Great week for America & Dems (bad, for everyone else)!

Happy Friday, all! What a fantastic week for Americans - and a bad week for Republicans, Tea Partyers, and many Libertarians (the ones who just. can't. stand any government interfence and regulating bodies)! Let me take a brief moment to give you two examples - from this week alone - detailing the differences between the Democratic party and Republican party (of which Ron Paul is a devout member). *WARNING: includes facts!

1) Dems, let by Obama, Nancy, Harry and all the others, two years ago, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). That means what it says: a body, that protects YOU, the consumer, from getting ripped the *&^% off by financial institutions. Republicans/Tea Partyers/many libertarians voted AGAINST this regulating body ...and since the bureau's been established, those same powers have made sure the President could not put someone in charge of it. Based on their actions, the GOP/others do not want YOU protected from predatory financial corps. Well, mercifcully, Obama decided to do some "fillibusting, baby!" and he put a leader - Richard Cordray - in place to start going about the business of protecting all Americans. This guy is an aggressive defender of consumer rights, having brought AIG to it's knees, with a $1,000,000,000 settlement, when he was prosecuting them for bad business practices, as Attorney General, earlier in his career. WINNING! GOP/tea partyers/many liberatarians be damned!

2) Today's job report (just released): a net of 200,000 jobs were added last month, and the jobless rate fell to 8.5%, it's lowest level since Feb, 2009, which was just a couple of weeks after Obama took office, when began fixing the God-awful mess that 8 years of Bush and the republicans made, with their wholly-unnecessary Iraq war (which caused 5,000 unnecessary deaths to our american heroes, and unnecessary physical and mental wounds for life, to another 100,000 american heroes), and TWO failed tax cuts (which added over $1,000,000,000,000 to the deficit). The unemployment rate has dropped, consistently, for a nice clip now, and we're in a six-month stretch in which the economy generated 100,000 jobs or more in each month. That hasn’t happened since April 2006. April, 2006. For all of 2011, the economy added 1.6 million jobs, better than the 940,000 added in 2010. All of this is better than analysts expected. Why? Because the Dems, let by Obama, Nancy, Harry and all the others lead and legislated purposefully, with the goal of fixing the economy, implementing good ideas like the stimulus package (even FAUX news analsysts begrudingly admit the Stimulus/Recovery Act was successful), and the recent payroll tax cut, among other things (the GOP was against a tax CUT! ANYthing to ensure Obama's not re-elected)! ...policies and proposed legislation that the GOP, Conservatives and tea party (to a person!), voted AGAINST. Do not forget that.

In summary: Democrats good for America. Republican, Conservatives, Tea Party, many Libertarians, and some "Independents" bad for America.

"Enjoy your weekend, America!"

-sj

Ghandi, Stephen Colbert, Jesus Christ, & the GOP.

Stephen Colbert is one of the greatest comedians, simplifiers and messengers of my generation. This video proves it. Here are two quotes from this 4-minute clip.

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy and then admit that we just don't want to do it."

"Jesus was always flapping his gums about the poor, but not once did he call for tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Romans."

(damn embed code is broken from Colbert site, so all I can do is link it for now; click HERE, nonetheless, and watch. it kills!)

Perhaps Mahatma Ghandi said it best:
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

John Kerry Serves Up a Reality Check

From a Crooks and Liars post on Jan 16th. I know it's long, and no, it's not required reading. but it is very good. click title of this post for original piece, and worthy links.

John Kerry gave a speech last week at the Center for American Progress that should become the marching song for every liberal in this country. He was clear: The last 10 years have cost us too much, and if the hyper-partisan tone doesn't change to one of true concern for the direction of this country, we will cede any chance to lead to others.

He hits it all: Infrastructure, energy, debt, climate change. Every point. The one that hit home for me was when he talked about where we might have been, had Bush and the Republicans not unwound progress made during the Clinton administration.

Here's an example. We talk about how the Clinton tax rates generated a surplus, but we stop there. We don't talk about the fact that if the Clinton tax rates had remained in effect, the entire national debt would have been paid off by 2012. Imagine what a difference that would have made in today's dialogue. And more importantly, why aren't we hammering this home every single time one of those self-righteous Republican buffoons stands up and talks about how our national debt is killing the country?

Kerry points out that we would be at a point where our financial position would be at it's strongest point ever. What would that have meant when (or if) the bottom fell out of the economy? Most assuredly, we wouldn't have to be speaking of debt retirement and austerity.

We need to start going there. This shouldn't be swept under the rug. I can't recommend this highly enough. Take an hour out of your day and watch Kerry's speech. He really hits hard on the cost of NOT investing in the country and how it puts us behind on a global basis every single day.

Check out this headline from January 26, 2000, just 11 years ago:

Consumer Confidence Hits an All-Time High; Jobs Called 'Plentiful' : Clinton Sees An Early Payoff of U.S. Debt

Compare it to today's headlines (this one, from the Wall Street Journal, one of the biggest tax-cut pimps):

U.S. Ran $80 Billion Budget Deficit in December

I think we need to give Republicans full credit for everything they did for to us. We should be at least as loud as the anti-hcr folks are, and we should repeat it every single day in public, especially to anyone who still thinks Republicans are fiscally responsible.

What the Fuck has Obama Done so Far?

If you haven't seen this yet, you're missing out, plain and simple. Most of us know how much Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrats have accomplished the last two years. Too many people don't. Especially the less-educated and less-informed people of the country (Rush Limabaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity to name just a few).

Well, when you click on the title of this post, or here, you'll get dozens of the policies, bills and legislation that Obama and his administration have established and implemented the last two years, in a "couldn't-be-easier-to-read" format. Next time your whining "independent" or libertarian friend alludes to him not doing anything, just point them towards whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com and tell them to shut the fuck up.

I don't know who Shavanna Miller, Will Carlough and Richard Boenigk are, but they are to be seriously commended for thinking this up. Great job peoples!

below are just two screen shots. check the rest out now, here!

America got better today! Another great achievement for Obama & the Democrats

This new financial reform legislation the Democrats passed yesterday is worth celebrating. It's a victory for those who prioritize fiscal responsibility, a victory for conservatives, progressives, libertarians, all Americans, really! This is what change looks like. This is what those of us who voted for Obama wanted. Like, fix stuff. He's delivered, with another campaign promise fulfilled, straight from the Democratic playbook (and platform). Again, thanks for NOTHING, congressional Republicans (w/ the exception of 2 or 3)! I've compiled a few of the best takes/articles on what the legislation means, what it doesn't mean, some of the people involved, and what's next. - sj

Wall Street Reform Passes
Ryan Grim
Shahien Nasiripour
Huffington Post

Nearly two years after major banks brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse, triggering a steep economic decline and crisis-levels of unemployment, Congress passed its Wall Street reform package, 60-39, with only three Republicans joining every Democrat (but one). The president will sign it into law next week.

The bill became stronger as the nation's focus moved from health care to Wall Street reform and became tougher still as the debate was held in the open on the Senate floor and during televised conference committee negotiations. Bank lobbyists were able to beat back the most serious threats to their business model, but enough significant reforms remain to earn the opposition of the American Bankers Association and other Wall Street titans.

When Democrats last reformed the financial sector in the midst of the Great Depression, they had several advantages that today's party lacks:
(click on title of this piece for more of the informative article)

FinReg Vote Passes, Will Become Law
by David Dayen
Firedoglake

The Senate passed their cloture vote, as expected, on the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill. The vote was 60-38, with Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins supporting from the Republican side, and Russ Feingold opposing. Senatus says that the final vote will be taken up this afternoon, but I haven’t confirmed that. (UPDATE: It’s confirmed that passage will happen today, around 2pm ET.)

The bill is a landmark consumer protection and anti-predatory lending bill. It goes fairly far in that direction, though not quite far enough – the auto dealer exemption is a disappointment. But the mortgage reforms are actually pretty solid, and I have confidence that the consumer protection bureau can have an impact on ending a culture where certain predators in the financial services industry make their profits largely based on how well they can trick people.

As for the Wall Street part of the Wall Street reform bill, the public has no sense whatsoever that it will work. More important, most experts don’t either.
(click on title of this piece for more of the informative article)

FinReg vs Wall Street Reform
by Ezra Klein
Washington Post

Matt Yglesias calls it "the underrated FinReg bill," and I take that headline as a personal victory of sorts.

But he's right about the legislation. The desire for a bill that does more has obscured a clear picture of a bill that does a lot. "We’ve tended to focus much more on what’s not in the bill than on what is in the bill," Yglesias says. "What is in the bill is a consumer protection setup that would be considered a major progressive win as a standalone item. What is in the bill is a 'resolution authority' that will let future regulators avoid the bailout-or-crisis dynamic that plagued us in 2008. What is in the bill are regulatory tools that even Simon Johnson likes. The bill clarifies lines of regulatory authority and responsibility and should cut down on abusive 'competitive regulation.' "

I'd add a few more major wins. Bringing derivatives onto exchanges and into clearinghouses is a huge victory. In 2007, the over-the-counter -- and almost entirely unregulated -- derivatives market was worth about $700 trillion in notional value, and regulators had no idea what went where and few firms had serious capital or margin requirements. Those days are over.
(click on title of this piece for more of the informative article)

most leotarded current fad: Rahm-bashing

here's a comment I made on HuffPo after reading another Rahm-bashing piece, this one by Dan Froomkin, who I like, actually. - sj

Yawn. Rahm-bashing is SOooo 2009. The only way Rahm goes anywhere is if Obama makes another avoidable rookie mistake and cans him. Rahm has done more for the Democratic party than Froomkin or these other bloggers making a fashion statement could ever dream of. Expect this Rham-bashing festival by amateur progressive dems to be a distant memory in a matter of months. I'm a hardcore, radical, liberal dem progressive and I respect the guy, agree with him on most everything, and like him. And btw, Rahm was EXACTLY right: the progressives who wanted to spend their hard earned/raised cash to run ads against conservadems? It was an extremely stupid idea.

SCOTUS says we can outright buy politicians (instead of doing it secretly)

Now that the Supreme Court has decided money equals free speech, I'd like to suggest that Congresscritters, now legally purchased by corporations, adopt a new dress code. Something like these:




Now THAT'S transparency!

Martha "Choakley" shows us the way forward

Spacejace beat me to it, but I totally agree with his rant. I was all for reconciliation on the HCR bill long before that sack of excrement Lieberman began whining for attention. Speaking of whom, I imagine the new senator from Massachusetts will become Joe's new BFF, since nobody but the teabag crowd wants anything to do with him. Except maybe Harry Reid, who must have a skeleton in Lieberman's closet or something; seriously, how can one single jackass continuously demand the majority leader bend over and take it.

Oh, yeah, the filibuster. Time for that ship to sail. Undemocratic, and all that. Honestly, what does Reid have to lose? Have you seen the polls in Nevada? He's toast, so what's he got to lose, really? He could...gasp!...start leading like a Democrat, and maybe pull his base back around to supporting him again. Hell, he might even get himself reelected.

We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right.

So let's do it, already. Coakley's lackluster campaign and Scott Brown's (out-of-state staffed, and corporate-sponsored) "insurgency" just serves to illustrate what happens when Democrats stop acting like Democrats.

They get rolled.

We spent almost the entire last decade being told "F-you" by the Goopers. Playing nice went out the window a looooong time ago, so I'm all for a street fight.

Massachusetts has a new senator-elect, a one trick pony who's got to stand for re-election in 2012. If Democrats start acting like Democrats again, this guy will be cleaning out his office again soon.

silver lining for Dems? my rant on the Massachusetts special election..

so there's a social networking site I frequent occasionally. here's a rant I just posted on a friend's site (misspellings, and all, you friggin' grammar-nazis!) about the special election in Massachusetts today...

there IS a silver lining or two for us Dems: 1) we get the disillusion of the 60-seat 'majority' actually mattering, at least w/ this congress, out of the way early (instead of this November), and can use the slap in the face to remember that legislating the party platform is of paramount importance, and get to it sooner; and to do it, we SURELY don't need to meet republicans anywhere near the middle, since each one will vote against any real change, anyway (along w/ some weak-ass dems in the senate), and 2) relative to that, this sorry-excuse-for-a-healthcare-reform bill the Senate watered down from the House's version might actually not pass now, and we can start over w/ a real one, that has a true public option, no mandate, and 'gasp!,' perhaps even a single-payer option, and use reconciliation, or other maneuvers - including a couple more years of educating the masses who STILL don't have any clue why their healthcare premiums have gone up 'crazy-like' the last couple of years - and legislate some real change in this country. It was only a year or two ago, healthcare insurance companies laughed at accepting people w/ pre-existing conditions (Dems knocked down that obstacle), and a mere decade ago when the entire GOP and healthcare insurance companies laughed at the thought of healthcare for everyone (today, you won't hear a single one say they're against it). Baby steps, baby. Knowledge is power. If the mainstream media, comprised of Hannity, Rush, Bill-O, Fox and others, actually gave a crap about America, they might actually be able to educate their lobotomized followers about how the many industries the GOP fights for, and unregulated corporate, grand-scale book-cooking and scheming, is crushing their middle-class american hopes and dreams. Saw a great bumper sticker the other day: "of course it hurts: you're getting screwed by an elephant!"

Alan Grayson (Dem Congressman, FL) cuts straight to the chase!

smacking down the GOP, w/ humor! - sj

Support Gay Marriage: buy Ben & Jerry's Hubby Hubby ice cream!

"Weee--HAHH!!! DO you love it?!?!" The Ben & Jerry's co-founders and their company seriously rule. - sj

Who would have thought ice cream and fashion would be anything more than an oxymoron? But now here’s some caloric indulgence worth undertaking: Ben & Jerry’s is releasing a new ice cream flavor in support of gay marriage. Cheekily called “Hubby Hubby,” the carton features the Vermont company’s signature cartoons this time with a wedding cake and rainbows. Plus, the peanut-butter filled pretzels and vanilla malt ice cream is just the perfect mix of salty and sweet.

CBO expert states preventive care will rise - not cut - healthcare costs

I've stated this many times, and I will again: during Bush's 8 years of destroying America, no one's numbers, analysis and measured foresight was more accurate than the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO), with regards to spending on wars, bailouts, defense, infrastructure, economy, security, and on and on. The CBO did an amazing job of impartially stating things how they saw it, and informed all of us what things would cost, and how those costs - or cuts - would shape the years, and decades ahead. I trusted them then, I trust them now. And as much as I want universal healthcare for every american, a public option, competition for the corrupt healthcare insurance industry, etc, now might just not be the time. The CBO won't be going away any time soon (it's their job to shed independent light on congress's machinations), and seriously, the bottom bottom bottom line is this: there is only so much fucking money. It would behoove Obama and the Dems to listen to the CBO. As a liberal dem, I WANT them to listen. The stakes are extremely high for this healthcare reform fight; and Americans, the Democratic party, and the status quo, can't afford the dems screwing this up; not now, or for the years to come. - sj

Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs
from ABC News
by Jake Trapper, ABC News Sr. WH Correspondent and the ABC News WH Team
August 09, 2009 9:27 AM

In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care -- an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.

Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives. But, Elmendorf wrote, it may not save money as Democrats had been arguing.

"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.

click here for the rest

Health bill inches forward in House

an informative, quick read, on where we are right now. click on title of post for complete report - sj

Health bill inches forward in House
Erica Werner
July 30th, 2009

House Democrats pushed ahead with a compromise health overhaul Thursday over liberals' complaints, intent on achieving tangible – if modest – success on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority ahead of a monthlong summer recess.

"We've got to pass the bill. Not only do we have to, but we're going to," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the last of three House committees to act on the sweeping legislation.

There was late-night drama in Waxman's committee as an anti-abortion amendment passed when conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it – then failed less than two hours later when Waxman used a procedural maneuver to bring it up for a second vote.

In the intervening time one conservative Democrat – Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee – changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time – Rep. Zack Space of Ohio – voted "no." It was enough to take the amendment down on a vote of 29 to 30.

The measure would have specified that health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases.

click here for the rest

Al Franken does H. Kissinger and Jesse Ventura. And he beats up Coleman and Pawlenty too!

Al Franken is almost there (to officially winning his state's Senator seat, and dethroning the "not too bright" Coleman)!. He's got the republicans on the ropes. "Dream come true" stuff, baby! Oh yeah: and he's as funny as your best friend!!

only 1 option Dems in Congress: GRILL HER!

Sonia Sotomayor truly appears to be a fabulous pick for the Supreme Court by President Obama, w/ the exception of one...gigantic...problem: her abortion rights record. Or, rather, what little there is of it. However, there is this ruling of hers, which is precisely the law/rule/directive Bush implemented as soon as he got in office, and the same exact one Obama eliminated once he got in office:

"In a 2002 case, she wrote an opinion upholding the Bush administration policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas."

Read that again. And again. And there are other rulings/opinions she's written throughout her career, which make me, a militant pro-choicer and abortion-rights activist EXTREMELY CONCERNED about this pick (I am also "pro-life," by the way, as in: "I like life," life is a good thing! I support 'life' in general, for all things living!)...

Look, if Dems now have the power to confirm whoever they want - and they do - they also have the power to DENY any pick Obama makes. If Sonia Sotomayor is not pro-choice, Congress MUST DENY HER a seat on the bench. PERIOD. Is she? Isn't she? Only one way to find out: GRILL HER! - sj

Click here, to read some more very interesting details and the entire great report by the NY Times.

Joe Sestak to challenge Specter in next year's primary?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Joe sestak, it appears, with only one completed term as a Representative in the US House, is ready to go toe to toe with Arlen specter in next year's primary for US Senator. I've met Joe a few times, as he represents those of us who live in PA's 7th District, and while his personality/speaking voice is a bit too measured and strange for my taste (yeah, that's the worst thing I can say about him), he's a superb and effective Democrat. Much more so than Specter is or could be. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called him the most productive freshman member of congress the year before last. Read more about him here. Perhaps his biggest victory so far (surely one of the more satisfying things from the 2006 election) is him beating up on Curt Weldon, the tragic, unamerican, Republican House Member who "led" the 7th District for two decades, and mercifully ended his dysfunctional career. Maybe he can do the same to Arlen "the Clown" Specter. - sj

From Huffington Post, yesterday...

Rumors that Rep. Joe Sestak, (D-PA) intends to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) in the Pennsylvania Democratic primaries have been confirmed, TPMDC reported today. The site received a handwritten note from Sestak to a supporter asking for donations. Sestak's sister, Meg Infantino, who works for Sestak for Congress, confirmed the report.

Specter is planning to run for re-election next year after recently switching parties to avoid a primary challenger in the Republican field.

Sestak confirmed that he intends to throw his hat in the ring in a conversation today with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "The Situation Room." Said Sestak:

"Wolf, I personally have made a decision that I intend to get in this race with one other item. I haven't sat down and had the time to sit down with my 8-year-old daughter or my wife to make sure that we are all ready to get in."

Sestak emphasized that he is not worried about clashing with the White House, although President Obama has thrown his weight behind Specter and has vowed to campaign for him. Sestak noted that he had not been contacted by the White House and expressed dissatisfaction with the administration's decision to line up behind Specter

like..."duh...and stuff" White House plans first-ever emission limits for nation's vehicles

Now that Bush is gone (and republicans were voted out), I bring you Act XII... - sj

(From Huffington Post, yesterday).

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 _ all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle. Obama's plan couples for the first time pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road, senior administration officials said Monday night.

The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards _ with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting a single national standard and more time to make the changes.

The plan still must clear regulatory hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. The administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the formal announcement by Obama was scheduled for Tuesday.

New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel efficient by the end of the program, according to officials familiar with the administration's discussions. The officials also spoke on condition of anonymity because the formal announcement had not been made.

click here or on title of story for rest of informative report.

Just 28 of the reasons I'm a liberal democrat....

this speaks for itself. I found this 6 years ago. enjoy. sj

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance; and now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax payer-funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by the Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans - and aforementioned sub-species, Conservatives - have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. And Joe agrees: “We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have!”

While we circle the drain economically, hoping that President Obama can convince the holdouts to enact some stimulus legislation before we drown...if I hear another dumbass say something about how "FDR made the Great Depression worse" my head will explode. That is simply not true.As one can see above, GDP moved along in a generally upward fashion during FDR's presidency. The one blip of decline was related to budget-balancing in 1937. By the time WWII began (in late 1939), the US was well on its way up and out of the hole, so that by 1941 and US entry into the war, the Depression had effectively ended already with record GDP achieved years earlier.

Obama is looking at charts & graphs showing a precipitous fall in employment. Note the green line. That's where we are now. Where's the bottom? The US lost almost 600,000 jobs in JANUARY. What's this month or next going to look like? Obviously, the GOP economic free-for-all orgy of greed left one hell of a mess for the rest of us.

I give you the Bush-Cheney Recession (or Bush-Cheney Depression). The past eight years will inhabit some seriously dark chapters in history books.

Obama targets greenhouse gases, fuel efficiency

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama took aim Monday at the lofty but long elusive goal of making the nation more energy independent, ordering reviews that could lead to tougher auto emission standards in states and higher pressure on automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars.

Attacking a Bush administration policy, Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to re-examine whether California and other states should be allowed to have tougher auto emission standards to combat a build up of greenhouse gases.

Obama also directed his administration to get moving on new fuel-efficiency guidelines for the auto industry in time to cover 2011 model-year cars.

"For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in his first formal event in the ornate East Room of the White House.

"It will be the policy of my administration," he said, "to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."

California and at least a dozen other states have tried to come up with tougher emission standards than those imposed by the federal government, but Obama said that "Washington stood in their way." The president wants the EPA to take a second look at a decision denying California - and the other states that want to follow its model - permission to set tougher tailpipe emission standards.

More broadly, Obama sought to show he was not waiting to put his stamp on energy policy, which has both near-term implications on the sagging economy and long-range effects on pollution, climate change and national security.

"Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action," Obama said. "Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results - and our leaders raise their voices each time there's a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump."

The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government got into the act. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt California's standards or the federal ones.

In 2007 the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency denied California's waiver request, gaining praise from the auto industry but touching off a storm of investigations and lawsuits from Democrats and environmental groups who contended the denial was based on political instead of scientific reasons.

Obama on Monday directed the EPA to re-examine the decision. That does not yet overturn anything. But still, the states' wanting their own power considered it a victory.

"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said. He added: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts; we will be guided by them."

California's proposed restrictions would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

At least 13 other states - Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - have already adopted California's standards, and they have been under consideration elsewhere, too.

Under California's approach, car makers would need to boost fuel efficiency in new vehicles to about 36.8 miles per gallon in the states that chose to adopt the California standards.

Automakers, which sued to block the state regulations, argued that it could require dealerships in some states to limit sales of large trucks in order to meet the standards. They have pushed for a single national standard.

Requiring automakers to build cars that get more miles to the gallon will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of vehicles.

A law passed by Congress in 2007 requires that by 2020, new cars and trucks meet a standard of 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over the status quo. But the Bush administration did not set regulations in support of that law.

On Monday, Obama ordered new guidelines in place to start affecting cars sold in 2011.

He also promised a broader, bipartisan review with the auto industry.

Industry officials have also said they would face billions of dollars in new costs to meet the rules at a time when General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have received billions in federal loans to stay afloat.

The Bush administration estimated the federal fuel economy rules would cost the industry more than $100 billion to implement the changes by 2020.

"Let me be clear: Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry," Obama said. "It is to help America's automakers prepare for the future."

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday will appoint a special envoy for climate change as the Obama administration moves to restore America's credentials in environmental policy, said U.S. officials familiar with her decision.