Why has our main stream media not called him out on this? Teflon indeed.

Richard ..but a dollar has a number on it like 100 dollars it is always worth 100 dollars .. silver is just wieghed in troy ounces, it doesn't have a number on it to give the sheep faith .. what will they do?

right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook. just like "never let a good crisis go to waste."

FTT- So let me get this straight. His two budgets couldn't even get one, not one, democrat to vote for it. That is the fault of McConnell and Boehner how? The fact that our debt has more than tripled is the fault of the Republicans how? You contradict yourself. If the Republicans are about doing nothing, then why isn't this President even trying to work with the Republicans. He thinks that name calling and personal bashing is going to get them to come to a compromise? Or does he think that by lying to Congress that it will get them to the table?

The President said he was going to focus on jobs. Even got together a panel. In 18 months, he never met with, let alone spoke with his jobs panel. They disbanded out of frustration.

The President said he was going to focus on the economy, yet his focus is on gun control (helps the economy how?), and more spending. And yet you guys buy into it because of your hatred for the other side. And if that is going to be the case, that your own Sen. Leader, who refuses to even bring up house bills for an up or down vote, the Senate will use every tool to block it. Clinto hated Gingrich and the Republicans, yet he found a way to work with them. That is leadership.

I say to the Republicans, let Obama have his way. Have it all. And we can see how history will look back on it. Unfortuantely, we can't afford to do that. He's already bankrupting our future.

And, don't forget the issue that catapulted B.O. into the White House, the economic crisis created when the housing bubble burst. A bubble that was created by Democrats when they not only ignored warnings about Freddie and Fannie, but they went our of their way to belittle those shouting the warnings as well as working to keep the staus quo at Freddie and Fannie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

Brian – Never let some good ol’ fashion vitriol change up the facts. The President has gone out of his way to compromise. Healthcare, Debt Ceiling, yes – even budget. Everything he has tried has come up against a wall of uncompromising Republican opposition. Let me ask you, has the Republican lead house passed a budget? Nope. Even the famed Ryan Budget failed – failed by Republican defections.

This White House has cut spending more than any Republican White House the past two decades. If you want to bag on the President for its debt, that is fine, but I guess that is what happens when you actually budget for wars (Iraq) that are not paid for – unlike the Republican President who started the war and never budgeted for it.

And the housing bubble – yes: Fannie and Freddie did have some responsibility for that. But also do not forget the years of deregulation and the era of fast gambling style Wall St. that squandered billions with no penalty to those responsible. Wall St. bankers and investors still rake in millions in bonuses and not one has been prosecuted for its purposeful deception of the American People. Wall St. is to blame more so than any gov. agency.

I do join you in one wish. Let Obama have is way. The country will actually be able recover from the mess given to us by Republicans.

FTT- What alternative universe have you been living in?

The Obama Administration, Harry Reid and nancy Pelosi never causcused with Republicans, used a little used procedure and voted on Christmas Eve to bypass a filibuster. It won on party lines in the Senate and barely squeaked by in the House with 36 Democrats voting against it. That is your idea of compromise.

Debt ceiling- I guess holding all tax paying Americans hostage to tax the rich is your idea of compromise.

I have to laugh at your even mentioning the budget because he couldn't even get 1 Senator or Congressman on either side of the aisle to vote for it. That is laughable...

Oh, and your right, the Republican House, in control since 2010 has passed two budgets that Harry Reid not only didn't bring to the floor for a vote, but he never even offered a Senate bill to rebutt.

The only spending cuts Obama has is the end of the Iraq war and raising taxes on the rich which is not a spending cut.

I really thought you were smarter than to walk out the tired old MSNBC-BS lines. And please, if you have not had a budget in four years, you can't budget for the wars.

Brian – your response is the comedy here. Maybe in FoxNews world does this make any sense, but really? OK, it’s Sunday & I’ll bite.

Your first point. Is that the debt ceiling? Congress i.e. Boehner struck out big time. Even though the Constitution places the payment of debt on Congress, our Speaker of the House passed it off to the Senate and White House because he couldn’t even control his own Caucus. The fact Republicans re elected him Speaker really notes how messed up they are. So the money we already spend finally got authorized to pay. So much for fiscal responsibility when the “fiscally responsible” party says, “we don’t like you so we just won’t pay our CC debt…

Oh, yes. Holding all Americans hostage to protect 1% of the uber wealthy? That is scumbag. By the by. The compromise that was reached was already offered by the President at least TWO WEEKS before the deal. Who is not willing to negotiate? The Republicans. How may voted against it?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/
“…But the GOP push was blunted a bit when the House Republican budget from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) faced Republican defections in a 41-58 vote.
The "no" votes included five Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Scott Brown (Mass.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Dean Heller (Nev.)…”

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/07/fox-news-papers-over-obamas-proposed-spending-c/191748
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-proposals-cutting-spending

One more time. Turn off FoxNews, Brian. They are lying to you.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22

You love to come out with anti MSNBC rhetoric as some burn or something. You have arguments, Brian. It is too bad they are all based on complete partisan fiction.

Free, how many Democrats voted for the Ryan budget? NONE!!! If you are going to make a statement, the time to do it is when it's a losing vote. Some of the reasons Ryan's budget did not pass:
"Heller, who twice before voted in favor of the Republican budget crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, described his vote as a protest against a showmanship process that was never meant to result in a new federal budget.

“Today’s votes were not a serious effort to pass a budget,” Heller said in a written statement. “After this charade, our nation is no closer to economic prosperity or addressing our massive national debt.”
...
But Heller’s budget votes also were a strategic campaign move... against Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev."

“Today was about political posturing. The American people are tired of it, and so am I,” he said.
(http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/may/16/heller-reverses-course-republican-budget-breaks-pa/)

Snowe lamented she was not able to offer amendments to the Ryan budget and Brown called for a bipartisan approach.

“We need to end our out-of-control spending, our trillion dollar annual deficits, and the attitude that taxing more and spending more is the answer," Brown said. "To do that, we need to work together, Democrats and Republicans.”
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/may/16/heller-reverses-course-republican-budget-breaks-pa/

BTW-usually both chambers pass their own budget bills, then compromising on the differences before passing a final bill. Harry Reid’s Senate hasn’t even come up with an alternative, not even an attempt!!!

But when the other chamber is so out of control its own Speaker of the House can’t negotiate with them, why even bother?

Face it, the Republican Party is an out of touch - out of control - mess.

Reduced spending. Increased employment. Success despite unprecedented opposition. A party, and country, that respects and supports him.

This is the reality for the President of the United States.

FTT: You really are living in an alternative universe: http://caledonia.patch.com/blog_posts/what-is-wrong-with-the-republican-party-nothing

Sure, Brian.
I guess reality is an alternative universe where you are from. Where is that again? FoxNewsistan?

A picture is worth a thousand words. The map was taken from Politifact. 2/3rds of the governorships, nearly two to one of the statehouses, and about 80% of the landscape red. He won by less than 4% and he has a narrow margin in the Senate and not even close in the House. Again I say, what alternative universe are you living in?

As well as a map taken from RedState. Meaning Democrats won the majority of the votes in the states but more Republicans won elections thanks to gerrymandered districts.

I guess your alternative universe is where cheaters are supposed to win.

Free Thought Troy wrote: “Reduced spending”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Table 1.1
YEAR....SPENDING…..CHANGE
………...(in millions)
2001....1,862,846……….4.13%
2002....2,010,894……….7.95%
2003....2,159,899……….7.41%
2004....2,292,841……….6.16%
2005....2,471,957……….7.81%
2006....2,655,050……….7.41%
2007....2,728,686……….2.77%
2008....2,982,544……….9.30%
2009....3,517,677……….17.94% (year of TARP and ARRA)
2010....3,456,213……….-1.75%
2011....3,603,061……….4.25%
2012....3,795,547……….5.34%
(estimate)

Spending 27.26% more is not reducing spending

Free Thought Troy wrote: “Increased employment”

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
for the month of January each year
(in millions)
YEAR….NUMBER……..CHANGE
…………EMPLOYED
2004....108.974…………..0.20%
2005....110.767…………..1.65%
2006....113.283…………..2.27%
2007....115.066…………..1.57%
2008....115.668…………..0.52%
2009....111.048………….-3. 99%
2010....106.876………….-3.76%
2011....108.208…………..1.25%
2012....110.871…………..2.46%
2013....112.961…………..1.89%

For 6.1 Trillion, I would expect alot more than a 1.72 % increase in four years

From this very table proves the spending change from when GW Bush was president far outpace that of B. Obama including TARP. GW Bush never had a negative change as Obama has. The closest he came was increased less than the prior six years – most to all of them were increases in spending.

And employment? Those figure would go down significantly if the “Less Than Do Nothing” Congress would just pass the President’s Jobs Bill. But that would mean a Republican Party willing to allow this President some success for the good of the country. Right now, they have no problem with us crumbling as long as they can keep their gerrymandered elections and special interest money… trusting the “faithful” to blame the media for covering their own inadequacies.

Someone want to tell this Troy the Tool that Obongo had Democratic Senate and House for his first two years and he still couldnt get along with them?

FTT- Sorry Troy, but the map is taken from Politifact. I assumed that since most of the Obama supporters used that site as a reference, I would do so in-kind.

The fact of the matter, and you prove it so well, is the double standard your side has. Everything is everybody else's fault but the President, and when bush was in office, everything was the President's fault and no else. I've seen you post on Patch many times how everything wrong in Wisconsin is Walker's fault. Yet you apply a different standard to the leader of the free world.

And that is the jest of this topic. You can't claim increased employment as the unemployment rate was virtually the same from the day he took office to the day he got re-elected. Recovery? We are one quarter away from recession according to the federal reserve chair. Despite unprecedented opposition? The guy had 2 years of total control and all he could do was muster up a horrible healthcare bill, that he had to pull some stunts to pass and then it doesn't even kick in until he's out of office. A party and country that supports him? Really? 50% is only half in case you need to be reminded.

The reality is he couldn't lead us out of a paper bag. Rhetoric is not leadership. But you would rather here a good speech than see anything get accomplished.

Troy:

The 'gerrymandering' really doesn't seem to be as out of line as you think it is. From the Milwaukee Journal's article linked below, it seems that out of the 8 districts, 3 are strong democrat (Districts 2,3,4), 1 (maybe 2) are strong republican (districts 5,6), and 3 or 4 are tossups that narrowly went republican last November. All in all, I don't think that the Republicans have as many 'safe' seats as the democrats do...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/189585801.html

FTT wrote: " Those figure would go down significantly if the “Less Than Do Nothing” Congress would just pass the President’s Jobs Bill."
From what I understand, most of the obstruction is in the Harry Reid run Senate. Maybe it's the Democrats, including some that voted against cloture.

And don't think it escaped my notice that you went from "Increased employment" to "It's the Republicans fault" in one comment. You are getting as bad as Ed Schultz.

FTT wrote: "From this very table proves the spending change from when GW Bush was president far outpace that of B. Obama including TARP. "
Obama started out at a high level. And that one year of decreased spending is still 15.9% higher than Bush's last year.

FTT wrote: "As well as a map taken from RedState. Meaning Democrats won the majority of the votes in the states but more Republicans won elections thanks to gerrymandered districts. "

FTT, we've been over this. Most of the state is a light red, the two big exceptions are Madison and Milwaukee where they are not just blue, they are neon bright blue. If you compare the district from the last redistricting in 2001 to the current one, you would have to say they are similar.

AND...the district stood up to the court challenge with one change made between two Milwaukee based Senate seats.

JB – that is a spot on FoxNews response with no base in reality. Did you copy and paste it from a commentary on their website or are you on the talking points email distribution list?

@ Troy
Which part do you object to? Has he not created an executive order that will be put in place if he does not get the compromise he wants? If you told your wife you wanted to discuss the financials about a possible car purchase after you signed the papers to purchase, are you really looking for her input?

Do you object to his budgets being something that the Republicans could not approve? Or do you fail to understand that they might represent conservatives in their districts?

Are you objecting and saying that he has spent long hours trying to get a budget signed in the last 3 years, one of which he had complete control of congress? How do you not get your budget passed when your party controls both House and Senate? He can't even compromise with his own people!

Troy, I hate fox news. I don't watch it and don't use their internet site. They are cheerleaders. Just like MSNBC (most likely your brand of choice).

You are so right. Obama is a clown.

Michael McGee comes to mind...

@ann....Your racist attitudes are coming through loud and clear.

Cow, I said in a position of power. His last gig was a DJ at some AM station with 28 listeners.

Think about it Ann. The fact that he isn't Teflon is the biggest reason that he is no longer in a position of power...

Thought about it cow, McGee was never in a position of power. I am talking about guys like Jesse Jackson JR, Al Sharpton, Obama, Charlie Rangel, etc.

McGee may not have been in power at the national level, but locally was indeed in a position of power. Certainly more powerful than Al Sharpton.

Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned from congress and has agreed to plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges. Charles Rengel was found guilty on 11 ethics charges. They are hardly Teflon...

I think it breaks down more along party lines than color line.

Coming to mind, recently, is Herman Cain, who certainly wasn't cut any slack because of his skin color. Clarence Thomas faced a relentless gauntlet of questioning. Condy Rice and, to a lesser degree, Colin Powell were not spared barbs when they were part of the Bush administration. I do think that if you're black and a Republican, you are treated as a sell-out and as someone working against the best interests of "your people". From that standpoint, I do think there's a racial element to it.

As for Jesse Jackson Jr, his situation has been "clouded in mystery" for well over a year. I think, were he not the son of a noted and respected national religious/political figure, the press would have been all over his case and gotten to the bottom of his "problems" a lot sooner. Michael McGee, Sr was, literally, begging to be made an issue of throughout his active career - whatever you may wish to call it. He thrived on being a colorful character bucking authority and he pretty much got what he wanted. Two different cases, both involving black "political personalities" (for lack of a better term), treated in a non-similar fashion for reasons having very little, actually, to do with their race.

@ann....Why do you find a racial identification important if you're not a racist? Ronald Reagan was the original "Teflon President". As far as my response being emotive; I am rationally responding to your emotive statement.

@Lyle
You are only saying that about Reagan because he is white.

@J.B. Schmidt....I am not the one who labeled Reagan the "Teflon President", that was a general term applied to him at the time. Things were going to hell at the time and none of it stuck to him. I know you worship at the "Alter of Reagan", but you were still in short pants when he was governor and president.

What I am pointing out is that Reagan won his second term just as Obama won his second term. Each have their supporters as well as detractors and just as the label of "Teflon President" didn't really apply to Reagan, neither does it apply to Obama. Brian Dey likes to come up with these diatribes to do a little bashing. He and Bottom Line are proving themselves to be no different than Jason, just a right hand version.

@Lyle
I am going to take this moment to agree with your statement as these opportunities come so infrequently. As Bob states, its more about whether or not the man in power affiliates with your party.

I also don't think that Obama has won his reelection because of some slight of hand trick that allowed any level of criminality to slide off. Rather, as I posted above, Obama appears to be 'teflon' because he has no skin in the game. You can't get your neck chopped off if you never stick it out.

I will say that I believe Obama has set the stage for a new presidential role. Leadership as we have seen in the past, getting dirty in the trenches, may no longer be politically savvy. He has been able to erect the facade of leadership simply via a constant campaign tour. It would be foolish for a president to get dirty running the country if the country only wants a man who will tell them everything is fine.

Lyle- There is a big difference between the re-election of Reagan and the re-election of Obama. Let's start with Reagan carried 49 of the 50 states, won by nearly 20% and had 525 electoral votes. I might add that it was the biggest presidential landslide in history. Reagan received nearly 20 million more votes than Mondale.

But let's get to why he won. 1981-1982 brought a recession almost, if not worse than the Bush/Obama recession. But Reagan worked with Congress, which was split with about the same Republican majority as Democrats as Obama's is today, and the Democrats controlling the House with a larger majority than Republicans today. The economy recovered quickly and Reagan and then Speaker Tip O'Neil worked together.

Reagan accepted blame for the bombong of the Marines that killed over 250 Marines in Lebanon and also accepted responsibility for Iran-Contra. Obama deied any part of Fast and Furious and out and out lied to the American people about Benghazi.

And as far as Teflon, Reagan was considered too be to stupid and too old to be President. The media criticized him like no other President before him.

So there is no comparison other than what a leader is: Reagan, and what is not a leader: Obama.

But don't you dare pull out the MSNBC card cuz that's real news,..