[Creelaleps]

They know they're going to get a historic ass-kickin' in a few months and the Democrat operatives in the media are already starting the spin in earnest.

I think a "bad night for all of Washington" would be a fantastic night for the rest of America, F. Chuck.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffre...ad-election-ni

NBC's Todd Proclaims If GOP Wins in November It's Still 'A Bad Election Night For All of Washington'

By Geoffrey Dickens
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 12:02 ET

On Thursday's Today show, NBC's chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd started building the narrative for the liberal media to spout in case the Republicans win majorities in the House and Senate in the upcoming midterms - that the voters are just cranky about everyone and everything. Todd even went on to absurdly state that if the GOP has a big win it will still be seen as a "A bad election night for all of Washington." All of Washington? Even for the party that is victorious?

Todd, on with Today co-anchor Ann Curry, came up with that conclusion after reciting results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that showed "Everybody is angry at all things Washington" as Todd noted "Democrats hit an all-new high in their negative rating. Republicans have even a higher negative rating. The Tea Party, which had enjoyed a positive rating for awhile, now they have a negative rating." Todd, then, went on to prematurely throw cold water on any sort of GOP win as he claimed: "If the Republicans get the majorities, it's because people have decided to go into the ballot box and hold their nose, they're not happy with anybody."

The following is the full transcript of the segment as it was aired on the August 12 Today show:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffre...#ixzz0wRjJzXws

[Petwrenny]

A less spittle-flecked read of this is that it's an extremely anti-incumbent environment in Washington. We're mired in an economy that was crushed by a decade of spending on wars, tax cuts and a housing bubble embraced by the Bush administration and it will take years to dig out from it.

And the American people are angry that the infrastructure that allowed that to happen wasn't completely torn down rather than being methodically controlled and monitored by new laws the Democrats brought to the table. They're also angry that Republicans are doing nothing but wasting time in Congress, like a brat that didn't get what they wanted for their birthday.

They're angry at whoever's in power now for the situation we're in now without regard for how long it takes to repair an economy, and they're angry that the gridlock in Washington is ensuring that very little gets done. So they want everyone out, Democrats and Republicans alike.

How exactly is that a win for Republicans?

[Sheefeadalfuh]

A less spittle-flecked read of this is that it's an extremely anti-incumbent environment in Washington. We're mired in an economy that was crushed by a decade of spending on wars, tax cuts and a housing bubble embraced by the Bush administration and it will take years to dig out from it.

And the American people are angry that the infrastructure that allowed that to happen wasn't completely torn down rather than being methodically controlled and monitored by new laws the Democrats brought to the table. They're also angry that Republicans are doing nothing but wasting time in Congress, like a brat that didn't get what they wanted for their birthday.

They're angry at whoever's in power now for the situation we're in now without regard for how long it takes to repair an economy, and they're angry that the gridlock in Washington is ensuring that very little gets done. So they want everyone out, Democrats and Republicans alike.How exactly is that a win for Republicans?

If the Republicans win everything this time around, voters will be mad at them for saying "no" and stalling. If the Dems win, the voters will be mad because of the spending, etc. Its a no win. And as much as the Tea Parties are trying to come in, I think they're promoting people who really couldn't lead this country either.

[Adwetyren]

Which is completely evident when Republican politicians are asked what exactly they would do if they had control of the House and Senate.

GOP: "Well, we'd cut taxes."
Reporter: "But that would increase the deficit, the exact thing you attack Democrats for doing with their own stimulus efforts."
GOP: "We'd, umm, cut more taxes."

[kranskregyan]

No one seems to know what to do about the economy. Not spending isn't going to help and spending doesn't seem to be helping.

[nmnrIjGB]

which is completely evident when republican politicians are asked what exactly they would do if they had control of the house and senate.

Gop: "well, we'd cut taxes."
reporter: "but that would increase the deficit, the exact thing you attack democrats for doing with their own stimulus efforts."
gop: "we'd, umm, cut more taxes."

lol!

[Axxflcaj]

No one seems to know what to do about the economy. Not spending isn't going to help and spending doesn't seem to be helping.

The reality is that stimulus money and extended unemployment assistance are helping, but as many economists noted early on, the stimulus was about half as large as it needed to be. But there's no way that a larger package could pass the Senate while the Franken recounts were still going back and forth, so Democratic leaders settled for something that could lure Republican votes to avoid filibuster.

Still, it's been estimated that the stimulus kept our unemployment rate from soaring much closer to 20%, and that's a laudable accomplishment.

When money flows toward the middle class and poor, it finds its way into the economy very quickly as opposed to money pushed into wealthier households, who don't need it as quickly and just put it into savings. When dollars move into restaurants and gas stations and stores and babysitters and dry cleaners and such, small business owners can afford to keep people on staff. That's the bigger goal of many stimulus efforts, to keep money flowing to businesses that would be in real trouble if any less customers came through the door.

It will probably be another six months before we start to see the unemployment rate drop with any real momentum. Nothing will convince businesses to start hiring overnight. They need to see more people coming through the door month after month to flip that switch, and they won't see that until those people feel like their own job situations are stable, which again is a big, interconnected circle that all starts with middle class spending.

[urbalatte]

Pres. Obama never said this recovery was going to be easy or quick, but too many Americans are married to their drive-through, fast-food mentality. Voting out all the incumbents isn't going to speed it up. Voting in fringe candidates with zero experience and less than zero practical policies isn't going to speed it up. Voting in more tax-cut Republicans of the type who got us here in the first place isn't going to speed it up, either. As hard as it may be to swallow, sometimes you just need to suck it up and wait it out.

[paydayuscf]

Pres. Obama never said this recovery was going to be easy or quick, but too many Americans are married to their drive-through, fast-food mentality. Voting out all the incumbents isn't going to speed it up. Voting in fringe candidates with zero experience and less than zero practical policies isn't going to speed it up. Voting in more tax-cut Republicans of the type who got us here in the first place isn't going to speed it up, either. As hard as it may be to swallow, sometimes you just need to suck it up and wait it out.

Who was it that said the economy should really start recovering in 2012?

[Vigeommighica]

The reality is that stimulus money and extended unemployment assistance are helping, but as many economists noted early on, the stimulus was about half as large as it needed to be. But there's no way that a larger package could pass the Senate while the Franken recounts were still going back and forth, so Democratic leaders settled for something that could lure Republican votes to avoid filibuster.

Still, it's been estimated that the stimulus kept our unemployment rate from soaring much closer to 20%, and that's a laudable accomplishment.

When money flows toward the middle class and poor, it finds its way into the economy very quickly as opposed to money pushed into wealthier households, who don't need it as quickly and just put it into savings. When dollars move into restaurants and gas stations and stores and babysitters and dry cleaners and such, small business owners can afford to keep people on staff. That's the bigger goal of many stimulus efforts, to keep money flowing to businesses that would be in real trouble if any less customers came through the door.

It will probably be another six months before we start to see the unemployment rate drop with any real momentum. Nothing will convince businesses to start hiring overnight. They need to see more people coming through the door month after month to flip that switch, and they won't see that until those people feel like their own job situations are stable, which again is a big, interconnected circle that all starts with middle class spending.

I apologize for not seeing this earlier, I jusr skimmed the thread yesterday.

I'm not trying to put President Obama down, I think he did what he had to do to keep the country going. I think he had to spend money to keep up from another depression. Its just at times when I look at the debt, its overwhelming.


I asked DES, but I can't remember I've heard several people from NPR, FOX and MSNBC say that the economy will recover in 2012.