Mike Luckovich for August 21, 2011

Obama’s problem is a lack of leadership. His speeches no longer inspire. If he dusted off “The Buck Stops Here” desk sign instead of using “The Buck Stops Everywhere But Here” desk sign, he might get the respect back he’s losing.

Barack Obama, despite his multitude of speeches, has made not a single serious suggestion to reduce unemployment. Unfortunately, that ole boy, BHO, do’ know one end of d’ shovel from ’tother!

Open your eyes, man. Just because they all wear suits doesn’t mean they are the same, it’s the R’s that have a plan, not your leader.

The thin-skinned Georgia peaches on the right tout fruit, but sell us only the pits. They don’t even realize the toxins therein themselves. THAT is the problem, they don’t know, and don’t care.

The biggest failure of Obama to keep his “promises” the right is always whining about, and the left ARE rightfully bringing up, is that he gave in way too much to the threats and coercion from Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and the right, and he couldn’t get any support from the weak-kneed like Pelosi, Reid, Blue dogs, and LIeberman the contortionist.

Maybe a step forward is public only financing of campaigns, and prohibition of ANY campaigning or fund raising more than six months before an election? We do not HAVE “governance” in Congress any more, only campaigns, and it is destroying the nation, almost like lack of income while we keep spending.

Does anyone here actually understand the 21st century global economy? The meltdown of 2008 had a long history of coming to pass and trying to get it under control in two or three years is impossible. It is not only the US economy we are dealing with but the entire economy of Europe, Asia, etc. . Millions of jobs that existed prior to the downturn were results of massive credit investment and a very false buyer’s frenzy. In other words, too much expansion to keep any economy moving when the credit crunch (including the terribly corrupt mortage industry) fell apart. Blame it on Obama if you wish, but he is just the scapegoat for many, many years of a runaway economy with no real capital underpinings. For those of you that would like some realistic, impartial insight, I suggest reading the baseline scenario instead of calling each other names as if you were in grade school.

@jmattadamsWhere are the jobs Bush’s tax cut were supposed to produce.@TiggerObama’s stimulus produced about 1% job growth. It should have been bigger, with less going to Wall Street, but Bush didn’t leave him enough money.

The only thing that the Congress can do at this time to really stimulate the private economy is to repeal every single regulation-mandating legislation that was signed into law by 0bama.-Anything short of this will all but guarantee economic stagnation at best, for a long time. See Japanese economy of the past decade or so. The only deference is that Japan has a negative population growth rate, so the resultant loss of jobs has been muted. In our case we need about 180K of new jobs to be created each month, just to keep abreast of the population growth.

Geeze, you bozo’s just don’t get it do you? Our current problems trace directly back to Bush’s tax cuts. You cannot continually go deeper in debt. period. You republican dogma spouters have had 10 solid years for the “job creators” to create something. The truth is, they simply do not, they are greedy. The would rather send jobs overseas. The only jobs created by the “job creators” are bugger flippers and fry cutters. Nothing that produces a living wage, they want it all. The ‘pubbies have consistently blocked every initiative Obama has put forth. Even some of the very rich have recognized it is time to pay the bills, and they are asking for tax increases. Check out Bill Gates, for one. You all claim to be the party of Christians. Well, you better read your Bible, because you act like Pharisee’s. Jesus would be appalled at your actions. 400 of the most rich in this country now hold as much wealth as 150 MILLION of the poor. Read up on your history, check out Russia in the early 1900’s. Things are out of whack, and it is not Obama’s fault. It is greedy, rich, mindless republicans with a pointless and unrealistic mantra. It’s time for change, and not a change in the presidency, a change in congress, we need a good solid Democratic majority, and put an end to the tea party morons once and for all!

All the Republicants want is to get Obama out of the White House and to destroy the country.

To make it simple, Republicans are simply vile scum!

your logic = fail!

Your pure fantasy that she would ever say it. She is tedious beyond acceptable limits. Michelle Obama is better advised to mind her own business.

The simple fact is, U.S. employers can’t find qualified candidates for jobs, and the Republican “leadership” for 25 years has made a basic requirement: speaking Mandarin or Cantonese. Yes, Dems haven’t done what they should, but have become followers, not leaders. As to attacking folks for suggesting a human shouldn’t weigh 600 pounds, and eat every meal at Micky D’s, what is wrong with the SUGGESTION? NOW if you want REGULATION changes that were damaging? Try the ones "W"’s people came up with in 2007 to let BP “inspect” themselves, while getting rid of federal inspectors in their “management” cuts, after a Congressional budget actually had them paid for!

Is it possible that Howie and S are so young and ignorant that they don’t know how offensive “Mammy” is? Given his repetitive use of the word “Obammy”, I think it obvious that S knows what it means.

“s” is just Irish? “O’bigot”?

70? I doubt it. Otherwise you wouldn’t be advocating for the destruction of medicare and social security (both of which you allegedly use).

Love the teabags on their caps!

So I was too generous in giving you an out, Howie. In fact, then you know the racial connotations of “Mammy”, and applaud S’s application of it to Obama.Just wanted to make sure we have that clear to everyone.

Nailed it!

Perfectly clear, Howie. “S” used a racist term to describe Obama, and your only reaction was to support him. Nice.By the way, where are all the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts for the rich, Howie? C’mon, you can be the first to tell us…the question has been repeated on multiple threads for weeks.

Here’s a nice graph of the effect of the Bush tax cuts:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_bush_tax_cuts_effect_on_th.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html

“One of the objections a lot of us raised back in 2001 when the Bush cuts were originally enacted was that they were…adding further post-tax income inequality to an economy that was already producing a lot of pre-tax inequality,” he said. “I still feel that way. On the other hand, unemployment benefits and food stamps tend to go to people with much much lower incomes [who] need it a lot more, and you get substantially more GDP boost and job creation than if the same amount of money were spent extending tax cuts at the top.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/bush-tax-cuts-extending_n_662743.html

During the first three years of the Bush administration, more than 3 million jobs in the U.S. have disappeared, been destroyed, dismantled, vanished. Not since the early years of the Great Depression of the 1930s has America experienced three consecutive years of net job destruction! Nor has any President since Herbert Hoover faced the prospect of leaving office with the economy having fewer jobs than when he entered.The Bush recession began in March 2001 and was declared officially over in November 2001, six months later. Two major tax cuts, plus a series of additional corporate tax breaks, were enacted between mid-2001 and 2003 — tax cuts worth $2.1 Trillion — 80% of which went directly to benefit those with incomes over $147,000 a year!American workers were promised at the time that these tax cuts were the answer to economic recovery and creating new jobs once again. It was Ronald Reagan’s old ‘trickle down economics’ argument, brought out of the closet, dusted off, prepared for public consumption — but larger than ever before! Even a ‘trickle’ of that, a worker might argue, could produce significant improvements in jobs or wages. And that’s not counting some share of the tax cut as well. But let’s look at these two ‘taxes and jobs’ and how workers fared under George Bush the past three years….http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/bush_lies.html

I just picked early Google links that came up for my search. Didn’t see any from Fox News, but then, would you expect them to cover job losses under Bush?