his approval ratings as of 5/17 are still around 60%

well at least hes above 30%!!! i guess actually addressing issues and having curiosity and being able to read results in positive numbers.

Brian

you're right on top of it, eh?

Even the Fox website has Obama at 60% among their own viewers.

This "Obama's poll numbers are slipping" rant started over the weekend.

If you look at other President's approval at this point in their administration, you will find that Obama is about equal to Bush (both Sr and Jr) and Carter, higher than Ford, and lower than Nixon, Regan or Clinton.  I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, but just to put it in perspective.  While I was not a fan of Bush (JR), I think too many people are trying to compare the opening days of Obama (generally the high point of Presidential approval) to the end of Bush's (and we all know how low those numbers were).

Dave: You have no idea who I am or what I believe...you don't even know me. I am at least going to give the guy a chance which is more than I can say for you. You are just an old curmudgeon (or maybe a young one)!

What can we expect??? How about he stays in his office, does some work and stops campaigning? That would be a start.

Reality check, people. Who dug this 8year hole-of-a-mess? Bush screwed us for 2,920 days, and you're complaining about Obama's 103 days in office? You can't fix Bush's tailspin and nosedive quickly, so stop blaming and start working

Completely agree with this.

It's AMAZING how people are judging his first 103 days in office as if he was supposed to have this all mess fixed by now. News flash everyone - it took us a long while to get in this mess (with the help of the most incompetent president ever). If it was that easy to fix - the economy wouldn't be crumbling, it would have been a very minor hiccup. No one has a good answer for this. So CALM DOWN - we elected a president that actually thinks and processes information (it's been a WHILE since we've seen this so I understand how foreign it is to you).

Wow!  Mention GOD might actually be losing some of his popularity, and his supporters go nuts!  The reason he is or will drop in the polls:  His policy poll numbers are about half of what his personality polls stand at!  That cannot hold up.  He went to Peoria IL and stood in front of Catepillar claiming his "Stimulus Package" would result in many layed off workers being rehired.  Instead, more layoffs followed.  He came to Elkhart to discuss how we need to move "quickly and boldly" in order for Elkhart to turn around.  Now he is proposing higher fuel mileage standards that will all but kill the RV business.  He is just another politician, make a bunch of promises that sound good, then just take care of those that put you in office.

This country has shed more jobs since Obama was elected that it had in the last 20 years. Time to quit blaming the old administration and start taking responsibility for the lack of promised results.

It will get worse for working people before it gets better. As an employer I can tell you everytime they roll out a new program we have to cut labor to compensate or close the doors. How it is that enacting policies that are causing (and will continue to casue) job losses left and right is better for this country is something I dont understand. Making welfare and unemployment recipients out of hardworking American taxpayers dont sound like a solution to America's problems to me.......

Every president since polling started has been at least in the 60% approval range at the same point as Obama is in at this point. Americans are pretty forgiving when it comes to politicians. We expect them all to lie, all to cheat, and all to be power hungry.

For everyone who thinks that Bush did this to the economy with a Democrat congress, you have no idea how gov't works. The first six years of Bush's economy was very strong, the decline is directly associated with the coming of Pelosi and Reid. Truth is truth. You can deny and fool yourselves all you want.

How much of your liberty are you liberals willing to turn over to Obama? How much of your hard earned money (for those of you that have jobs) are you willing to give to Obama? These are serious questions. I don't want to tell my children that I remember when people could think for themselves and didn't need the gov't to do it for them.

every poll for Obama's popularity, I have seen on MSNBC shows he is seriously failing. OH! But wait a minute. They say they are not scientific polls. So please tell me why, over 2.5 million people gave him an "F" on his first 100 days and it's not scientific. They say people can vote on different computers, Wow! Let's narrow the number down 1.5 million. Now they do a poll, where they decide "who" to call in a certain area. Let's say they pick Baltimore city, which is predominantly Democrat. What do you think the response would be from 1500 people? Now get that, 1500 people to 1.5 million people. You make the call. I am a financial advisor and I can't for the life of me, figure out their (scientific) method. I think they would call it a Left Side Poll and leave it at that.

OK, lets give him some time.  When can we expect the 3.5 million new jobs he promised?   Next yr, the yr after?  No man can do what he promised in the campaign.  We've been had. 

I really want to give President Obama a chance but in his first 100 days he has been like a hamster on a wheel. Going as fast as he can and changing things so fast that every ones head is spinning. He is never stating how he going to make the change just doing it and never giving the public a chance to know and accept that change. Heaven forbid any of us have a real chance to read what he is doing before he has it done. Seems like I have been given a ticket on the short train ride out of town since I am a retired person. Most of what I have gotten from him is I have to accept that I am old and it is my duty to die without putting a burden on him or health care. So what if I paid into SSN and Medicare since I was old enough to work and crooked politicians have stolen all my money, I just need to suck it up and say thank you for the $250 dollars he will send me sometime and of course don't use it to catch up on a bill just go spend it on something silly to stimulate the economy.

Yep like a hamster running fast to nowhere. Just round and round in circles.

MI in IL and aceman-937213: you guys are really piling it on! First of all, drop the GOD thing. No one here claims the current President is God so let's throw out all the rhetoric. As far as polls, it's really not unusual for a President in a seriously down economy to have flat numbers. What's unusual is for a President to be so far below half those polled (like say 30%) when the economy is supposedly strong. With the amount of underground, codified racism in less exposed areas of our country it's really not hard to see how the current President's numbers would automatically be subject to the same 20% hit pollsters expected during the election.

As for your additional comments, aceman-937213, they're just hilarious. Take some of that time spent watching the pundits and try out one of the actual news sources discussing the historical economy. No documented downturn in American history has seen jobs NOT be a trailing indicator, and if you are a business owner you really ought to know this by now.

What does trailing mean? The last thing to correct itself in a recovering economy is job growth. Why? Because those who have the money - business owners and the employed - finally feel comfortable spending more on business needs and material goods to drive new growth. At some point this growth drives business to hire to meet the growth, and that only happens after CEOs/CFOs feel the uptick is a trend and not just a blip. You can't blame a four month administration for a problem they inherited, and you can't expect them to fix the last economic indicator as we have just started seeing progress in the earlier ones.

As for 'welfare' as you call it, traditional welfare was effectively eliminated under Clinton (gasp!) and the Gingrich Congress in the mid nineties. Unemployment benefits have been extended but still aren't open ended anywhere in our country anymore.

I'm a business owner, too, but honestly I'd like to know about the programs you mentioned that have been rolled out but the current administration, resulting in you having to let people go. I keep a close eye on these things, particularly because that was the subject of one of those ridiculous emails I got. You know, the one where the business owner looked for the cars in his lot with Obama stickers and chose to let those people go first. I'm not saying you're not being honest here; I just haven't heard of a single program - outside of the bloated 'program' much of our auto industry had become - that resulted in job loss. I'd be more worried about working for someone with no entrepreneurial vision than concerned over what government might do.

Strong, visionary businesses generally don't have to let people go as often, and good employees generally don't lose their jobs as often. Not that it doesn't happen - it's just that the odds get better if you've got both of these going for you.

gaminco: We never read what politicians have been "doing" in the past, so why should it be the President's fault that he's moving fast now? We blame these people for moving slow... now we're complaining about them moving fast? Wow, that's a lose-lose if I ever saw one.

Bubba-939441: the President's commitment and the time he has stated he will make or save these jobs is well documented and heavily communicated. Go to whitehouse.gov to learn more. Suffice it to say he didn't state he'd magically produce 3.5 million jobs out of thin air in under four months.

skipster

financial advisor? with the way you explained polling I'm wondering were you a financial advisor for the last administration?

interesting how you on the right complain about polling yet, when they had the poll last week saying more then 50% are Pro Life you all got on and said "see these results"...

Popularity Pole? Is that a spirit stick that they use in Middles schools at pep rallies?

you guys sound like a bunch of impatient children. How can Obama himself create 3.5 million jobs in 100 days? The economy has been heading south for years. The system itself was corrupt. Bush Jr. didn't do this, neither did Obama. Obama does have to deal with it though, and it'll take time.

Honestly, how old are you people?

Serious question. Everyone posting here voted in the last election or in previous elections?

scat Good question. I have noticed after previous elections (have been around for more than I care to count) usually the ones who do the most complaining about the new pres didn't bother to vote. But then, complaining is an easier task...voting actually requires (or should) some study and serious thought. I am not impatient with Obama. My early observations/questions are..Does he NEED the teleprompter to deliver a speech? Are Pelosi/Reed the ones who should be determining the way his agenda should work? Why are appropriation bills SO important time can't be taken to read the documents? Why are the unions (auto) so important that they supercede the senior debt holders? If I had my way, he wouldn't move as fast as he has been going.

skipster56
every poll for Obama's popularity, I have seen on MSNBC shows he is seriously failing. OH! But wait a minute. They say they are not scientific polls. So please tell me why, over 2.5 million people gave him an "F" on his first 100 days and it's not scientific. They say people can vote on different computers, Wow!
-------------------------------------

You're kidding right? ....I remember seeing that poll on Newsvine and thought it was absolutely hilarious.

You do know that as unreliable as polls are, internet polls are a MILLION times less reliable. Right? You want an example? Fine.

This year, Time magazine held an internet poll to answer the question "Who is the Most Influential Person in the World?" Do you know who received the most votes? Christoper Poole.
Do you know who Christoper Poole is? Does anyone on this board know who he is? Didn't think so.

He's considered a creator of the website "4chan", a popular website that has been around for quite a while - and hardly deserving of even 1 spot in the top 100 most influential people, or even the top 1,000 for that matter.

How did he a man so obscure beat out Obama, Jintao, Bush, Putin, Palin, McCain, the Clintons, Sarkozy, Merckel, Brown, etc. as the most influential perosn in the world in the online poll?

Simple, a few websites asked people visting their pages to vote on mass for Poole in order to skew the poll so much that it was not longer representative. All it would take is one thread on a site like say, Free Republic.com or Red State.com to tell all their vistors about the poll and then, viola, you have a rating so unbeliveably skewed that while reputable polls had Obama with about a 65% approval rating at the time, that poll had about a 45% rating. A difference of over 20%!!

Why would people bother doing this? Just so people such as yourself can throw out that statistic as "proof" in order to justify your assertions.

Seriously, what do you guys think is more reputable, an online poll in which anyone who knows of the poll can vote? or a poll that actually contacts people according to a scientific procedure?

Skipster, I hope you're not one of those "advisors" that convinces people who actually get their hands dirty every day, to invest in that upscale casino called the stock market, and then sit back and collect a fat check despite your clients losing half their worth. Please stop hating and start thinking.

Let's talk about this Elkart project for second shall we. Mr Dobbs, a former RV worker is disgusted with Obama? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't gasoline coming in at $4 a gallon cripple the RV industry and almost crippled the SUV industry? Gas prices dropped and Elkart was left in the wake of big oil.

The net bubble burst and left a wake of dot com business in the crapper, but Google emerged as the strongest player yet. If you're going to sit back and blame everything on the president then get the @!$%# out, you're not American, you're not willing to pull your self up.

My Business has gone through Budget cuts, lost workers, and increasing bills, and did we cry in a diner about the President's first 100 days or not coming to our town? Hell no, we got out there and sold our asses off and now we're in a better position than we were before. If you're waiting on money to solve all your problems, you've got another thing coming. This entitlement crap has to stop.

One of the main reasons that we're in this mess is because everyone got to the point of thinking that I deserve a job, a car, a house, a big screen TV, and anything else I want. Those aren't givens, they're privileges.

Maybe you should actually read instead of listening to FOX news for your info? This President has accomplished more in his first 100 days than the Shrub did in his 8 years.

Like what? I'm old and arguably senile, but can't recall a thing he has completed, or if he has, we can afford, or if he started, hasn't backtracked about half way through. I honestly wish the guy well and hope he succeeds, but I also honestly don't think he has a clue. Doesn't matter much how good his intentions if we lose out country because we go bankrupt. I, for one, have traveled all over the world. This actually is the best place I have ever seen in all my wanderings. Problem is, the current president wants to run the country on idealistic principles - most of which have no sound theoritic or practical basis. Communism was one such attempt at that, and we see how well that worked. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I see someone start an overhaul of my country, it scares the hell our of me when he does not seem to know what he is about or how to proceed. The ideals are there, but not sure about the mechanics. Even though the founding of this country was considered by many as an "experiment", it was at least based on historical data and practices going back to the Greeks and others. There had been at least some practical applications. I would rather untried experiments be contucted on someone else's homeland.

Obama is only one person. He cannot change anything in the U.S. or other countries in the short time that he has been in office. People need to stop thinking (maybe that is my fault). People need to START THINKING. It is just like raising children. You can try to instill in them good and appropriate behaviors, coping mechanisms, social skills, etc. Unfortunately, they still have to make their own decisions which may deviate from what they were originally taught growing up. Change cannot and will not happen over night and people need to use their Common Sense or maybe it isn't COMMON anymore.

Communism was one such attempt at that, and we see how well that worked

Sorry my friend, but it has nothing to do with communism or any other ism, and has much more to do with how well managed whatever "ism" it is you subscribe to. Ask China. It is not wise to get too far in bed with any "ism" whether it be capitalism, socialism, or communism -- they all have there inherent flaws. Corruption and human greed is the plague that ends up ruining any and all of these systems. I am a firm believer that the best system is the one that balances socialism with capitalism in a well balanced and well managed/smart way. Capitalism cannot be allowed to run amok and it's easy to see that human beings will never be satisfied being the same as their neighbor, as socialism would promote. There needs to be middle ground, and it's our responsibility as a population to ensure that happens.

Throwing out slogans like, "Hitler believed in socialism" is counterproductive. I don't think Hitler subscribed to the Socialism that I think of or he wouldnt have been hell bent on killing everyone in his path. Even if he did though - where is the mantra that we teach our kids, "if at first you fail at something, you learn from the mistakes and try again"?

Just remember, this world has limited resources which is dominated by human beings - who have unlimited wants. If you think about it in those terms, you should be able to see but we will have little choice but to work together or perish.

Yes, and I'm certainly glad the previous administration did everything in their power to make this world a safer and better place to live in. Thank You to the Mass Murderer G.W. Bush, Torture lovin, face shooter off, Darth Cheney. etc..........

In a year a lot of us are going to be living in the streets.

Sneakers, this was already happening when he took office.

Sure was....it takes a long time to turn an ocean liner, stop a freight train, or turn around an economy and country left in such shambles by the previous administration.

You're lucky Obama won cause people would be living in the streets now !

Shame it's hard to explain something to people incapable of comprehending that which you are trying to explain.

I hope that everyone realizes that the housing issue was put into motion by the Clinton's who thought that it was a great idea to lend money for mortgages to people who couldn't afford them! You can't blame the housing economy on the Bush administration. I would love to, but you just can't. That would be like blaming 9/11 on the Bush administration. It's just inaccurate.

9/11 ?,,,,Bush administration? Was it not his administration that was warned about an attack that OBL was trying to make on American soil, was it not the Bush administration that was warned it could come from using airplanes? No, i wouldn't put all the blame on Bush,,just 90% or so.

The top tax and spend states are on the verge of bankruptcy at this point. With Obama's tax and spend ($1.8 Trillion deficit!) why would the country be anywhere different? We are going bankrupt and Obama has put the pedal to the metal. Both parties have put us where we are - Obama promised change but instead gave us a record setting more of the same!

Obama and the Democratic congress voted on the housing rules that allowed everyone with a pulse, (some without a pulse) buy a house. Sometimes with the assistance of the Obama thug group Acorn. House prices sky rocketed due to everyone now seeing millions of dollars in their eyes and not stopping to think that the reason house prices were low is that was what people could afford. House prices went up, wages did not. First time home buyers were priced out of the market. The only people buying houses were those selling houses. Eventually, when everyone had priced themselves out of a market, it crashed. Taking the banks, who with Acorns terror tactics forced them to make loans, with them, thus the economy tanked. Look at when the trouble started, when the DEMOCRATS, and Obama, took control of congress.

what about Clinton having Osama Bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter and pushing his chair back from the table and walking away???? What about the democratic congress who has been in office for over two years now...? To say that ALL of our issues are due to the Bush Administration is ridiculous.

Talons -

What the heck does Acorn have to do with rising house prices? You're right about one thing...rising house prices were not based on any sound economic model. However, if you actually believe that the money center banks were forced into making loans you are really naive. Furthermore if you had any analytical skills or background in finance and economics you would not try to assert these simplistic, inaccurate, inane arguments. Here's a tip..go ahead and argue intelligently that the policies advanced by the democrats won't work but please don't embarrass yourself by arguing that " the trouble started when the Democrats and Obama took control of congress". I'm not sure where to start but that's not how it works.

It is well documented that some members of Acorn pressured,(including going to bank presidents homes) banks into making loans to people that would otherwise be unqualified to purchase a house. Look at many of these defaults and you see people making $30,000 a year and less buying homes valued at $400,000 Is that sound advise for a bank to do? These were rules that the Democrats pushed for. Now we have Obama telling us we all have to sacrafice while he spends us into oblivion including spending over $300,000 for a picture of Airforce one flying past the Statue of Liberty. Where is his sacrafice? Where is his fiscal responsibility? Campaign promises, "no earmarks", then a bill with 9000 earmarks in it, then his statement, "from now on I wont sign one with earmarks" Then blaming Bush for his deficit, then creating one larger than all presidents combined, then saying we need to be fisically responsible. Where is the honesty in this man? Where is the outrage from the citizens who have been lied to by a man with NO experience at running ANYTHING. He is firing CEO's of private companies, he is forcing banks to take money but not allowing them to repay it so he can control those PRIVATE businesses. Whats next?

I don't disagree that a lot were homeless before Obama- I don't see his programs making it any better for anyone other than the ones that created this situation. I think job creation is larger outside this country on his programs than it is inside. I think the banks that dumped this economy shouldn't have voluntary programs to help the people who lost their jobs and now are in trouble on their homes - they should be mandatory- just like it's mandatory that I'm going to have to pay for them to remain solvent. I think he is pro-union - they are a paper pushing industry just like the banks, etc. He is not pro-worker. I think he's very personable, well spoken, bright and gracious. I also think he's just like any other politician and totally out of step with the American worker. Education isn't going to solve ALL of the problems. Skilled welders in MI with years of training and experience are now being offered 10.00 an hour with no benefits and require 6 years of experience. IT workers jobs are being sent overseas more and more. JP Morgan Chase after receiving billons in bail out money sent 100,000,000.00 to India for MORE off shore IT workers. I think his goals are too idealistic and a lot of people are going to suffer for a long time behind it. We need jobs NOW and can't wait for 2 or 3 years. Do I think that former Pres. Bush was better- no - just different.

talons

nice post if there were any accuracy at all too it.

You say "Obama and the Democratic Congress voted on the rules that allowed everyone with a pulse to buy a house"..
exactly when was that?

This is a trick question since Obama wasn't seated until 2005 and the Democrats didn't take control until 2007.

If you can't get the most basic elemnet right it kind of shoots the creditibility of the rest of your rant.

Barkey Frank, one of the leading dem's is who proposed the idea of giving a house to everyone to be "fair" once the dem's came to power in congress thats when the economy began to get in trouble.

In 6 years of Bush what happened? economic prosperity for the most part. If u take out the war in iraq he would have been one of our most successful presidents, but obviously iraq hurt us all in a big way.

You would all be best served to learn facts, and stop being loyal to 1 party or the other. YOU are the reason our country is the way it is. YOU elect these smooth talking idiots because they have an R or a D by their name.

How about voting for people with a record that reflects what you believe in, instead of trying to be on the winning bandwagon?

This crisis isnt Bush's fault, it's not Obama's fault, it's the american people's fault. If you want real change in things I'll refer you to a bunch of Americans in 1776 who actually fought for what they believed in.

Pac, while I agree with your tone of your 2.14 post. I think some of your facts may be just a little off. Basically the timing of what and when. But the theme is still the same.

One thing is never seen debated is that the policies that Obama is trying to implement are of the same ilk that have been used by all major cities and have failed repeatedly. How minorities in those war zone cities continue to vote for the same party is mind boggeling to me. Change something? Change anything!!!

I hope O's plan works, but I highly doubt it. History tells you it won't work.

And for those who say the economy is stabilizing and the market is up (due to short selling), if you pump MASSIVE amounts of money into anything it will has to go up. Very short term answer.

Here people I did your homework for you: From Open Market, June 16, 2008 before all %$#^ broke loose. It actually did start with a bill that passed Congress in 1999 called the Community Reinvestment Act which got the ball rolling for Freddie. It also answers the Acorn question: Sorry about the ad at the beginning.

It’s almost a Washington truism that anytime Congress creates a “trust fund” for a certain policy issue, the money flowing into this “trust fund” will be diverted to something else. Government “trust funds” are set up with special taxes and fees so that they will be less subject to normal budget constraints — but this makes them all the more desirable for future Congresses to divert their proceeds to spend on pork.

Payroll tax money in the Social Security Trust Fund, for instance, has for decades been emptied out to fund general government programs. Similarly, the Highway Trust Fund set up to build and improve roads from the federal gasoline tax has also seen raids on its purse for other priorities.

But the granddaddy of all phony government trust funds may be soon enacted in housing bailout legislation before Congress. The so-called Affordable Housing Trust Fund — part of the legislation that passed the Senate Banking Committee in May and is poised to come to the Senate floor as early as this week — is almost set up from the beginning to be diverted to purposes other than affordable housing. The holes in this “trust fund” would allow the money to be easily siphoned off to liberal activist groups such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for lobbying and even political campaigning.

Long a priority of groups on the Left, the “trust fund” — also called the “affordable housing fund” — would get its revenues from a legislatively fixed share of the surpluses of the government’s Federal Housing Administration or the profits from the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The latest version — in the housing and GSE oversight bill that cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May — would establish the fund by taking 1.2 basis points of interest from Fannie and Freddie’s loan portfolio — about $500 million a year.

Enacting an off-budget funding entity for housing has long been a goal of Rep. Barney Frank, and since he became chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Comittee when the Democrats took Congress back a year and a half ago, he has inserted several versions of the “trust fund” into many housing bills. “Given our severely constrained fiscal realities,” Frank has argued, there needs to be “a low income housing trust fund that will be paid for in ways that do not draw from federal tax revenues.”

Yet given how important low-income housing supposedly is to Frank and other advocates, there are relatively few safeguards to ensure that most of the Trust Fund proceeds are actually spent on affordable housing. There are prohibitions on using the funds for lobbying and political activity, but the bills — including the Banking Committee package — contain virtually no teeth in enforcing these bans. There are no explicit requirements for recipients of the grants to fill out timesheets for housing activity, or restrictions on groups using grant money to pay employees who also happen to do other things — such as lobbying and political campaigning. And there are really no penalties other than being forced to give the money back and being disqualified for a new grant.

These safeguards are important, because some of the biggest “housing advocates” also have politics in their portfolios. These groups would include the ACORN and the National Council of La Raza, both of which provide housing counseling as well as lobby for liberal causes and politicians.

ACORN has an especially dubious histrory concerning both election fraud and misuse of federal funds. Several ACORN workers have been indicted and/or convicted of voter registration fraud with phony signatures. In Washington state, seven ACORN employess were indicted in what the Democratic Secretary of State called the worst case of voter fraud in the state’s history. As Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund reported, “The list of ‘voters’ registered in Washington state included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, … actress Katie Holmes and nonexistent people with nonsensical names such as Stormi Bays and Fruto Boy.”

And ACORN has also been sanctioned specifically for misuse of federal housing funds. In 1994, the ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) received a grant from the newly created Americorps to assist low-income families at finding housing. In applying for the grant, the AHC claimed its activities were completley separate from ACORN.

But one year later, the Americorps Inspector General would testify that “AHC used Americorps grant funds to benefit ACORN either directly or indirectly.” She found several instances of cost-shifting from ACORN’s lobbying group to the housing entity, and also found several instances of steering recipients of housing counseling into ACORN memberships. (This report by the Employment Policies Institute contains the Inspector General’s testimony in full.)

Does it really matter who started it? Obama is trying to fix it, but he is only one man. He needs our help. All of us.

Are we going to help, or is everyone just going to kick and scream like babies because Uncle Sam hasn't cleaned up our mess yet?

Fortunately, there are people that realize that you have to understand the root of a problem before you can fix it. Placing blame is not the purpose, understanding what caused a crisis is one of the only ways to fix a problem. If you do not know what causes cancer you can never find a way to cure it.

Thank you to Vol Fan for the article.

I can't believe that Obama's been there four times. It's not the only city in the US with problems.

"If Republicans in Congress would start compromising and come to some centrist solutions we would all be better off. They are spending all of their time making sure America never has a chance for stability by focusing on "NO" and by refusing to come to the table."

Really, I thought you libs didn't need the Republicans because you have control of the Senate, Congress and the White House.

Get real!

If all you can do is call me a "lib", then you are part of the problem. I am a social moderate and fiscal conservative (now Independent since the Republicans have made it clear they do not want my views heard) that thinks that Republicans can offer a lot to the current crisis. The problem is they haven't. It is apparent they want Obama, and this the nation, to fail. I do not believe true conservatives want Republicans to refuse the nation's call for solutions, just the hard-core "Obama must fail" people.

It's the Midwest. What do you want?

People from the coasts know better.

Yep..those along the LA Gulf coast sure do! They are still whining and waiting for their 'entitlement'. LOL

"the Coasts" refers to West and East.

What do people expect for a little over 100 days in office...do you REALLY expect a miracle? It only took Bush 8 years to f*** this country up...it will take a little more time to fix it! Suck it up people...he has a BIG job ahead of him and there is no human being on the face of this earth who could fix all the problems that he inherited! WAKE UP AND FACE REALITY!

Some did.

Others are racist Mc Cain hecklers and a few are nothing more than childish third-party voters who are just fifty-year-old high school sophomores who don't understand how things work and just want to @!$%# about everything without doing anything constructive....they think they're still "fighting the system".

Do you live in Elkhart? Do you know what the job situation is like here? Obviously not. To residents here, it is the whole world....their world.

But like another poster said, Elkhart isn't the ONLY place in that situation and MSNBC running feature on you just keeps you in the spotlight. There are many other parts of the US that are in the same, or even worse, condition. Many parts of OH & MI have been in your situation even longer than you have. When you concentrate your entire community's future on one industry, you are headed for a major crash when there is this kind of a meltdown. At least one of your local vendors has found a way to survive. The rest of you need to get off of your lazy a&&8s and figure out what you as an individual can do to creatively rearrange your life. RV's won't come back to the popularity they had, neither will many other "luxury" items (skimobiles, snowmobiles, boats, etc., etc.) and I'm glad of that. We should have had a 42 mpg fuel requirement 30 years ago....we had vehicles doing just that and better until the petroleum and auto industries bought up all of the patents and shelved them. Electric vehicles were the same way.....they wouldn't need the constant repair of the combustion engine, so we'd better destroy all of them! Of course, I was never in favor of the first EV plan because it required electricity from the grid to recharge them. Design an electric vehicle that is solar recharged and velocity (running down the road conversion) recharged. Get more hydrogen vehicles on the market. High speed non-electric or fossile fuel fired mass transit and other forms of mass transit needs to be greatly expanded. Right there is one area you could be looking into...how you can take your factories and convert them to this development.....or solar related manufacturing. There are many possibilities.

really, convert factories to solar, or for alternative fuel vehicles. Reality is no one is buying anything in todays market and its likely to get worse before it gets better. If the Government wanted to control and convert these factories they could, but the rest of us including small business owners are shut out of the possibility of getting a loan to do that. Most small businesses will fail not because they don't have long term viability, but because of lack of capital. The government is shutting small businesses out of the equation, and it just so happens that these small businesses create 70% of new jobs. Hmmm doesn't look so promising for job growth does it?

If all Elkhart is doing is sitting in a bar and complaining about Obama not pulling miracles out of thin air, as I got from this article, then they're getting exactly what they're putting into the problem and not worth the attention.

Hoosier: I understand what your area is going through, but honestly, you are not the only ones. It is just as bad in many other places, just for some reason Elkhart has become the Posture Child of Despondency of the news media. And in some places in this country, the bars are EMPTY because everyone is out either looking for work or scraping along for $5.15 an hour part time like here (in Idaho) but we are WORKING, or TRYING to. I think people in Pittsburgh (where it's been like Elkhart for YEARS), or Boise, or small towns in Imperial County California, are all feeling the same exact thing you are in Elkhart. So please, quit whining. Let's have an adult conversation.

I have to ask again, did Elkhart really believe that somehow Obama would give them jobs? He could have done a better job than give big business' money that they sent out of our country, money that we will never know what happened to all of it. He could have been for the small business' but he wasn't. Not only Elkhart but every other citizen that chose to believe his rhetoric were unreal promises. To those who are sitting waiting for the "One we have waited for" to bring them the miracles of jobs wake up. It is my understanding that the only jobs being created are in the government. That is not new money and will grow stale. I don't know how Elkhart is going to survive or thousands of other towns, but I think the people there need to put their heads together and try to come up with their own solution on what to do. Don't hold your breath for Obama to do anything for you. He can't. His promise was not realistic, it was a campaign promise and we know what they amount to? Nada, nothing.

Egocentric? Selfish? Who exactly are you to make those kind of judgements on me and mine? Basically, most people I know could give a rats ass if Obama visited or ever does again. He's just a politician who says @!$%# to get what he wants and never delivers - a politician plain and simple. They're all planning for the next election. This small business owner is just trying to get through each day - but the days suck when I get another letter from another customer that they're closing their doors. Selfish, just trying to survive. Naive, naw, no one I know believed a damn word he read off his teleprompter. A policitican, is a poitician, is a politician.

Since when has Obama or the Dems given Republicans a chance to have any say about anything? Obama's people have said they are going to attempt to prevent any discussion on health care before ramming it through. Obama took a troubled economy and has done everything possible to make it worse. The man is dangerous to our country and I pray that something will stop him before it is too late.

I think the reason that people are expecting Obama to fix things right away is because he himself declared that he is the answer. Remember the oceans rising and the land healing part of his speech. After proclaiming himself the answer for all problems, it seems disingenuous on his part to be blaming the past and deflecting hope until later. People are rightly expecting answers NOW since he said he IS the answer.

Bill, you are totally right! There was a little sneaky accounting going on.

You know not the truth. Congress is the only part of government that spends money. The congress has been controlled by democrats since 2006. President Bush being a lame duck since 2004 did not do a good job on holding congress accountable for their spending since the congress could override any veto president Bush might impose. Even your own party the Democrats said that when President Bush took office there was a surplus of 1 trillion dollars a gift by the Clinton administration thanks to a republican controlled congress. When president Bush left office your party the Democrats said President Bush debt was 1.9 trillion dollars. Of that 1.9 trillion 700 billion was passed by a Democratic controlled congress to bail out the banks plus the 400 billion dollar budget that your president Obama signed was credited to the Bush administration. By the way no Republicans voted for that 400 billion dollar budet because of the earmarks and double dipping the Democrats did between the 400 billion dollar budget and your president Obama's stimulus package of 785 billion by the way only 3 Republican senators voted for the stimulus package and 1 of the 3 senators change himself into a Democrat. The first conversion by your Messiah president Barack Hussin Obama. Apparently people like you never lived with people like Mr. Obama. He is not like people who proceeded him such as Martin Luther King or Barbra Jorden. These 2 great Americans truly served the public in promoting their vision of America unlike the pompous arrogant like man who now occupies the oval office. He is only a bad dream for this country and will be gone in 2012.

Point is, Brian, you're getting numbers from the way-righties, who are picking them out of thin air. Are you adding in the Bush bailout? The Bush wars?

Seems I remember a Democrat of whom exactly the same was said when he inherited his deficit. That one who left a surplus. Who was that? Oh, yes, bad, bad Mr. Clinton. He was terrible...

As for NativeTexas, what? They grow magic mushrooms down there??

D

"Right, and since then your wonderful Messiah in the White House has spent more than ALL the previous presidents combined. So what is your point?"

Keep bringing the crazy, nutsack.

Actually, the legislature has been dominated by the Dems for much of the 20th century except for the periods of growth when the legislature was led by the Reps.  In over 60 years of democratic party control we have seen a vast expansion of social programs, welfare, both individual and corporate and massive spending increases.  Under Reagan, the cutting of tax rates spurred economic growth and tax revenue generation however the democratic controlled legislature, rather than pay down the debt, ramped up spending.  Now with Obummer, we see massively ramped up spending with no tax revenue generation so debt is escalating and I suspect the dems will ramp up tax rates as that has always been their solution.  This will of course be labeled as "tax on the wealthy" so most will be blissfully unaware they are paying more taxes since most do not see the taxes come out of their paychecks.  Most have never had to make that quarterly tithe to the IRS so they do not understand how much in taxes they pay!

"President Bush being a lame duck since 2004 did not do a good job on holding congress accountable for their spending since the congress could override any veto president Bush might impose."

Ah, yes and finally we get to the prize for the single stupidest man on the Internet. A man who apparently thinks that you can override a Presidential veto with 51 senators.

You Obama haters don't know how totally ridiculous you sound.  You spew hate.  As if Obama sat around and thought of all the ways he could throw money away.  It's pathetic how you ignore that this whole economic crisis that he is trying to manage was perpetrated by Bushco, Gramm, Delay and the rest of the jerks you elected who delivered the goods to their rich friends and slunk away when the bill came due.  This Elkhart article is a classic case:  They want Obama to spend for them.  But when it comes to paying the bill where are they?  Republicans always claim to love this country so much, but not enough to pay their stinkin' taxes.  Disgusting.

That's right Craig-303171: in less than four months the President, all by himself, was able to spend more than all other Presidents. The goofy, overused 'messiah' thing is getting a little old too. You might want to grab something new and original, though that might be hard considering just about every inflammatory catchphrase and buzzword has already been employed by the cable newsmouths.

As a lifelong conservative and reformed Republican who has no party anymore, I'd recommend you take a close look at the people for which you bid: the biggest businesses who have you out complaining about the increased taxes you aren't (and won't) pay because you don't make $500K a year, the most extreme elements of the "religious" right who continue to take away your freedoms and tell you what you can and can't do with your life and foster codified racism by subtly equating feel good terms like 'sharing my values' to intolerance of anyone who looks, walks, talks, or believes differently. They're telling you that we shouldn't engage the rest of the world openly and honestly despite the criticality of these relationships to keeping us - including those large multinational corporations from the US that employ a lot of us - able to drive change in the world.

If you've been around long enough to be a GOPer in the Reagan (and even Goldwater) eras and believed in what either of these guys stood for, you might want to go back and read about them again. You'll likely find that what you believe in was hijacked long ago and replaced with a highly charged, negative, and divisive approach that draws all its energy from creating fear and none from realizing the opportunity brought by 'morning in America'.

God, you're good!!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. If only people would wake up and see the wrongs that have been shed on our people by the republicans. Obama is only trying to set things right again and help the low and middle class. He didn't create this mess. Now the republicans are trying to deprive us all from health care because they are in the pockets of the health care organizations and drug companies. They con't care about us or the country. Their motto is God, Guns and trucks. Lord, help us.

Appanage - Your post was a breath of fresh air!!!! It is comforting to see others feeling the same way I do about things these days. I used to look both ways before I voted, but lately it hurts to even turn my head to the right....for all the reasons you stated and more. The Republican party has become the party of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They can't seem to come up with any ideas outside of hate and fear. Heck, they even ate one of their own (McCain). I'm an Obama supporter but I don't have unrealistic expectations. Four terms probably wouldn't be enough time to fix the problems this country has accumulated and the political polarization continues to grow. I just hope we can see something positive in the next 6-9 months. People are hurting and we need a light at the end of the tunnel. I think both sides of the aisle are plagued with playing the blame game and that won't help anyone. It's time we had a representative government that is "of the people, by the people and for the people".

The point, Craig, is that desperate times (created by Bush's presidency) call for desperate measures (Obama's deficit and debt ballooning stimulus).

The jury is still out on whether or not it will be effective. Even the Most eminent economists who have studied and dealt with economics and finance all their lives cannot say anything definitive. But one thing is clear - Just the republican TAX CUT approach was not going to be enough for a diaster of this magnitude.

Let's wait and watch. There is little else we can do at present.

Obama has proposed a $3.4 Trillion deficit (record) with a $1.8 Trillion deficit (that deficit is more than Clinton's last budget - total budget!). You say correctly that Bush was wrong to run up the deficit. How is Obama not wrong in doing the same a much greater rate? You can't complain about Bush doing it and then applaud it because it's Obama. Both are bankrupting our country!

It's simple Steve5384: one of government's primary roles is to catalyze economic growth in down economies and curtail its role in strong economies. This concept is well-documented and proven as the closest action to a 'sure thing' that can be taken to stabilize and restore a capitalist economy. It's covered in high school and college level government, civics, and economics classes.

I really don't know what else can be said because the principle is so incredibly logical and so often proven. Governments shouldn't stand by and allow their economies to collapse any more than they should go on ridiculous spending sprees in times of private sector prosperity.

Like or hate TARP, the previous and current administrations agree that government action is necessary. The difference lies in the fact that 95% of the spending taken by the previous administration was taken at a time most Republicans (and most of the American public) regard as a time of strong economic growth.

It's that simple. When you get stuck spending more on two weeks of Iraq military presence than it would take to permanently and completely recapture and protect the entire New Orleans basin (which we aren't doing), you find yourself in a deep hole: particularly when you decide tax breaks are important despite deficit spending and unprecedented tax inflows.

Bush is forgiven his TARP outlay in my book, regardless of policy opinion. But that leaves about 7 3/4 years of zero budgetary discipline.

Craig is right. Obama has spent more money than all other presidents since George Washington combined. Now we will have a lot of new government programs and BIG government but fewer people with jobs and no way to pay for it. Socialism may work for awhile, until you run out of other people's money.

Storm27: No, Craig is NOT right and you're confusing others and yourself by saying it. Our RATE of spending is higher than it ever has been (albeit for three months), but over 90% of all the money being spent is carryover from the last administration and Congress. Go take a look at what percentage of that is military spending. Do you think the President wants to spend that much on a war he inherited? Frankly, do you think the President wants to keep spending Bush's TARP money or Congress' Omnibus bill?

Think before you type, then research before you type. By then you will have likely either opted not to type of changed your view entirely, or maybe both.

Urban_eskimo said: "Actually, the legislature has been dominated by the Dems for much of the 20th century except for the periods of growth when the legislature was led by the Reps.  In over 60 years of democratic party control we have seen a vast expansion of social programs, welfare, both individual and corporate and massive spending increases.  Under Reagan, the cutting of tax rates spurred economic growth and tax revenue generation however the democratic controlled legislature, rather than pay down the debt, ramped up spending.  Now with Obummer, we see massively ramped up spending with no tax revenue generation so debt is escalating and I suspect the dems will ramp up tax rates as that has always been their solution.  This will of course be labeled as "tax on the wealthy" so most will be blissfully unaware they are paying more taxes since most do not see the taxes come out of their paychecks.  Most have never had to make that quarterly tithe to the IRS so they do not understand how much in taxes they pay!"

Urban_eskimo, where are you getting your data from, and making your conclusions from?  Right-wing blogs?

-----------------------

Dude, my Republican-voting economics professor, as well as a Green Party-voting doctor of economics history at the university I attended in OH, said that unfortunately, all of your assumptions that you're trying to pass as facts are WRONG.

On the contrary, according to American political science historians, whenever the right-wing dominates Capitol Hill, the national economy does worse, and we're involved in more overseas wars.

And with Reagan, tax rates were higher than they are now on the middle, working class and the poor.  Why?  Reagan had to finance the Cold War, somehow.  His failed experiment in Trickle-Down" was practices gain by BushCo.  Look what it got this country after he squandered it on tax-breaks for the wealthy.

And all the nobel prize-winners economists I've read about in the past three month (including some independent-voting billionaires), have said that Obama's massive spending to rebuild the nation out of this deep recession that BushCo created, is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Want proof?  GOOGLE IT.  But if you turn to right-wing blogs and right-wing ideology for your proof, then you're sadly disinformed by your ideological religion of hate, fear and no's.

AND MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION:  IF YOU DONT WANT TAXES, AND YOU WANT LESS GOVERNMENT, MOVE TO SOMALIA.  THEY'VE HAVEN'T AHD A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS.  AND LOOK WHAT IT'S GOTTEN THEM.

YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING THAT OUR E.U. ALLIES THAT HAVE HIGHER TAXATION AND MORE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT TO HELP THEIR OWN PEOPLE ARE DOING RELATIVELY BETTER THAN US IN SOME OBVIOUS RESPECTS?  HEALTH CARE, AND RETIREMENT FOR EXAMPLE.

Bill,

Reguardless of your party, the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties in Washington makes me mad. They have been taking money that is deducted from our pay for social security, medicare and others and there is no money left in these accounts. We have 100 trillion in unfunded mandates that were created on both parties watch. I certainly think it incredibly hypocritical that Obama has outlined a budget where federal expenditures continue to increase for the next 10 years and not even give the slightest mention of the fiscal responsibility that he is preaching to all americans. The average federal employee makes great money, great benefits etcetera which is great, but when the economy is struggling all americans need to make sacrifices. I don't see any of them taking pay cuts while their villanizing big business.

I earned my degree in poli sci so I read history books. Perhaps you should read something not printed by mainstream media, like a history book once in a while! Do so and you will find that the democratic party presided over the massive expansion of socialist agenda throughout the 20th century. their crowning achievement thus far is the installing of obama as president with the aid of the media. Sorry but the failure of the mortgage lending industry was a direct result of Pelosi, Dodd and Frank's desire to loosen lending restrictions so that people who ordinarily would be too high a risk to lend money. Read something once in a while rather than take your news from abc/nbc/cbs which have political agendas and go out and find more objective sources. Read a history book and perhaps you will realize that the democratic party has shifted massively to the socialist agenda. Read up on the triumphs and failures of the socialist agenda and you will find that socialism has failed spectacularly throughout history. It will not magically succeed now that pelosi/dodd/frank and obama are out front.

Perhaps you should read something not printed by mainstream media, like a history book once in a while!

Oh yes, we forgot about that mainstream liberal bias....our bad

Do so and you will find that the democratic party presided over the massive expansion of socialist agenda

Oh no, here come the socialists again. Are you really sean Hannity?

Sorry but the failure of the mortgage lending industry was a direct result of Pelosi, Dodd and Frank's desire to loosen lending restrictions so that people who ordinarily would be too high a risk to lend money

Oh..now I get it. Here all this time I thought it was because the banks were trying to rapidly and irresponsibly increase profits so they could pay the shareholders even more. Thanks for setting us straight.

fact is it was the dems that did that and continue to do so today by lying to them and then offering them "benefits" to get their votes. i think black America would be disgusted to find that they belong to a party that fought to keep them dumber than a doorknob.

Well now. Since blacks are too "dumb" , according to you, to figure this out -- ..nm ..it's hard to even respond to this level of idiocy

More of the same ol same ol...blah

Steve, let me explain this to you as plainly as I can.

Bombs are only used once. That's what Bush spent money on-bombs, bombs and more bombs.

Construction of roads (what those like you call "pork projects") put people to work. Those people will have money with which to spend and invest-and that's why Obama's stimulus plan will work while Bush's failed miserably.

After an election is over all of the elected officials are supposed to put aside their political bull sh$t and do what is best for the country.

Has empty folders with "Budget" printed on them and testicle sucking parties help the economic situation?

This partisan bickering needs to stop, but we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Thomas,

That would be Democratic Congress and President.  Also the Republicans are doing a fine job of filibustering, so they can block and stall, which they have done in record numbers and they do this because they cannot come up with any ideas or solutions.  

doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that raising all kinds of taxes doesn't help at all

Bring on the rockets because apparently it does

repugs!

zzzz

nice handle - did you think of that yourself or send away and have someone else come with that for you?

it'll take us about a year to get all of you out from under the rocks you have been living in for the last eight years...then we'll be able to move in....we'd appreciate it if you would tidy up before you move out.

and there is nothing that would ever be bi-partisan about you...it's ok....

as for problems not going away overnight - well, you are right about that..since they weren't created in 4 months, probably will take a little longer don't you think?

and thanks for the 'tidbit" didn't know he was spending any money.

United States of Socialism: Isn't it a shame we wound up spending so much during economic prosperity - rather than drawing a surplus - that now we have no choice but to bet our entire country's economic viability on fixing the mess we're in? You might want to go back and take a look at the complete lack of restraint over well-documented budgetary decisions the previous administration made during times of prosperity.

I guess you're talking about that Dem controlled Congress that spent all that money? They controlled the purse strings and could have said no.

Bob,

It's my constitutional right to whine all I want about my elected officials. I pay my taxes. I pay my mortgage payments. My wife and I are holding down jobs.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country is getting bailed out with MY money. Why shouldn't I be whining?

Bob, I guess we are socialist, since our CEO's have shipped all our jobs overseas and they have sold their souls to communist China all to make a quick buck at the expense of US workers! Everything now a days is "Made in China" There was an article today saying how China wants to buy Detroit now! GM wants to import their cars made in China to the USA! That is the biggest slap in the face to the hard working people of Detroit. It's all corporate greed disguised as capitalism! So our capitalism is really socialism since we are doing business with the Communist Chinese, who own our country already!

I pay my taxes. I pay my mortgage payments. I am holding down a job and paying my bills. And I am sick to death of people like you thinking you are the only ones doing that, or the only ones wanting to. I guess I can whine all I want about people like you b**ching about socialism ,when you could not begin to explain what socialism really is.

The United States of Socialism

thanks I finally found "the only couple" who is working and paying their taxes...

guess you are right - since you are in "the exclusive club" you are the only one entitled to your opinion.

The Us of Socialism

Yea, whining?? you got guts.. you should be jumping for joy. At least you can pay your bills. Your tax dollars?? You should be complaining about all the corporations and big businesses that are NOT paying their taxes.
Funnel all your hatred at the right people. Get informed. You are probably one of those greedy suckers that created this mess to begin with. So many people are suffering because of no fault of their own and you have the nerve to complain about your tax dollars. SHAME on you and all like you

You know, The United States of Socialism didn't say he was the only one paying his mortgage and holding down a job, he gave the reason why he was entitled to whine about the downward spiral this country is on under Obama in answer to Bob's comment. It's just like the liberals in this country to take apart someone's answer that they don't like and make it a personal attack. Just like Appanage talking about the "religious" right being intolerant. I guess tolerance from the left only happens when you agree with their arguments, when you state a different opinion there is no tolerance, just ask Miss California. Hypocrites!

maybe if Miss California wasn't a liar she would have gotten more support....but hey, if she spews your propoganda then I guess it is o.k. if she lied...that's the agenda of the right...tolerance to those who agree with us.

as for US Socialism - his statement was "MY" money was bailing out the "rest" of America...and you know what - everyone in "Our Country" is entitled to whine or voice their opinions, whether due to circumstances or not - being a "current tax payer" is not the litmus test in this country to voice ones opinions.

We know the Republican Tolerance - With us or Against Us.

Yea, whining?? you got guts.. you should be jumping for joy. At least you can pay your bills. Your tax dollars?? You should be complaining about all the corporations and big businesses that are NOT paying their taxes

Janet, you've hit the nail on the head. Far too many people in this country have totally forgotten what it means to be "fortunate". Storm, the way he's talking is as if the rest of us arent just like him/her or that the ones who are out of a job are just deadbeats. Get real.

We're in this together whether you like it or not. Snickering because your neighbors house is being forclosed because you don't agree with his/her spending habits and then turning around and complaining because your home value has suddenly decreased is what's ironic. If I'm still able and fortunate enough to have a job and I can help out my fellow Americans by taking some of MY money ,as you two halfwits have stated it, then fine by me -- whats more American than that? Self Righteousness is disgusting.

brenda

it is a well known fact that she signed a document that stated she had not posed for any nude or partially nude photos....she attested to this.

ooops....nude/semi nude pictures all over the web.

this alone would have been grounds to have her crown of Miss California taken(reference Vanessa Williams) away but due to the controversy surrounding the "question" Trump made up some story how he thought the pictures were in good taste and since the "the times have changed and the populus has changed regarding nude/semi nude pictures" he was going to let this pass...

think if you sign and attest you have not had pictures taken and then they exist - that is lying!

brenda-311995,

Your beloved Miss California lied when she signed a contract stating that she had never done a nude or semi-nude photo shoot. Pictures of just such a photo shoot surfaced not long after she began shooting off her mouth to anyone who would listen.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what led to Vanessa Williams having her title pulled, except that she took the pro-gay rights platform that started the huge scandal for her. Read into it what you will, but never mistake that she got hammered because of her anti-gay rights views; it was because of breach of contract. She should have been stripped of her title too if all is fair (which it is obviously not).

Storm27: the "religious" right is seemingly quite intolerant, however, there is also a segment known as the religious right (no quotes needed for this group) who are probably no more or less tolerant than anyone else, though no polling exists.

The point is that there are a lot of people who call themselves part of the religious right - or at least consider themselves religious and right leaning - who aren't practicing any religion of which I'm personally aware if they're expressing and acting out such intolerant, unaccepting viewpoints.

Are there others doing the same? Of course. But doesn't it seem particularly incredible that people who call themselves 'of faith' are sometimes so ready to judge, cast out, and exclude others for no other reason aside from having a different opinion or even just looking different?

It blows my mind.

I hope that all towns and cities in the US realize that your economy can not be dependent upon only one company or industry.

In Nevada 85% of tax revenue comes from the casinos. Now that gambling is down the State is realizing that depending on other people's disposable income was probably not very bright.

Hopefully, we will learn our lessons from this economy to develop diversity and some strategic planning in the future.

I live in Elkhart. I think it's obnoxious to imply that we think it's "all about us." Elkhart's unemployment rate is almost at 20%, one of the highest in the country (the New York Times referred to us as the center of the meltdown). Residents understand that Obama doesn't visit because he thinks we're so special, he visits because Elkhart is a pretty prime example of what happens to blue-collar manufacturing towns when the economy crashes. Nobody is suggesting that Elkhart deserves more attention than other distressed regions. To be blunt, I doubt any of the critical posters here know any Elkhart residents or else they might have bothered to form a slightly more nuanced opinion on the whole issue. We didn't line up to receive international media attention as the worst town in the country. It just is what it is and the folksy overtones in media coverage are not necessarily accurate. It's easy to lambaste a city for only relying on two or three industries, but the industries that drove our local economy developed over decades, sometimes more than a century. We can't flip a switch and change the skills, facilities and money available to us just because someone in Nevada is annoyed that Obama comes here sometimes. Nor, I suspect, can any other town.

So please, PLEASE stop implying that Elkhart residents are to blame or that we're too self-absorbed to notice that the rest of the country is hurting too. We're citizens too and we recognize that all of us hold an equal stake in this country's economic well-being. It's never fair when someone loses their job after 25 years of hard work, no matter where it happens.

As much as you want to blame GWB and the GOP the blame goes squarely back to the Democratic Congress that has had control for the past 2+ years. The are the ones that control the money, not the President. Even if a President recommends something, ultimately Congress makes the decision...even if the President vetoes the bill, they can still overrule him. Put the blame where it belongs.

PajMahal: Hear what you're saying. It might pay for the citizens of Elkhart who aren't represented well in these articles to become more activist. It's easy to read some of this and take away a tendancy on the part of those interviewed to complain about the current President as if he's had 8 years to fix their problems. Some comments seem imply that something about this President automatically makes him incapable of having a chance even before he gets one.

I thought this country was all about "pulling up by your bootstraps" and not depend on the goober-mint. No?

Mother Nature/God...whomever you subscribe to knows best. Power in diversity.

I think some of the reason they chose Elkhart is because of the symbolism it provides us. I certainly have no beef with my fellow hard working Elkhart Americans, but what is produced there (a house on wheels in some regards) can be viewed as what is wrong with this country and all it's indulgences -- at the expense of the rest of the world. Just my opinion and not meant to inflame anyone

What an unfair and simpleminded thing to say. When one out of five adults aren't working, it isn't laziness. There aren't any jobs. My city is full of good, hardworking people, black, white, Hispanic, whatever, who would like nothing more than a job that will allow them to comfortably support their families. Many of them would prefer to go hungry than to accept government assistance.

You're correct Bill.

The Administration is putting pressure on the Banks to start lending again.

But Banks are using the economic problems to their advantage. Less options for borrowing equals higher interests rates charged.

It's a sick, sad world.

LU 404, I think we can take your point one step further. I understand that some employers are actually lowering wages because so many people are in competition for fewer jobs. There's your classic case of american capitalism: stick it to the people because you can.

Actually there is plenty of money and credit. The banks just wont loan to people and businesses who are not capable of paying the loans. They have learned from this. Force the banks to loan and the money goes out the door to people who cant pay it back; then we are right back where we started with all this mess........

The Government can give them all the money in the world (they may have already) but they cant create credit worthy people and businesses fast enough to do anything with it.

louee, I hope you are an employer or else you have no idea. Let's see, could there be any other reason to lower wages? Maybe it's that or complete layoff because the economy is in the krapper.

Louee, you aren't serious! Because they can? How about because they have to since they are having trouble borrowing money to make payroll, the cost of doing business has gone up, if you can find any business out there since so many people have been layed off, and now the government wants to increase tax on small business. Because they can't do anything else.

Louee's right. It's a business stratigy developed in the 80's

I didn't respond because I thought that everyone already knew it.

The basis of business is to maximize profits and minimize costs. That's why the B/S about "cutting taxes for corporations will create jobs" is so annoying.

Companies are not in the businesss of creating jobs. Their goal is profit.

Let's use an example:

You have a business that has 5 workers and makes $100,000 profit in a year. What do you do with the money? Do you "create a job", or do you stick it in your pocket?

Say you realize that the work can be done with 1,600 hours of labor instead of 2,000 hour of labor each week. What do you do? Do you keep all 5 workers full time? After all, you did make $100,000 grand last year...

Or do you eliminate a job and increase your profits?

It's the basis of business. Tax incentives can not and will not force a business to retain workers. Our present economic situation has demonstrated that.

Did you hear about any company giving back their tax incenties when they failed to "create jobs"?? No, you'll never hear of a situation like that and Congress would never make such a request on their buddys...

Also, people need to really understand what the basis of free market capitalism really is. What it's there for. To make money. Huge coorperations that have no social, environmental, or legal responsibilities have no other goal but to do just that. Small businesses and people in general who subscribe do this also, but on a much lesser scale and are much more likely to take into account -- the effects your decisions might have on your neighbors.

Obama's not supposed to cater to only Democratic wants. He is everyone's President and it's his job to serve all of the people. I for one appreciate his recognition of this fact.

And where is Nader now? With the vaccuum in the GOP this is a good time for alternative parties to emerge.

But they need to run people for House and Senate seats, not just show up for the Presidential election and complain because no one will support them.

Nader has been running for President since I was a little girl. If I remember correctly he received the about the same amount of votes in 1976 as Archie Bunker and Mickey Mouse.

I find in annoying that people want to run for President without any political experience. Jesse Jackson ran for President twice. Why didn't Jackson move into DC in the 80's and run for Mayor against Marion Barry? If Jackson had cleaned up DC at least he would have had something on his resume to show leadership and political skills.

LU-404506: Awesome. About ten excellent points there! Enjoyed reading your comments immensely.

8 years of destruction? The ecomony, during 2 wars and after a terrorist attack, was growing at over 4% a year. When the Dems took over Congress in 2006 is when it started to tank. Coincidence? I think not. Plus the Great Obama has spent more in 4 months than Bush did in 8 years.

OMG your stupidity amazes me! Wait a minute, no, no it doesn't. You buy all of that republican't CRAP they feed you.

Why don't you do a little research, you will see that the economy was not even close to being in good shape. As a matter of fact it was tetering on the edge of the mortgage/credit abyss for the whole 8 years. Wall Street and the Banking Industry were lending the hell out of everything just barely holding the sinking economy afloat.

Why is it you think that bush not once, but TWICE had to send out "stimulus" checks to all of us. To fix the broken economy! Never once thinking to raise the minimum wage because he was bought by corporations.

Instead of just spewing republican/rush limbaugh (non-capitalized on purpose) talking points, why don't you actually listen to the actual facts, do some research, and take some time to figure something out on your own for once.

Here, this will come as a big suprise for you: "FOX NEWS IS NOT NEWS" it is Rupurt Murdoc's private, big business, corporate, republican, PROPAGANDA TOOL.

Timmen

Since the Bush Administration spent 19 Trillion dollars between 2001-2008 - take a moment and explain to me exactly the 19 Trillion Obama spent in 4 months....

Try reading something besides bumper stickers........

You are a fool if you think this economic mess would not be happening if it weren't for a Republican President.

This recession was coming no matter which party was in charge. The housing crisis started with Clinton. He pushed for easier mortgage loans to those who could not reasonably afford them. Bush turned a blind eye for the first 5-6 years but then tried to pass legislation when it started to become a political issue but the Democratic Congress wouldn't pass it, again for political reasons (you can find all this out through research).

Both parties are at fault. Each trying to top the other for political gain and power while the American people sit idly by getting screwed over at every turn in the name of their favorite party...Democrats & Republicans.

Housing, Industry, Banking....it was a house of cards built up over the last 20-30 years by every Presidency, and it was coming down no matter who was in charge. The bigger question is...Who can rebuild it, who can do it the quickest, who can do it with the best foundation? Is it Obama, is it a Democrat, is it a Republican, or is it someone we do not yet know of?

Time will tell....and as always, time can be both cruel and kind.

Abe, that story about Clinton dumbing down loan underwriting is a republican lie. How many times do people have to debunk this thing to get it to go away? Please do some research on the Community Reinvestment Act. It did nothing like you describe.

Our family had a great eight years . Always had jobs, money, food and freedom. It wasn't until the dems made the banks give mortages to people who could not afford them. Just like the republicans warned them not to and everything came crashing down.

louee, you need to be the one doing some research. The CRA was created back in 1977 under Jimmy Carter's watch. It was geared toward eliminating redlining of certain housing areas that did not permit people in these areas from getting financing.

It was Clinton in 1992-95 that continued to push more and more banking restrictions when it came to the CRA. Eventually, banks had to make risky loans to meet their government obligations under the CRA.

Fannie & Freddie came into the game in 1992 and had to dedicate a certain percentage of their lending to support CRA. It hit $10 billion in CRA loans in 2001, with a goal of $500 billion by 2010.

I think we can guess, their not going to be reaching that milestone. This isn't a Republican lie.

Christian-775405

I can read and do research and it comes back to the Dems and the last 2 years of GWB 8.  They talked the economy down, the stock market took a tumble just cause the Dems were elected.  I don't listen to RUSH or FOX, but still know what goes on!

Minimum wage!?!? Now who is spitting union talking points?

I'm sure if you are the reader you say you are I'm sure you will realize the stock market took a tumble in mid Sept before the dems were elected...but don't let the facts get in the way of a good post.

The election is over. Now Obama is doing what is best for all of the people of this country. That's what he's supposed to do.

Visits overseas a failure??? Give me a break.

Yeah, let's publish more abuse pictures so we can inflame the local populations to kill more American troops.

Ever consider that MSNBC decided to make Elkhart their 'pet project' because President Obama chose to cast the spotlight upon our community?

Or perhaps you missed his speech back in January selling his stimulus package. You know, the speech when he mentioned Elkhart more times than McCain brought up Joe the Plumber in the Presidential debate?

ever consider that MSNBC decided to make Elkhart their 'pet project' because President Obama chose to cast the spotlight upon our community?

What? Are you trying to suggest that it may be extremely wasteful and irresponsible to drive around your own personal house on wheels and snub your nose at the rest of the world while doing it? But...but..but it's my "right" Darn these people and their hidden agendas...hah

I agree with Matt about Obama, but we need alternative political parties for balance.

Timmeh - It's the GOP that promotes that "ribbon wearing" and "tea bag" crap.

tim, eh

are you wearing that new ribbon - in honor of the passing of the republican party?

professisional what?

Matt, surely you are smarter than Obama about a lot of things. Quit running yourself down. I bet you wouldn't open your mouth and say one thing and then change it later. That happens all the time with Obama. If only he had learned as a child to think, put down the positives and then another column for the negatives. He would be a far better president. He moves too fast, doesn't think. But I will give him credit for when he is wrong changing his mind. However, it didn't have to happen in that way if only he had thought about it all the way through the first time. His speeches have little substance, so I've come to believe that what he says people who want to believe in him insert their own thoughts about things and believe he said them.

Yes rabbit, because no ordinary person ever says or stands by something in their life and then, after learning more or hearing alternatives, may change his/her mind or perception on the same matter. I must be a degenerate because I don't stand by a lot of what I thought 15 years ago. You know why? Edu - ma - cayshon I reckon

That's a fine idea. Since you seem to be so enthused about it, I assume you will be providing financial assistance to anyone who can't afford to move after losing their manufacturing job. It's good to know that America has keen brains like you on the case.

Maybe you'd like to offer financial assistance to those here that would love to relocate to another area but because they have no money are stuck. Its a bit difficult to pick up and relocate with some money in your pocket, particularly if you have children. Next suggestion?

PajMahal & Hoosier, I've done that once before and I'm doing it again....you pack things in your car and take off. If you really care about your future and your family you just do it.

anti.. Would you have done it if there were alternatives and smarter ways to deal with your situation?

We need more dope smokers in Congress, then maybe we'd get some honest representation.

I'm sick of straight people with their holier than thou mentality on the outside and corrupt souls on the inside.

I'm a gainfully employed veteran of the US Navy, but in your narrow, bigoted mind I guess you will call be a dope smoking liberal hippie too, just because I dare not swallow your beliefs!

AMEN to that LU!!!!

I get so tired of all our hyprocritical elected officials campaining and spouting thier lies when they are really the most corrupt and evil people in society today.

If I had a dollar for every official that was busted taking part in the exact behavior they were so vehemently against, I could afford to run for office and spend my time lying to the country.

Clinging to my guns

I',m glad to read that you think there is "enough blame to go around to both parties"...

It was hard to tell from your post that there even are two parties......

Obama is brilliant.

It doesn't matter how many guns you own, they will not make your little winkie look bigger. I know that you've been told all your life that just one more gun will make you a big man, but it's not true.

Right now I am watching the news about how more teachers, fire fighters and police are being laid off. Yet we can send billions overseas. What ever happened to charity begins at home? When will DC start saying to the world...We just don't have it to give right now. We repair other countries infrastructures while our own roads are in disrepair. We set up thier schools, yet our own lose valuable teachers. We feed other countries while our own food pantries for the poor go unstocked. We send money to a country who has citizens who can pay 14 million for a license plate, yet our DMV fees are doubling here in CA.

amen to that

On a side note, I heard a story about a high school senior who is taking on the governor of her state. He turned down stimulus money earmarked for the schools in her state. These schools are the poorist of the poor. She personally raised 10 grand to enable some of the schools to get basic needs. He only would accept it if it could be used to take down the state's debt. She is ready to take it all the way to the Supreme Court if need be to help the children of her state....you go girl. I can only hope she runs for any office, we need people like her, those who care more for people than their own status.

Good for that governor that does not want to become a puppet of the Federal government because you took money for them. That student should know that her ancestors learned more than she does by sitting in a one-room school house without computers or even good heating system. I'm not saying that schools can't use the money, but I am saying that no matter how nice the schools are kids drop out and they are really dumbed down and that does not come from money or the lack of it. It comes from young people who are spoiled rotten and have had everything given to them. Those who wish to succeed will under whatever circumstance. Those students of long ago would put our children today to shame.

Those students of long ago would put our children today to shame.

These darn kids nowadays...Are you referring to the ones who seem to have a little more compassion and empathy because I remember growing up in the 80s and not one of my close friends (7 guys roughly) came from a family where at least 1 of the parents was nonexistant. Now that we are all grown and have kids of our own? -- every single one of them would do anything to be just the opposite to their children. Those the ones?

This is a great story though, in regards to this girl taking it upon herself and getting others involved in her mission. Need more of it

"Time to pull yourselves up by your boot straps and take care of yourselves."

That seems to be the antithesis of the mindset of the majority right now. The majority voted for a nanny state, and majority rules.

"Time to pull yourselves up by your boot straps and take care of yourselves."

The majority wants a nanny state right now. Majority rules.

Timmeh-

We are a community populated with responsible adults who, until the meltdown, supported themselves and their families responsibly. It's utterly condescending and offensive to talk down to the people here who are struggling so badly. I'm pretty skeptical that you're "pulling for us" since you seem mostly content to treat us like simpletons who don't understand current events.

I don't think anyone in Elkhart is looking for a handout. But I do agree with you that our community served no other purpose than that of a photo op.

This recession has been overdue for the US. Our spending and purchasing of useless crap was out of control.

I agree that economies ebb and flow, but we caused it to tank to this extreme with out greed and materialism.

And I hate to break it to either side, but it's no one's fault but our own.

I think you are dead on.....

I have 60k in available credit and I used 250 recently to book a hotel room...the rest is free and clear....We have never used our CCs for anything more then as a protectionary meausre when buying and ordering items. We have always had cash available. We dont run contiuous credit lines.

Plus we have owned homes since 1998 and we never have played the equity ATM game to pay off CCs and by depreciating items such as cars, boats, furniture etc....I have never taken out a home quity line of credit on any of our homes outside of the orignal pruchase of the mortgage.

Duvie:

Good for you! Hopefully your homes havent lost too much of their value and your not upside down on your mortgages. You sound like one of the few who didnt get caught up in the secondary mortgage market game and lost.

Good post. I don't trust partisans from either party. That's why I'm an Independent.

Duvie, your article is absolutely true. I have lived through them and know that you are giving history accurately. But did we ever cover so many business' with bail outs before. I don't remember that. The economy recovered on its own by people's initive. Something is different about this one, however. The extreme greed and dishonesty on Wall Street and the poor policies of the Clinton Administration with dealing with the banks and insisting they loan to people who would never be able to repay their mortgage. The Democrats in Congress who continued to support the idea without being honest about what was going on. What makes this recession different? The way we are handling it?

MG, you're right. It's not as if he has 100%support. These people critical of Obama probably had little, if no, support for him to begin with. This article is not news and frankly is rediculous. But I agree with you. It took 8 years to tear down Rome. It won't be rebuilt in a day!

What are you hinting to with your last comment? That people who didn't vote for obama or dislike him is related to him being black and that they are racist?

I hear that kind of BS all the time from libs. Libs think all conservatives whether indepent such as myslef are all a bunch of gun toting bible hugging people like Obama hinted to in his no infamous gaffe with the mic during the campaign trail.

I didn't vote for him because I dont share his views on social policies, gitmo, the war on terror, and his income redistribution.

Besides those differences I back my president and my country until such time as they show me a reason why not.

So far I have to say I have been pleasantly surprised, which I can read has really been chapping the hides of his lib supporters.

-HIs stance on Iraq was different then his campaign

_his stance on prosecuting Bush era for things is encouraging

-his stance on gitmo tribunals

-his stance with the car company bailouts

-his stance on gay marriage

-his stance on credit card companies and their practices

and a few more....

plus I think you have a bit of your dates off....

also his stance on the fair doctrine....

The reality is that most people vote along party lines regardless of the person running...which is a shame.

When the Dems ran Clinton the GOP attacked him for not going to Viet Nam and smoking pot. Then they turn around and nominated Bush 43 who did not go to Viet Nam and was a famous for his booze and coke addictions.

When you hire someone you then stand back allow them to do their job.

Duvie, you can think I'm inaccurate, but I'm not.

what would the "real reason" be metal guitarist?

Metal, I'll go ahead and say it for you. If Obama was the exact same guy but white, I suspect he would have won by a much larger landslide than he did. What's wrong with truth. What? Did racism simply vanish overnight? Not the last time I had chats with white folks, and I DO chat with many white folks considering I am one. Metal isnt suggesting that any of you are racist, but to act like it still doesnt exist is comical. I personally know a few people who wouldnt vote for Obama for that reason. Sad? Without a doubt

enoughPolitics:

Dead on. I absolutely agree with you. I maintain that a number of white Americans can only perceive black Americans as the political equivalents of either Alan Keyes or Malcolm X with no middle ground in mainstream politics. No matter how much evidence mounts to the contrary, they'll always insist that a black politician is secretly plotting a socialist state. A lot of this anti-Obama nonsense is racism and I'm sick of tiptoeing around it.

I like your thinking especially your quote: "Going back to determine the causes of the issues in the economy is a good and important part of fixing the problems, but going back just to spew even more negative thoughts and ideas out into an already negative world is really a waste of time and energy and is counterproductive to a solution." Well said.

great post

Can you please point to the legislation that Bush passed that somehow started and the hosuing bubble in 1994 that burst in 2007? I doubt you can because the executive branch doesn't make laws and regulate the banking and mortgage lending industry. This is Congress...

Need I find the speeches and legislatoin of prominent southern democrat senators and representatives that pushed for new rules to make it easier for people who could not qualify for homes originally to then qualify? It was that lapse in judgement that built this house of cards....

Phil Gramm (now famous for calling us "whiners") sponsored the bill that deregulated the financial industry and allowed commercial banks to get into bed with the investment banks on Wall St. The risk they took on because of that is the seed of the economic crisis we are in today. The Community Reinvestment Act did not permit banks to go for weak loan underwriting. That is a bald-faced lie. Banks went for weak underwriting because they were competing with free standing mortgage companies who were packaging up loans and selling them as securities as fast as they could get some poor sucker to sign on the dotted line. The ratings companies gave these pieces of crap high ratings (meaning safe investments), and banks bought them. They are now essentially valueless, hence banks' troubled capital and failure to lend. Bush and his minions did not regulate hedge funds and allowed AIG and others to "bet" against the hedge funds. The hedge funds mostly cashed out and made a fortune. This is a bit simplistic, but is basically what happened.

WellWellWell08, nobody said anything for the last 8 years about Bush? Wow, thanks, all this time I thought they had been complaining.

louee,

It may have been a republican with his name on the bill...however it was done in 1999 which is about 2 years ahead of George Bush...so if you are going along with Obama's claim this is "ground zero" of the current financial business then you believe this is the cause...not the BUsh administration but the Clinton admin.

These are the main points

One, Democrats in good standing supported the final bill. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, Clinton Treasury officials whom Obama relies on for advice, supported it. Joe Biden voted for it, it passed the Senate with 90 votes, and President Clinton signed it. Heaven knows, Washington can make bipartisan mistakes, but if the bill were so obviously the road to financial perdition, presumably some of these Democrats much keener to regulate the economy than Gramm would have voted "no."

Two, the bill was a foregone conclusion. Europe already had so-called universal banking in which financial institutions could undertake varied operations. U.S. banks were finding loopholes in the law to keep up with foreign competitors, and increasingly bumped up against the 60-year-old regulatory constraints. The Gramm bill just blessed the world as it was already evolving.

Three, the legislation appears to have alleviated the current crisis rather than making it worse. Big, diversified financial institutions have been weathering the crunch better than anyone else and have occasionally swooped in to lessen the pain. Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, which would have been impossible prior to Gramm's deregulation. Otherwise, Merrill would either have gone under or been bailed out by the taxpayers. Similarly, J.P. Morgan wouldn't have taken over Bear Stearns, and Barclays Bank wouldn't be considering buying Lehman Brothers.