of course he was going to back off of it.  Theres your  Press core.

Gregory got his ass chewed by the white house. LOL!

as every outher Sunday show grills every oother Republican…Wooops  and a back up…. on Obama.

Just like the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check) is misnamed , The American Jobs Act should be called The American One Year Union Jobs Giveaway and Theft of Union Dues for Obama’s Reelection Act of 2011 .

Is that David “Phluffy” Plouffe? Oooooh, Bruce!

Geez, another TC article on how TC would have disproved the McConnell statement.

Hey TC, you getting paid from the Stimulus funds or something?

Looking for a position in the Obama WH propaganda department maybe?

Remind us again Tommy.
What exactly did the President not get….?

Listen to Plouffe lie through his teeth while Gregory sits there like a little puppet.

“Look…don’t take my word for it. Every independent economist who’s looked at the Republican jobs plan in Washington said it won’t do anything to create jobs in the short term… One macro economics advisor actually said that their agenda could lead to the destruction of millions of jobs and economic and political upheaval”

I believe Obama has already accomplished that.

Gregory failed to mention that President Obama also received something he didn’t want… the worst economy in 60 years based on Bush and Republicon policies over the past 10 years!!

He backed off it because it’s not true.

Oooo, clever.
You make that up yourself?

There’s always Red State and The Blaze, Kramer.  The only person you seem to be torturing is yourself, because nobody GARA about your sheet.

Umm, wrong. Bush accomplished that, several times over.

Rubber Glove’s mom writes most of his rants.

If I remember correctly Obama ran on a platform that he was the guy to fix the economy. He ran for the job knowing the economy was in bad shape. If he did not want that he shouldn’t have applied for the job.

Obama would kill to have the unemployment numbers Bush had. Even his worst ones.
This is Obama’s economy son.
Get used to it.

News flash Tommy. No president gets “everything” they want. There are trade offs with every bill. But all these programs were declared by the wh and the press as legislative successes. They are all things the president wanted. If they weren’t what he wanted than why did he sign them.

And the American voters had so much confidence in the DNC and their bullshit that they rewarded the GOP with historical 2010 election results:

-It was the biggest gain for one party since voters repudiated the “Do-Nothing Republican Congress” in 1948 by giving Democrats a 75-seat pickup.
- It was the biggest setback for a president in a midterm election since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democrats lost 72 seats in 1938
-President Obama lost more seats in his first midterm election than any president since Warren G. Harding’s Republicans suffered a 77-seat setback in 1922.
-The Democrats’ four years in control of the House of Representatives was the shortest tenure for one party atop that chamber since the Republicans were voted out in 1954 after just two years in charge.
-House Democrats will have their smallest number of members since they had 188 after the 1946 election.
-Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures Tuesday and gained more than 650 seats, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The last time Republicans saw such victories was in 1994, when they captured control of 20 state legislatures.

I love reading your delusional comments…keep it up!  If there was only more tax revenue and government control, we’d all share economic success equally!  More 0bama!

If Bush’s economic plan worked so well, why was the economy losing 700k per month at the end of his term??

How many jobs are we losing under Obama per month??

Is the economy now better….or worse…?
 

Republicons ran on creating jobs in 2010… how is that working?? How many jobs bills compared to abortion bills have they passed??

You sound like another Republicon who wants to go back to the last months of the Bush Administration when the country was losing over 700k jobs per month!!

Of course Obama knew the economy was in bad shape… and who was the leader of the country during that time when the economy was in bad shape??

Way to stay on topic. You’re an idiot.

President Obama got his stimulus which resulted in continued unemployment above 9% AND he got Obamacare which is driving up the cost of healthcare even more than before.

Keep trying to spin that into gold because that’s the only investment making money these days, Mr. Christopher.

twitter.com/darrenmcgeary

Lol!! Too spineless to place the blame on the President you voted for twice??

Than the collapse in late 2008?? Better, unless you think losing 700k jobs per month was all that great??

It is embarrassing how little you know and understand.  The 2010 election was all about the bloated federal government. 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement :

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Government doesn’t create jobs…they create or destroy an environment for job creation.  Even the White House pretends to understand that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt1RSkb0mC4

Again….If there was only more tax revenue and government control, we’d all share economic success equally! More 0bama!  

LOL   

If what you saying is correct, then why was John Boehner and many other Republicons screaming “Where are the jobs??” before the 2010 election??

Plus, “a bloated federal government” was around long before 2008-2010… where was the Tea Bag Party before then??

I wasn’t blaming either. You stated that Obama got an economy he did not want. All I said was if he did not want it he shouldn’t have run. This why you are an idiot.

Tommy just had to get up early on a Sunday and come charging into work for this.

Gregory should be able to express his opinions but he works for NBC so I’m sure he got some pressure for drifting away from the lefty line.

What if he agrees with McConnell?Doesn’t he have that right?Frankly what I’m seeing here in this article doesn’t sound that far off from reality,well my reality not Tommy’s.

It gets tiresome being beaten over the head with a sales job for liberalism regularly here.I wish they’d at least even the playing field with someone hard core right.

Where did you see that statement in my post. What are you, retarded?

Let me ask you something… what President would want to inherit the economy Bush left?? Especially in comparison to the budget surplus Clinton left Bush… and Bush still f*cked it up!!

Your statement implies that what Obama wanted didn’t work, if they didn’t work, we would still be losing 700k jobs per month… correct??

As for “retarded”, I think you must have me confused with your wife!!

First, I implied nothing. My statement was clear. TC said that the president did not get what he wanted since the bills he signed were not exactly in the same form the president had wanted. All I said was no president gets what they want in a bill. There are always trade offs. I never implied anything else. You read into that for yourself.

As for the programs working. The stimulus was sold as keeping unemployment below 8%. What is it now?
Healthcare was sold as keeping costs low and being deficit neutral. Healthcare costs are rising and 1,800 firms and UNIONS have asked for waivers from the healthcare bill. hardly call that a success.

I do not wish to go back to Bush era policies that were liberal in nature. Such as the bank bailouts, auto bailouts, prescription program, and crazy liberal spending. I do not agree with those things and also believe they lead to our current issues. Obama has only doubled down on those ideas.

As for contacting me personally. Go ahead. Could not care less. Based on your responses my assessment of you seems correct. 

Another TC article, another slobbering defense of Democrats and making sure the press says in line.

Wow, you’re just a glutton for punishment, huh?

“While the Senate Majority Leader probably shouldn’t say demonstrably false things, it is the job of journalists like Gregory to call him out for it, not agree with him.”

The goal of the liberal media is to make the public believe the Republicans are in charge of both chambers.

Actually, Mitch McConnell is the Senate minority leader. Harry Reid runs the Senate and has so since January 2007. But this kind of misrepresentation is exactly what we should expect in the next twelve months (try to blame all the problems in the country on Republicans despite them controlling only one chamber of Congress). This might even come right from the White House. As the Hill reported Thursday ( http://thehill.com/homenews/house/190107-dems-increasingly-call-it-a-republican-congress ) : “President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly referring to the Congress as “Republican” even though their party controls one-half of the unpopular institution. Obama and his allies have started to deploy the phrase “Republican Congress” in what some experts see as a clear attempt to gain a political advantage.” Something else to consider : this was not an innocent mistake on Christopher’s part. He knows Reid is the Majority Leader. He therefore was deliberately trying to mislead us.

We were losing those jobs because the business world was reacting to the effects of the housing bubble.
They were making adjustments because they had huge inventory and little demand.They wanted to survive.
Funny thing if you match up 1st terms  Bush created over 1 million more jobs than Obama and Bush endured 9/11.
Now if a another bubble hits would it be Obama’s fault like you’re blaming Bush or would you just use the bubble as an excuse.
Seeing your repeatative talking points my guess it woulD be the latter. BAD=BUSH, GOOD=OBAMA.

You’re wasting your time with “leedog” he’s a mediamatters nutter.

Hey, then you have nothing to worry about.  Everyone recognizes that the DNC is pro-business and staunch advocates of the free market.  The $4.3 trillion of added federal debt in only 3 years has made life so much easier for the middle class and created a wonderful outlook for the future. 

Congratulations…The 2012 election should be success for the liberal progressives.

I didn’t read beyond your claim that the majority leader is a republican.  You can pretend it to be so, but it is not so.

There is not much to agree or disagree with if you can’t get the basics right.

Try again; this time without the WH talking points.

I think Leedogs fleas are getting to his brain

I believe if they did that Tommy might up and quit.. Although lately he brings nothing to the conversation but liberal talking points and water carrying that appears to be making even democrats ( not Liberals) sick.. I think maybe a long vacation for Tommy is needed

You keep responding, must be getting to you. Heh!

Funny thing is if the libs took over the country they would might  allow Tommy to feed their pets.

But Republicans ARE in charge of both chambers, dude. They have a majority in the house, and even though they have the filibuster in the senate, which means they hold pretty much all the power. The fact that you need 60 votes to pass most bills in the senate mean that Dems NEED Republican votes.

So yes, for all intents and purposes Reps control both houses in congress.

Serious question, how in the hell does any rational person think that we’re NOT doing better right now than at the tail end of the Bush administration, when 700k+ jobs were being lost, and nowadays when hundreds of thousand jobs are being created per month.

Righties would like to mention the unemployment rate and such, but we need to remember that for several months after Obama got into office, the economy was still suffering from residual effects of the financial crash. The month he was sworn in, without signing a single friggin bill, we lost 500k jobs that month. HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING. You cannot legitimately blame Obama for the first several months of jobs losses.

As far as the new jobs program goes, even John McCain’s economic adviser, Mark Zandi said it could create up to 2 million jobs on the high end in the near term. Meanwhile, other independent economists said the joke of the republican ‘jobs’ plan they revealed the other day would actually CUT more jobs in the near term.

But then again, these are the same people who have no problem with a party running on ‘where are the jobs’ and then telling people to ‘get a damn job you lazy slobs!’.

Bloated government? I know you guys say this a lot, but it’s really hard for me to imagine the average American who lost his job and hasn’t been able to find one in months while he’s terrified about the sheer thought of how to feed his family, waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat worried about how many people may be working at the EPA at this point in time.

Anyway, rich people had much higher taxes under Reagan than compared to Obama, and he tripled the national debt, yet you righties didn’t seem to mind that so much. IMAGINE THAT.

You’re INSANE if you think anyone would choose to go back to where we were in October 2008. The economy may still be weak today, but back then it was in f—ing FREE FALL. As Leedog said, the last months Bush was in office were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. That trend reversed as soon as Obama was sworn in. 

That’s just a fact. 

The Republicans’ only route to the White House is for the nation to suffer collective amnesia. 

Obama’s first term isn’t over. At the crappy rate of 100k jobs per month (not enough to keep pace with population growth), we’ll have 1.4 million more jobs by the end of Obama’s first term. 

The housing bubble caused a liquidity crisis that still isn’t really over.  The broad economic downturn was the result of credit markets becoming too tight for businesses to operate, not really the housing bubble.  I make the distinction because (1) we’re still not really clear of the liquidity crisis, and (2) inventories and demand weren’t the problem, operating capital was.

Word is, Gregory was reminded via his earpiece by upper management:

“What the hell are you doing to the President? – Did you forget that we’re NBC?”

LMAO! 

Yeah, if only the federal government controlled more of the economy, there would be no unemployment, right?  Redistribution of wealth assures prosperity for all? 

BTW…A second downgrade — either from Moody’s or Fitch — would follow Standard & Poor’s downgrade in August on concerns about the government’s budget deficit and rising debt burden. A second loss of the country’s top credit rating would be an additional blow to the sluggish U.S. economy, Merrill said.

“The credit rating agencies have strongly suggested that further rating cuts are likely if Congress does not come up with a credible long-run plan” to cut the deficit, Merrill’s North American economist, Ethan Harris, wrote in the report.

No biggie, right?  Every president witnessed downgrades from the rating agencies. http://news.yahoo.com/u-rating-likely-downgraded-again-merrill-165346478.html

If the federal government could only borrow $0.60 for every dollar it spends rather than the current $0.40 per dollar it spends, American would be so much better off.

Poverty for everyone! Yay!

Please use facts when making an argument.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/

Debt vs. debt as a percentage of GDP: Some economists will tell you that it’s not the size of the debt per se, but rather the size of the debt relative to the nation’s gross domestic product. This helps minimize the complicating effect of economic cycles and inflation. So how do those numbers stack up? Using OMB statistics, here’s what we came up with, using public debt figures not adjusted for the president’s time in office:

Reagan:Up 14.9 percentage points
GeorgeH.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

So by this measurement — potentially a more important one — Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested. Of course, all this goes to show that statistics can be used — and misused — to bolster almost any argument.

nice try dumbass….card check IS NOT law, it has never been voted on in the senate or the house…making shit up aint gonna cut it hobbit…..move on

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.
The
debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest
calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The
national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency
of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that
amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.
The
debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest
calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The
national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency
of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that
amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.
The
debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest
calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The
national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency
of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that
amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.
The
debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest
calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The
national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency
of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that
amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

…they didn’t work out in terms of economic impact the way the administration expected they would.”

That equivocation would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

Cute.. Data usage in its more interesting from. Will you note that in Bush’s second term, the one where everything that happened could be blamed on his predessesor, Bush, that he had one of the largest debt increases in the history of the presidency? The only guys closer were Roosevelt and Truman, and they were on the cusp of and end of WWII.
Go HERMAN CAIN!! LOL

I’m waiting for the GOP revolution!! Take back your party!! Please ignore the last two plus decades of being snowed by people exploiting your wishes to ignore reading and history. Investigate your party. Look at hw the GOP sed to be the antiCorporate anti greed party for the people and the country. Truth be told you should be ashamed that the slave trade loving democratic party somehow changed into a party that appears to care more about more people than yours. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN??