitude.

What's ironic is that the 47 percent he disparages are the hardest working Americans, those who climb out of bed at 5 a.m. to go a job, and then maybe a second job.

Romney has "no personal responsibility" as neither he nor his wife have held a job since 1998.

EarlGrey
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 4:13pm
...so who are you going to vote for Teatime? Gary Johnson?

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 6:30pm
Medicare and Social Security. Romney has said he'd not change those programs for folks 55 and older. Yet, I've talked with folks under 55 who don't want either plan messed with as they too have been paying into the system and want it there when their turn comes around. The GOP really hates Social Security, because it is a DEM plan, via FDR and his New Deal program that people really like, and it has worked quite well since the first payments went out in 1936. Same with Medicare from DEM Prez Johnson around 1964-66 as part of his Great Society program.

The GOP's idea of taking people's money that would normally go into Social Security and "investing it" in the Stock Market so that becomes their retirement money rather than getting a Social Security check, frightens many middle-aged folks under 55 who have more maturity than the 20-somethings who still believe they've got the world on a string and that they - being so much smarter than anyone else - will make millions in the market. So yes, Obama will gain votes with his solid DEM view of preserving Social Security and Medicare. This is a losing issue for the GOP, but GOP'ers just don't get that and keep trying to eliminate two of the most popular programs the government offers, all because they are DEM programs.

People will vote their wallets. People don't trust the GOP to preserve Social Security or Medicare as for years they've rallied against these popular programs. Now Mitt gets caught saying stuff he shouldn't have said about folks who are collecting some sort of benefit from the government be they welfare folks, or folks on Social Security.

His numbers included the hard-working old folks who are already retired who've worked for 40+ years paying into these systems so they could have them when they retired. Also folks who were laid-off and needed the safety net to feed their families as they've been looking for a job. His disdain for the working-class may have turned a number of those "Reagan Democrats" into "Obama Republicans".

Being snooty is not too smart, especially when he himself has benefited from government programs such as the lower tax rate on investments vs. pay for actual labor. So he should include himself in that statistic, because he's paying less tax due to the government giving him a helping hand, so why get all puffed-up and proud, and bash the rest of us who are just working stiffs? Bad move. He's coming across like the GOP version of John Kerry, very elitist, snobby, and quite full of himself. You see how well that worked for John Kerry in 2004.

The debates are Romney's last chance to etch out a victory. I've liked Mitt from the beginning, but to be frank, I'm not as sold on him as I was before. That elitist stuff really gets my hackles up. FDR was wealthy, but yet there was a man who had a heart for the working class person. Mitt apparently doesn't have that same heart for the little guy that FDR had. It sure seems like Mitt is saying he'll only really be the Prez for fat cats like Limbaugh, and the rest of the Upper 2%? What was he thinking, ticking off the rest of the 98%. He needs more than 2% to win the election. He's really stepped in it.

Well, we'll just have to see what he says in the debates. Maybe he can patch up his Titanic before his ship sinks. Hopefully he's not going to just move the deck chairs around watching his ship (election bid for Prez) sink. Who would have thought that given this lousy economy, high unemployment rates that have dogged Obama, etc., that Obama is sitting pretty and has an improving chance that seems to go up day-by-day of winning this election?

This will be a nailbiter to the end, but Mitt better get his act together real fast.

teatime
Sat, Sep 29, 2012 3:19pm

So what should be the debate strategies going into Wednesday night's debates?

It would be interest to see if Obama tries to leverage the 47 percent comment to put Romney on the defensive, or get him to explain why, by his own admission, he only cares for half of all Americans? So far, Obama has been rather restrained on the 47 percent comment and just allowed the media to lambaste Romney on this.

Certainly, if he gets the chance in the debate, Obama will question how giving tax breaks to millionaires helps working class people who are unemployed.

Romney will likely hammer the president on the poor economy but is unlikely to gain any traction on this unless Romney himself can articulate a plan to improve the economy, which he hasn't so far.

P.S.: Romney's 47 percent comments will go down as one of the biggest turning points in political history, like Dukakis getting into a tank, or Lloyd Benson telling Dan Quayle, "you're no John F. Kennedy." All of the working class conservatives and independents have just heard directly from Romney's mouth that he doesn't care about them.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Sep 29, 2012 5:31pm
Teatime: My guess in this first debate is, Obama will make a passing remark about the 47%. He really doesn't have to say much about it as the media has done his work for him already. Chances are, if there are any lib moderators asking the questions, one of them will bring it up, so Obama won't have to dirty his hands and can remain above the fray.

Where Romney could score real points would be in laying out specific plans, not the broad brush comments like: create 1 million jobs (yea, how??), etc. Maybe he'll have finally figured out that just giving the wealthy the tax break BEFORE they create any jobs hasn't worked. So maybe his October surprise in the debate will be to say, ONLY those in the 2% that actually created jobs in a given year for legal Americans in America will get any sort of tax break. Hey, one can hope.

Romney can also show how America will be far more safe with him at the helm than Obama, especially with the real problem of Iraq getting nukes and who would you feel more safe and secure in getting that 2am phone call.

Romney can hammer home the point that anyone 55 or older won't have to worry about their Medicare or Social Security benefits changing, that any changes would only affect those 54 and younger.

Those three things, with Romney not speaking real fast like he's nervous, making good eye contact with the TV camera, and NOT looking like a deer caught in the headlights.

Obama should not act like he's got this in the bag, that could back fire on him. He should also lay out a solid specific plan as to what he'll do to get the economy going, and why he, not Romney is the man we'd all want in charge when that 2 am phone call comes in about some issue with Iraq and nukes.

Obama can remind folks that FDR and the DEMS created the safety net back in 1932 and have been the only party to solidly be in support of it and Medicare, and that promise continues now in the 21st century with his administration and the DEM party.

So both men can have something solid to say, but both are so afraid that they'll say something stupid that they both probably not say anything real substantive. I hope that both men will over come this fear and just lay it on the line and tell us what your specific plans are. That way, we'll all be able to vote for whom we truly believe will do the best job.

mrpizza
Sat, Sep 29, 2012 11:51pm
All I can say is it won't matter who gets elected if the national debt situation isn't taken seriously and dealt with. Obama promised to reduce the deficit in his first term and then when he didn't he just blamed Bush for it. He's still blaming Bush. At least Romney/Ryan seem to be serious about dealing with the fiscal crisis. Bottom line is, if Obama is re-elected and runs up another 10, 20, or 30 trillion in debt, the dollar will collapse and there won't be any money in social security, medicare, or even your savings account. The Democrats think they can just go on printing money forever, but at some point it will all collapse under its own weight.

mrpizza
Sat, Sep 29, 2012 11:56pm
MFD: I'm also against investing social security funds in the stock market, but there's an alternative called safe money contracts. Problem is, they must first find a way to make the funds off limits to politicians, who are now looking for ways to dip into private IRA's, 401K's, etc. They just can't help themselves when it comes to our money!

teatime
Sun, Sep 30, 2012 1:05pm

Yes, Mr. Pizza, federal spending is out of control and the national debt threatens to spiral into an economic disaster.

But, it's Romney who's more likely to exacerbate the national debt by hiking military spending. The U.S. already has the largest military in the world, but Romney plans to sink trillions more into the military and is far more likely to engage in war with Iran. We're still paying the bill for the two other wars we started, and Romney wants to start another? Unbelievable.

Mike from Delaware
Sun, Sep 30, 2012 1:26pm
Mrpizza: What are safe money contracts?

Do you have a link telling about Congress looking for ways to dip into our private IRA's and 401k plans? Because if that is true everyone needs to know about that.

If that is true, then that is another reason to keep Social Security alive and well, as it would be there as it is now for seniors when they retire in spite of Congress finding a way to tap into our 401K plans with their greedy meat hooks.

Think of the folks who were already retired or about to retire who lost most of their nest egg in the crash of 2008. What has "saved" many seniors was their Social Security check. THAT's the problem with ANY of these other plans, they are not supported and backed by the FEDS so when things turn sour, and they eventually do, too bad for you, you lose, it sure stinks being you, now go eat dog food and too bad you won't be able to get your shots and meds. Hey this is cheaper and accomplishes the same thing as Sarah Palin's so called "Death Panels". Just eliminate the safety net and we can really save money as seniors will die off faster. Forgive me if as a person fast approaching the "senior citizen" status, I'm not enraptured with these schemes to eliminate Social Security.

FDR's Social Security plan has been a real blessing for many elderly people as they lived out their old age and it is the plan most Americans including middle class Republicans who are struggling to make ends meet (or is that meat) in this economy know they'll need some day.

EarlGrey
Sun, Sep 30, 2012 2:47pm
Is Univision's Fast & Furious coverage just the beginning of October Surprises?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/29/video-univisions-bombshell-report-on-fast-furious/

kavips
Sun, Sep 30, 2012 6:02pm
Correction: Mr. Pizza. Obama is not blaming Bush. The debt crises and the impending sequestrations were Paul Ryan's idea. The deficit is owned by Ryan and Republicans, and by default now, Romney, not by Obama. Our nations Commander in Chief just had to do the best with what he was given. America screwed him (and us all) by giving him a Republican House...

Fact is fact. If it weren't for Republicans, our nation's economy would be roaring right now.

Mike from Delaware
Sun, Sep 30, 2012 6:12pm
Here is an interesting commentary about how the Obama team handled the economy. Some interesting points are made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/obamanomics-a-counterhistory.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

kavips
Sun, Sep 30, 2012 6:13pm
In regards to Bank of America closing MBNA's child care. It has to. It is under significant pressure to rebound from past losses.

It's shareholders demand it. But such actions make us all ponder.... Gee, wouldn't it be nice if a corporate executive could do what was morally right, and not have to succumb to those who just wanted more money on their stocks they had someone else purchase for them? "I'm not happy with 40% profit in one quarter! I WANT 50 PERCENT PROFITS AND I WANT THEM YESTERDAY?

Well, they can, and it is possible to have both. Tax them fairly. Yes, raise their taxes. Then it becomes everyone's interest to invest any profits back into the company, so those monies don't go to Uncle Sam. "Gentlemen (and ladies); We need ideas of great ways we can spend this money upon ourselves so we don't have to give it up in taxes. Any suggestions?"

"Well, back in the Clinton tax landscape, the former company who built this complex had a day care facility on site to attract employees to come work for him, something which really helped with political capital whenever something big was going on locally which the bank had to be involved in..."


"I like your style. We get a benefit out of what we invested in ourselves, very clever, and... we didn't pay it out in taxes..."

For real change, never vote in another Republican... Ever.

mrpizza
Sun, Sep 30, 2012 11:43pm
Kavips: I have a better idea. How about we elect Fidel Castro?

kavips
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 2:26am
Umm no. How about we elect Obama or Gary Johnson. That is at least is within reason this election season.

Why waste your vote on Romney/Ryan?

Here is a taste of Gary Johnson. He was an extremely effective Republican Governor, for eight years, you know?

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes

kavips
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 6:35am
Read Mike's link to the New York Times. It faults Obama for not pursuing Democratic policies hard enough. Essentially all economic experts now say, we were not liberal enough in the beginning hours of this crises.

Which means putting in any conservative now would be a disastrous event especially when we need to pursue a spending agenda, and especially when we need higher taxes on those profits that are being made because of short hiring.

In short, the reason we failed in fixing this second Great Depression any faster, was because we did not have enough Democrats in the Senate.

They could only go as far and fast as that Republican bottleneck would allow.

History now tells us that that bottleneck was more concerned about Obama losing this November than it was whether you or I lived or died.....or lost or kept our house.

We cannot let that happen again. We must have enough Democrats in both Houses, to implement the necessary actions to end this recession once and for all.


EarlGrey
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 9:36am
I don't have any Republican friends who would even consider wasting their votes on Gary Johnson...but a couple of my Democrat friends trying to decide if they should go with Johnson or just stay home next month.

EarlGrey
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 10:23am
mrpizza: Why would we elect Castro (old timer) when we could elect the next Chavez? ;)
Chavez did say he supports Obama, just as Obama supports Chavez.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 5:23pm
This is the one thing that I don't get what GOP says about how the Great Depression was fixed. They'll say, that FDR's programs (New Deal) didn't work well enough, it was WWII that ended the Great Depression (they really don't want FDR to get any credit).

OK, hang with me for a minute. So what happened due to WWII? Besides Glenn Miller believed to have died in a plane crash over the English Channel? What happened due to WWII? America spent money like drunken sailors, far more than the any government had ever spent in history. THAT "stimulus" put America's factories to work. So, the government contracted factories to build airplanes, jeeps, tanks, rifles, bullets, uniforms, tires, etc, etc. Those companies were paid by Uncle Sam to build the stuff of war, and their employees were paid by them. Those factory-workers, mostly women and (men who were 4F) or too old to serve, took those pay-checks and spent it at food stores, clothing stores, etc. Yes, they had rationing, but they still spent money in their local economies. Real trickle-down unlike Reagan's or Bush Jr's version of trickle-down that ONLY trickled down to the wealthy.

I've read some stuff about FDR and he was very uncomfortable spending as much money as they did in 1932 to try to kick-start the economy (remember this had never been done before). Their problem was they didn't stimulate the economy enough in those early years to kick-start economy. as the war forced them to do later. So OK, the event WWII was what helped end the depression, but it was GOVERNMENT SPENDING during the war that made the difference.

So Obama in 2008, following Bush Jr's lead, tried to stimulate the economy. They spent a ton of money, but like FDR they didn't spend enough. But Bush Jr's and Obama's efforts kept the nation from going further into an actual Depression and kept it as a Great Recession that is slowly, oh so slowly improving.

My point is, what pulled America out of the Great Depression of the 1930's? Spending via Stimulus spending then called the New Deal started the momentum. They spent much money on infrastructure like building the T.V.A. to provide electricity to the South (I have relatives who lived in the South who didn't get electricity to their home until 1950, but without the T.V.A. they'd not been able to get it then). Hoover Dam was build as part of FDR's New Deal, that provided electricity to the Southwest so that places like New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California could grow and provide electricity to the millions of folks who now live there. But as history tells us, it wasn't enough, so WWII happened and forced the US to spend those big bucks to fight Hitler, and the Japanese.

So what lesson to do we learn from history? I believe, Obama was on the correct path, but he fumbled the ball when he gave taxpayers' money to the banks WITHOUT any conditions or strings. His very young advisers Timmy Geitner, tax-cheat now big shot in DC [Treasury Sec. - kind of like letting the fox into the henhouse... heh, heh] (heck his latest press secretary looks like Opie and must not be over 20) didn't realize he needed to have a REQUIREMENT in writing that the banks take that money and actually loan it out to regular folks. Instead they put that money into their pockets and gave themselves bonuses with OUR money. Obama didn't make them give it back. (I'd have threatened to nationalize their banks if they hadn't given the people's money back as that was stealing from you and I). I'm NOT even close to being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I, as dense as I am, knew right away Obama and his band of merry men/women messed-up seriously by not requiring this BEFORE giving them the money.

Bottom line to this rant is Obama- like FDR- was on the right track, they just didn't go far enough with it. Unlike FDR, Obama didn't raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%. Look at what the wealthy paid in taxes back in FDR's day vs. now in Obama's day. Yet knuckleheads like Rush/Beck/Hannity who happen to have millions are squealing like stuck pigs over what they pay, as they ignore how hard the middle-class has been hit for the past 30+ years.


Sorry this was a long rant, but bottom line is the wealthy need to pay more taxes and the nation needs more stimulus.

mrpizza
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 7:29pm
Mike: Did you know the term "trickle-down" was actually created by Democrats that hated Reagan? Too many people assume that Reagan coined that phrase, and it just ain't true. Once again, liberals re-write history.

mrpizza
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 7:40pm
EarlGrey: I totally forgot about Chavez, but in another way, this makes my point. Unlike Cuba, Venezuela still has very broad religious freedom. In fact, Kenneth Copeland has been holding meetings there for years and was just there again this past weekend. If we get four more years of Obama, Venezuela could be a place where American Christians will be seeking political asylum!

mrpizza
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 7:55pm
Mike: Here's a link describing safe money contracts:

http://web.finweb.com/investing/guaranteed-investment-contracts.html

Also, if you think politicians ain't after your retirement money, read this:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/plunder_CrD9s6MElVsEIJj2IVgHuK

mrpizza
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 8:00pm
I think Christine O'Donnell should move to Ukraine and run for parliament over there. She would fit in much better than she does here. As a proud tea-party Republican, I can't endorse such an achilles heal. Go away, Christine!

mrpizza
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 8:03pm
I've been reading all the back and forth commentary of who's fault it is and who's fault it ain't that we got a recession and we got a deficit and we got a big debt, and I can sum it easily sum it up with the name of one man: WOODROW WILSON

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 9:49pm
Mrpizza: Thanks for the links. We have something like the GIC available in our 401K plan at work. I didn't realize it by that name.

I couldn't get the nypost article to open, but it doesn't surprise me the politicians want to rob the seniors of their money, they have taken everyone else's other than the "holy" upper 2% which they are a part, so the polo set has nothing to worry about.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 9:55pm
Mrpizza: So does that mean that Reagan didn't say the money would flow down to the middle class? He knew it wouldn't? If that's the case than the Republican voters back then were sure sold a pig in a poke.

kavips
Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:27am
I see that Mike finally gets it. The issue with the federal government attempting to stimulate the economy was that it was too small of an endeavor. Almost four years ago I came across an economic study of the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) that said even though the construction created jobs in the counties within which it was being built, the surrounding rural counties saw not a bump or rise in economic activity. Which makes sense. If we build a tunnel under the Delaware River, how much of that economic activity would say, flow into Kent County? Probably just one or two workers worth?

The government is minuscule compared to the private sector. But in our capitalist system, sometimes the private sector capital pool goes negative, it has no money. It is imperative at those moments, that the Federal government do something.....

Romney/Ryan Republicans are wrong here. They argue the government should do absolutely nothing and everyone who has no money for food, should die and "decrease the surplus population."

The US government spends about a trillion a year, out of our $15 trillion gdp. When you consider just our discretionary spending, something like $88 billion pumped towards stimulus projects, .. it amounts to a jolt of .6 of one percent.... Sort of like being stranded at a soda machine, short a couple of coins and asking for change, and someone gives you a Canadian penny.

Mike is exactly correct that not enough strings were attached to private capital guarantees forcing those businesses to invest....

However using that fact to criticize the Obama administration is simply unfair. Mike seems to forget the Republicans still controlled what flowed out of the Senate. Mike's short memory seems to forget that any bill required the passage of those Republicans who cut their fingers and swore in blood, that they would unseat Obama even if it meant the end of the United States of America.

Despite that, Obama and Democrats were able to guide some passages through.... Like Admiral Nimitz, capable of pulling out a victory when all odds were stacked against him, the magnificence of this president, will one day be acknowledged. Unlike Mike's wrong and unfair caricature, Obama and his crew, ably navigated the torpedoes and mines being lain in the channel before them by Republicans, and brought all of us out of the dire straits into calm waters on the other side.

Again, we have never in our lifetimes had as tough or as good a president as we have now.. We have never in our lifetimes faced a challenge so severe as the one this president guided us out of...

The true secret to moving this country forward, is to rid ourselves of all Republicans forever. They are the single cause, the oppressive cancer, and the sole reason we suffer today as we do.

Without them.. well, just look at the Clinton years as an example... the rich got richer... yeah!!!! and the poor got richer too...

Democrats have the answers that work.... Even though obviously none of you writing on this page will admit it being in the minority as you are, you all know it is absolutely true that this president has performed a miracle that Republicans could never handle. Every Republican hero you hold up, even Chris Christie, eventually when the bill come due, is deemed a failure..

But it was nice to see that Mike finally now gets it... more spending is needed, and the wealthy should, rightly, get stuck with the bill.


Mike from Delaware
Tue, Oct 2, 2012 3:20pm
Kavips: I believe it was Obama's team, Timmy Geitner, etc., who designed that bank-stimulus program. Sure both DEMS and GOP knuckleheads in Congress voted for it, probably without reading the bill (like they did the health-care bill) because with the economy in freefall, neither side wanted to be seen as obstructing the recovery or be blamed if we ended up in a Depression.

The problem that Obama faces today vs. FDR with fighting WWII where we spent money like drunken sailors, is we were fighting for ours, and the world's survival, so both DEMS and GOP'ers in Congress had no choice but to work together and spend, spend, spend. We aren't faced with that as they were back in FDR's day. If it hadn't been for WWII, FDR and the DEMS would probably had similar problems getting that sort of gigantic spending pass the GOP. Which is why the GOP proudly says today that it wasn't Roosevelt who ended the Depression, it was due to WWII, because under their breath they're also saying, we'd have never allowed the DEMS to spend that kind of money other than to save our nation and the world from monsters like Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito.

mrpizza
Sat, Oct 6, 2012 11:25pm
Mike: To answer your question about Reagan: That is correct. He never said the money would flow down to the middle class. That's part of what made him the greatest president of the 20th century. Rather than brag on himself the way the dictator currently in the white house does, he simply created policies that spoke for themselves. The Democrats of then, just as the Democrats of today, have nothing to win on except to distort Republican policies, especially ones that actually work in favor of the people.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach