� Previous | Main | Next �
February 08, 2011 3:43 PM
The White House today announced that in next week's budget proposal for FY2012, the president will propose that states be allowed to raise taxes on employers starting in 2014 to pay for unemployment insurance.
The proposal is being made in the context of trying to help states avoid raising taxes this year and next, senior administration officials said.
Under an agreement with the federal government, states collect taxes from employers on the first $7,000 in wages, at whatever rate they choose. The Obama administration proposal will allow them to collect taxes on the first $15,000 in wages.
Hypothetically, the states could tax the larger amount at half the rate, so taxes stay the same, but administration officials anticipate that states will not do that, given the rate of insolvency.
Right now states owe the federal government $42 billion in debt in terms of their obligations to the federal government for unemployment insurance - the largest debt they've ever incurred under the present agreement.
Three of the states hardest-hit economically - Michigan, Indiana, and South Carolina - have already seen tax rates for employers automatically triggered to a higher rate so as to avoid greater debt, and the administration says triggers for 20 other states are about to kick in.
For 2011 and 2012, as part of this proposal, the Obama administration would require a moratorium on states raising taxes to pay for unemployment insurance, and would allow states to avoid paying interest on their unemployment insurance debt.
"We are giving help to some states who have had to borrow and not been able yet to pay back -- which would legally result in an increase in the federal share that is gotten through a tax on businesses -- which we don't think makes any sense right now," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today.
Administration officials say this is a way for states to be given some breathing space to readjust their budgets during this period of economic recovery.
This proposal will, for "states that are overdrawn on this, ensure that we don't place an extra burden on them,." Gibbs said. "Let's give them some time in an economic downturn to have what they need to effectively meet the needs of those that are unemployed and give them an understanding that in the future...they're going to rationalize what is offered and how they come up with the funds to pay for what is ultimately offered."
-Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
�
February 8, 2011 in Jake Tapper, Sunlen Miller | Permalink | Share | User Comments (53)
You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price search online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!
Posted by: martyqick | Feb 9, 2011 5:04:09 AM
"From Obama's recent speech to the Chamber of Commerce:
"Auto executives predicted that having to install seatbelts would bring the downfall of their industry. It didn?t happen. The President of the American Bar Association denounced child labor laws as ?a communistic effort to nationalize children.? That?s a quote. None of these things came to pass."
Apparently the moron failed to recall that General Motors filed for bankruptcy on June 1, 2009. Chrysler filed for bankruptcy on April 30, 2009. American birth rates are well below replacement rates when immigrant births aren't counted, and the federal government explicitly claims a right to children that supercedes the parental claim in many areas, including health and education. One can reasonably argue about whether or not these events can truly be said to have been caused by the specific government policy, but to base an argument on the events not having happened takes a special combination of ignorance and unfounded arrogance." vox day
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Feb 9, 2011 12:06:52 AM
"More Taxes" . . . liberals are just obsessed with these words.
Posted by: EPU | Feb 9, 2011 12:04:19 AM
Mr. Hiltzik addresses the unemployment figures in his article, I don't care to paraphrase his opinion--those who are interested may read it. But I don't see how Texas tax policy would help California, unless you're just out to 'starve the beast'.
Posted by: Skip | Feb 8, 2011 11:41:10 PM
Get the picture?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
Nice post.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Feb 8, 2011 11:39:06 PM
Obama?s interview with Bill O?Reilly shows what a con-man and how deceitful he really is?. when asked to comment on a recent Wall Street Journal editorial charging that Obama aims to redistribute Americans? wealth, Obama insisted he ?absolutely? denies that charge ? and went on to insist that he?d never raised taxes. ?I didn?t raise taxes once,? Obama told O?Reilly. ?I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years.? --- Now, the WORDING is very important here!! -- -Why did he change the sentence to use the term ?FOR? in the second sentence, since EVERYONE knows it?s simply not true, as Obama has raised taxes more than 20 times. --- Why would he say that? ---- because he specifically said ?FOR the last two years? ---- It is because Obama?s tax ?reductions? (as in CREDITS) last for only about two years, but the tax increases, to the tune of $618 billion, are PERMANENT. ---- Ninety percent of all the tax cuts he ever signed into law are temporary ---- but 100 percent of all of the tax increases he passed are permanent!!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | Feb 8, 2011 11:37:25 PM
US Dept. Of Labor state unemployment rates, December 2010:
Texas 8.3%
California 12.5%
Get the picture now?
"If both states go broke" is a fantasy not worth indulging. Texas is not going to go broke--it isn't even close. California cannot possibly avoid it.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 8, 2011 11:26:16 PM
I forgot that it's all a case of "Obama May I" for the states to tax.
Posted by: John Q Public | Feb 8, 2011 11:21:03 PM
Get the picture?
---------
Not really; if both states go broke there may be some consolation to the citizens who paid less taxes, but I'm still not seeing any solutions in either case.
Posted by: Skip | Feb 8, 2011 11:18:15 PM
"when they want to whine about how hard it is to be rich."
It's not hard to be rich. It's hard to get rich; otherwise everyone would do it. I was able to do it, but I doubt I could if I had ro start now--this government is at pains to prohibit it, to the benefit of no one.
I got mine. I would say, "now you get yours," but I know you can't.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 8, 2011 11:15:35 PM
"Instead he relies on Corporate America to do that......which is a pipe dream, because they are sending everything to China."
Corporations owe a legal, fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize the return on their investment. If the US chooses to make it difficult to do well in America, American business will operate elsewhere. It's not rocket science.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 8, 2011 10:42:33 PM
What's the latest news from the Coffee Party? Hello?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 8, 2011 10:37:59 PM
"Just another example that however much Democrats may struggle with the economy, Republicans continue to offer nothing better."
Nonsense. Even if you accept the Times's comically false premise that the two states are on a par fiscally, the people of Texas didn't pay huge taxes to get there. The people of California did.
Which would you prefer?
Note that when a California newspaper publishes a "news"article in which he describes another state's governor as "sucking up" and "prattling," you are entitled to suspect that you are not getting an objective account.
What does the Times tell us about California's unfunded public employee pension liability ( roughly $500 Billion)? Texas's?
Get the picture?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 8, 2011 10:29:03 PM
According to an article in the L.A. times titled "What California should learn from the Texas budget crisis" the hood-ornament state of right-wing fiscal responsibility isn't doing a whole lot better:
"The so-called Texas Miracle is in trouble, demonstrating that fashioning fiscal policies strictly along low-tax lines doesn't protect you from budget deficits or business slumps or make your residents necessarily happy or healthy."
One paragraph I particularly like:
"While Texas Gov. Rick Perry sucked up to the "tea party," declaring himself opposed to "government bailouts" and prattling about seceding from the union, he papered over his state's budget gap with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act funds, including increased federal handouts for education and Medicaid. So when you, the California taxpayer, hear talk of the Texas Miracle, you should take pride in having helped pay for it."
Just another example that however much Democrats may struggle with the economy, Republicans continue to offer nothing better.
Posted by: Skip | Feb 8, 2011 10:06:02 PM
A basic rule of economics. The more you tax an activity, the less that activity occurs. The more you subsidize an activity, the more that activity occurs. So the Democrats extend unemployment benifits to 99 weeks, and now add what could be an additional $100 billion tax on business. Guess how that's going to work out.
Posted by: happyflier130 | Feb 8, 2011 9:12:27 PM
"The states need relief now, not later."
Whether they need it, and whether people in fiscally responsible states should be taxed to pay for it, are two entirely different questions.
I live in the bankrupt state of California. I hope that it defaults on its obligations, and that a new political reality will emerge from the ashes. I certainly do not want the people of Indiana or South Carolina to help these corrupt swine out one bit.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 8, 2011 8:47:34 PM
"No, if you invested your savings in the stock market, it would have vanished along with my savings."
Absolutely false. There has been no forty-year period in history (even any period you can name starting before the 1929 crash) during which a steady annual investment in US equities wouldn't have yielded an annualized pre-tax return of roughly 11%.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 8, 2011 8:40:01 PM
Just one more example of Obama saying one thing to the Chamber of Commerce yesterday and then doing the opposite by raising taxes on our business. So once again either we pay more money to the government or we give someone a job.
Posted by: whathappened08 | Feb 8, 2011 8:02:44 PM
Wasn't it Obama that said we've been kicking the can down the road far too long. Now he's enabling states to kick the can down the road and forcing business to pick it up. Our state has not balanced their budget and only cut it 1%, letting the Feds pick up the pieces. I see no effort to cut back on anything.
Posted by: Gary | Feb 8, 2011 7:24:43 PM
Look up teacher retirement. In Louisiana teachers can retire after 20 years of employment. At 42 years of age, they get full retirement. This means they are on the books far longer than they worked. And we pay for it.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Feb 8, 2011 6:49:32 PM
Can you point out any specific policy that helped turn it around? Obama said this recession ended over a year ago. The stimulus certainly didn't stimulate and the insurance regulation law certainly didn't help either. So what do you think "turned it around"?-
Tim Geithner is never wrong!
Posted by: Peter Orszag | Feb 8, 2011 6:24:40 PM
if your bankrupt you sell off assets and close the doors. states should sell off assetsa and modify their pensions or fire those that dont comply then rehire. thats how its done in the private sector.socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money. teachers teach 183 days a year in california while non union administrators and staff work 249 days. get real please as this is why california is imploding as all stae jobs have unsustainable benefits while continuing to allow illegals use our services.
Posted by: catman | Feb 8, 2011 5:59:15 PM
"""""And that things are finally turning around is something to give Obama some credit for."""""
Posted by: blip
Can you point out any specific policy that helped turn it around? Obama said this recession ended over a year ago. The stimulus certainly didn't stimulate and the insurance regulation law certainly didn't help either. So what do you think "turned it around"?
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 8, 2011 5:56:46 PM
"If our government let me invest what I have paid in to Social Security to date, I would be ready to retire at 55."
No, if you invested your savings in the stock market, it would have vanished along with my savings.
Unlike you, I am paying into social security, but it won't be there by the time I retire because of doofuses like Paul Ryan who want to cut it. So, I have to sock away considerable amounts of money every month to plan for the apocalyptic future that is sure to follow, should the Mayan prophecy be fulfilled, and Sarah Palin rise to the White House in 2012.
Furthermore, you should know that I worked like a maniac to get through school and earn an advanced degree in a specialized field.... because I watched my father, who worked his whole damned life, die broke.... after long-term illness robbed him of his life savings, his livelihood, and eventually his golden years.
So, while I am not a blue collar worker.... you better believe that I will stick up for those guys, because those are the guys who get ripped off in our society.
Me, I will be fine. I have the kind of job that offers many, many opportunities along with the opportunity to move as I please. But just because I have it relatively good, it doesn't mean that I won't stand up for those that don't.
But for all my privileges, at the end of the day, I know I could not have done it without the support of strong communities, good schools, dedicated, professional teachers, and all the other things that most Americans take for granted when they want to whine about how hard it is to be rich.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 5:48:22 PM
The states need relief now, not later. That is not workable for any of them.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Feb 8, 2011 5:40:17 PM
"Americans today seem to have absolutely no clue as to how we became a manufacturing giant - OIL!"
Nobody cares. It's easier to just blame Obama and keep voting for politicians who want to make American workers compete with Chinese slave laborers, by turning this country into a third world country.
If you talk about investing in new sectors, the Tea Party people treat you like you are crazy.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 5:38:37 PM
We are in a "dying oil culture". We have made the "same mistakes" that other declining "civilizations" have made and started thinking we could be "wholly" successfull by unleashing our "financial sector". One half of our nation (or thereabouts) are dissing intelligence and education and turning to "faith". All bell weather signs of a declining civilization. And this will not change until the two Parties decide where to point towards the next "energy sector" (after oil) so that businesses and entrepenuers know where to develop technology and the manufacturing sector to buttress it. You can blame a "naive, inexperienced President" all you want. That is BS and distraction. Until the GOP is forced to quit pandering to the old "oil money" and help set our country in a new direction (along with the President)...not much is going to change in the way of investment dollars. All the rest of the argument is BS and distraction for short term political gain. Americans today seem to have absolutely no clue as to how we became a manufacturing giant - OIL!
Posted by: CND FOX | Feb 8, 2011 5:36:19 PM
"I go belly up I don't get a dime of "unemployment" help."
Actually, bankruptcy is like "unemployment" for business people.
Here, you take these risks, borrow a bunch of money.... and if you blow it... well, thanks to the government, you don't have to pay it back.
Quit whining about being an American.
If you don't like it, you should move to stinking communist China, where everything is "fairer" according to the Republican logic.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 5:35:50 PM
Yeah.... I would say the collapse of the economy at the end of the last administration constitutes a national emergency.
That Obama's Republican predecessor passed the economic stimulus and that Obama continued this policy seems to suggest that this was a significant issue.
The fact that it is widely hailed by economists as necessary to keep us from slipping into deeper economic peril suggests that it was the right thing to do.
I know better than to try and argue reasonable points with someone who hates Obama.... but come on, man! This economic catastrophe is no trivial matter. And that things are finally turning around is something to give Obama some credit for.
But, you know what, people are slamming Obama for quitting smoking.... so I don't expect much in the way of sane argumentation from people on really any issue that has anything to do with Obama. Some people just cannot see beyond their biases.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 5:32:00 PM
"""""I will never apologize for insisting on the idea that an American man who works an honest forty hours a week DESERVES to retire in comfort after decades of hard labor. He deserves to know that his kids can study and pursue the American Dream. """""
Posted by: blip
Not true Blip! He doesn't "deserve" it, he has to actually "PLAN" for it. The difference between you and I is I worked and planned for it and you want the government to do it for you. If our government let me invest what I have paid in to Social Security to date, I would be ready to retire at 55. Now, I have no Social Security, our government has spent it. Do you get that?
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 8, 2011 5:27:43 PM
I suppose this idea is going to stimulate me as a businessowner to actually hire people? Yeah, I guess they have to pay for all those endless extensions of unemployment benefits for those who could not find work because, in part, of low IQ thinking like this! The LAST thing I will do is hire anyone!! I'll keep my 15 hour days seven days a week to myself, seeing as how if I go belly up I don't get a dime of "unemployment" help.
Posted by: Paul Mennick | Feb 8, 2011 5:24:00 PM
""""""You pay into insure yourself against unemployment."""""
Posted by: blip
That money is for 6 months of unemployment, not 99 weeks! It's all gone and now we have that to make up for that too! Blip, Obama has been in for 2 years now. He spent $1.2 trillion on an unconstitutional law and $787 billion on what was supposed to be a stimulus. He will have a record $1.5 trillion deficit this year. What needs to strike you upside the head for you to see clearly?
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 8, 2011 5:23:12 PM
"What has he done to create an environment for business to start hiring again? He had a meeting YESTERDAY because he knows his 2nd term depends on unemployment. Also, Obama is completely pro-union and sits by while TSA unionizes before our very eyes."
This whole nonsense about creating an environment for business to hire again is nonsense.
Since the 1970s, real wages in this country have been on a steady decline. Good jobs vanish and crap ones replace them. On the other hand, worker productivity has gone through the roof.
On the other hand, after World War II, we had very high income tax rates, heavy regulation, a very highly paid workforce..... and a BOOMING economy. Including entire sectors of the economy created entirely through government investment in new technology.
Now, women and men are working more hours than ever. Families cannot even afford to stay home with their kids if they want. Productivity has gone up. Wages and benefits have gone down. And, what few jobs we have had, are on the decline.
What we have had over the last four decades is the perception of prosperity through credit..... meanwhile, our government has systematically erased its capacity to raise revenue, regulate big business, protect workers, and provide for the future.
Yet, people like you still walk around believing that the American worker is to blame because we want to send our kids to college, want to have a house, and maybe drink some beer on the weekend. I'm sorry, but I will never apologize for insisting on the idea that an American man who works an honest forty hours a week DESERVES to retire in comfort after decades of hard labor. He deserves to know that his kids can study and pursue the American Dream.
I will never, never apologize for saying that.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 5:21:35 PM
blip...thats why idiots with a dream take their ideas to to foreign countries to manufacture. the idiot you referred to most likeky paid more than his fair share of taxes for roads etc and probably others shares as well.if it were so easy we would all own our own companies wouldnt we.in a global economy labor becomes a commodity. unfortunately thats the economy we live in.why are atheletes and entertainers paid gazzilions of dollars? because they are the best at what they do for the price.its no different in the labor market.unless you are the best for the price we are all replaceable.
Posted by: catman | Feb 8, 2011 5:19:33 PM
"""""You couldn't even do business without a stable currency, roads, bridges, water, electricity, infrastructure and all the other things you conveniently take for granted.""""
Posted by Blip
You mean all the things we are taxed for and expect our politicians to budget wisely to maintain? That's right Blip, we pay for all that as well as the idiots in DC who can't keep their budgets under control. Our government has failed us miserably. Do you even hear about them paying back what they stole from Soc Sec? No, but they sure can plan on more cuts in it. You are supporting the very man that is spending us into oblivion and it doesn't even matter which 2 party monopoly is in power, because they both do it. Keep your allegiance to the most inexperienced President and administration we've ever seen, you still have 23 months.
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 8, 2011 5:18:32 PM
blip ---I will be glad to blame Obama. What has he done to create an environment for business to start hiring again? He had a meeting YESTERDAY because he knows his 2nd term depends on unemployment. Also, Obama is completely pro-union and sits by while TSA unionizes before our very eyes. I don't hate him, but I don't like his priorities or many of his policies.
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 8, 2011 5:11:42 PM
You know what the crazy thing is.... it's all these red states that are taking a disproportionate share of federal aid.
It's true, blue states get smaller returns on their taxes than red states.
So, you can rail all you want about liberty and taxes and risk and all that.... but at the end of the day, you should know that your tantrum is being subsidized by the people who work in those gosh-darned blue states with their union wages and big city liberals.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 5:10:45 PM
Notice that the Obama proposal is to allow states to control how they tax and pay out unemployment benefits.
I thought that's what you Tea Partyers were all about.
But I guess the mention of Obama's name just makes you crazy.
On top of that, consider that we are talking about unemployment insurance, which was something that Republicans and Democrats agreed upon. You pay into insure yourself against unemployment.
But, again, the word Obama! And people go out of their minds.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 5:06:47 PM
This way the states raise taxes and not the federal government. Let's see, the feds require states to go to 99 weeks without anyway to pay for it. Now, the states are going to raise taxes on businesses to pay for it. Sounds like a business killer to me. But at least the feds can say they didn't raise taxes.
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 8, 2011 5:05:27 PM
""""""Right now states owe the federal government $42 billion in debt in terms of their obligations to the federal government for unemployment insurance - the largest debt they've ever incurred under the present agreement."""""""
Surprise! What else did they expect for 2 years of welfare, oops, unemployment?
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 8, 2011 5:03:40 PM
"As a business owner myself, my question to you dumb utopian liberals are when are you going to stop biting the hands that feed you. You want cheap products, high paying jobs, free health care, high taxes on the rich and 10 year pensions when you quit. Sorry! Doesn't work that way! People don't open businesses for philanthropic reasons. They do it to be their own bosses and to secure their future."
Sal is ignorant about the social contract. You couldn't even do business without a stable currency, roads, bridges, water, electricity, infrastructure and all the other things you conveniently take for granted.
The American people work together to make this a land of opportunity. You make the mistake of thinking you are solely responsible for the blessings you enjoy.
And then you accuse your workers of "biting the hand that feeds them" just because they want to make enough money to support their families. THESE ARE PEOPLE WITH FAMILIES, but you refer to them as nothing more than dogs to be fed by your "noble" hand.
Sure, you are taking risks with your business. But let's not discount the effort and dignity of American workers. Without us, you are just another idiot with a dream.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 4:53:22 PM
As a business owner myself, my question to you dumb utopian liberals are when are you going to stop biting the hands that feed you. You want cheap products, high paying jobs, free health care, high taxes on the rich and 10 year pensions when you quit. Sorry! Doesn't work that way! People don't open businesses for philanthropic reasons. They do it to be their own bosses and to secure their future. This is America. You're welcome to take the risk like every other business owner takes. Besides, you never hear from the media about all the entrepreneurs that fail and owe tens of thousands in loans they used to start their business do you? Where are their bailouts? These are the risk takers!
What good is taking a financial risk in opening a business when taxers and spenders like Obama and his suck-up union pals want more and more of piece of the fruits of the businessman's labor? Obama is nothing more than college book nerd turned ambulance chaser who became president on false pretenses. He has zero understanding of how business functions in this country which is EXACTLY why we still have high unemployment rates two years into his presidency! This president is pathetic, naive and his policies will weaken this country inside and out! In 2012 this man needs to take a hike!
Posted by: Sal | Feb 8, 2011 4:46:09 PM
blip...whose blaming obama? china has been an issue for many years. if you make products in the u.s. and cant sell them at a profit because wages are cheaper in china what do you do? unions have run amok whether it be in the private or public sector and they are bankrupting this nation.nafta and gatt and globalization were pushed by clinton and that was the start. the only thing in this context i could blame obama for is union pandering and not placing tarriffs on chinese goods until they let their currency float.but it still starts with us the consumer. i try my best to avoid foreign products.
Posted by: catman | Feb 8, 2011 4:41:21 PM
Now comes the exemptions, i.e. Walmart, unions, UAW, etc.etc.etc....
Posted by: LongT | Feb 8, 2011 4:40:58 PM
"blip...are you talking about the george bush haters? "
It's exactly the same. Except that it took 8 years, two wars, and a collapsed economy to drive some Americans to that sorry state.
With Obama, the Tea Party lunacy started before he was even elected.
But, yeah, you are right, catman.... it's sick, warped, pathetic and stupid. And I am glad to see you agree with me.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 4:38:32 PM
"blood sucking unions and we want cheap products. cant have it all.vicious cycle that starts with the consumer which is us."
I don't even know where to begin. Maybe, take a logic class.
Blaming Obama for the problem which starts with us? If we are to blame for wanting cheap products, then how do you have any right to blame American workers for insisting on an honest wage? To call a middle class wage "blood-sucking" just seems excessive. I mean, I think dudes that build trucks should have middle class lives. Their kids should go to college. They should have access to health care and hospitals.
I agree that Americans love buying too much crap from Walmart, when we should be paying fair prices for goods made by the people in our country..... But I don't see what this has to do with Obama or bloodsucking unions. It sounds like the problem is between American consumers and the companies that hire sweatshop workers.
Unfortunately, the GOP supports globalization of markets.... and, making matters worse, the Democrats aren't much better. But if you waste your time smacking down Obama for what is essentially the Republican Party platform.... we'll never get anywhere.
It's like punching an ER nurse because you got bit by your neighbor's dog. If you gotta punch somebody, you'd be better off punching the dog or the owner than the person who is trying to stitch your face back on.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 4:29:46 PM
smelly sounds like china has a job for you? ever been to china? the chinese nationals i work with have there passports locked up by their sponsors here in the u.s. because they would defect to the u.s.immeadiately.its our greed as consumers that make china happen.
Posted by: catman | Feb 8, 2011 4:27:09 PM
Chinese wages are less than that of the USA worker because things are much cheaper in China and China does have the USA's run away inflation created by greedy blood sucking profit making USA businesses !!
Posted by: smellyecoli2 | Feb 8, 2011 4:21:44 PM
blip...are you talking about the george bush haters?
Posted by: catman | Feb 8, 2011 4:20:54 PM
I sing this song when I read the knee-jerk responses to the word "Obama."
"I get so emotional baby
Everytime I think of you"
Think of that Whitney Houston song when you cross paths with an Obama hater..... And however deranged they seem, you end up feeling a little bit better. It's just an obsession. Like some people are waaaaaay into Justin Bieber. Well, some people are waaaaay into hating Obama. No rhyme, no reason. Just pure, pavlovian conditioning by Fox News. They hear the word and then they flip out and type some nonsense about how whatever it was that Obama did or did not do, it is 100% wrong. Whether he quits smoking or eats ice cream, whether he goes to church or sits at his desk.... they are going to go bananas against Obama and anyone who supports him.
Posted by: blip | Feb 8, 2011 4:16:38 PM
Post a comment
Source: http://feeds.abcnews.com/click.phdo?i=8728d826e9af6668a2dd79105f03b79e
Robert Mugabe Ralph Nader Saparmurat Niyazov Ehud Olmert Ron Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment