Liar? Please expand on that....I don't think you have a clue about what you just said, back it up with some actual facts, or stop reading that rad rag daily Kos.

Are you sure its not so you can go and have a closeup look at his abs and bustling thighs, and dont forget about his butt.

Im guessing this is the case.

Hey if you resent the "income gap" in our Country, do something about it!
Get yourself a skill son, go to night school, apply for another job that doesn't include the phrase, "would you like fries with that?"
The income gap will always be there if you do nothing to better yourself.
You can wear any underwear you like under a suit, even a banana hammock.
Guess you don't need a suit to apply at Wal-Mart.

Right on Craig

ENVY is one of the seven deadly sins.

@Craig -- The income gap is increasing even between educated white collar workers and the upper management. College graduates are working in fast food because there's nothing else available. Former professionals are taking menial jobs because their own were downsized and outsourced.

You're adding injury to insult by assuming that people who are struggling are at fault for their own plight because they didn't bother to get an education.

Randy. Your Jesus is the president. You created exactly what you just complained about and you are about to vote for it again.

@Steve -- Yes, of course, the employment situation was just wonderful in the fall of 2008, with six figure jobs just dropping into everyone's laps. Steve, your kind relies on people with very short memories. I remember who started us down our current road, and it wasn't Barack Obama, who by the way is not my 'Jesus'.

Randy: there are no jobs because your Messiah failed you.
Version 1.0: Bill Clinton- sent the jobs to China and disgraced the Oral Office
Version 2.0: B. Hussein Obama- disgraced the Country by doing nothing to stop the free falling economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/economy/global_income_inequality/index.htm
"Technology has contributed to the growing gap. As jobs require greater skills, it's harder for those with just a high school diploma to land good-paying employment. A college degree has become a requirement for more lucrative positions."

When more Americans are on food stamps because of this do nothing President, it only stands to reason there will be greater income disparities.

People like me have excellent memories. Blaming Bush continues as your Jesus has turned into what we warned, a huge failure. Your Jesus Obama ran, promised and sold you that he could fix these issues. He wanted the job to tackle everything you currently whined about. But just as we warned he ran the office as a socialist and the failures stacked up.

It's hard I know to admit you made a bad decision. It's hard to make that step in the other direction after being sold so much emotion from Jesus Obama. You put so much behind the guy, that internal feeling of hope and change felt sooooo good in 2008. It's not easy admitting you were wrong, but voting for failure again, well that's just insane.

"failed to stop the free-falling economy"? Really? Then why is the Dow back above 13,000 and unemployment finally back down to 7.8%. It fell like a rock starting in 2008 and then stopped and climbed back more slowly than we all would like. And all of this in the face of a . . . distinct lack of cooperation from the opposition.

Bill Clinton may have sent some jobs to China (more like he allowed people like Mitt Romney to do that) but he isn't the one who started that trend. The income gap started to widen with Ronald Reagan and his trickle-down 'voodoo' economics.

@Steve -- Please stop telling me how I think. I never saw Barack Obama as 'Jesus'. I just saw him as the man who would mess up an already goddawful situation the least. I still feel that way. All Mitt has is SSDD.

lol 7.8% unemployment is now a measure of success lol

Even when California doesn't report it's numbers. I thought wall street was evil and stuff, they are the problem. Now their DOW number is a measure of success

lol, yep my memory is just fine.

@Steve It has been noted by The Wall Street Journal and The Washiington Post that the private sector put the screws to their employees once the unemployment rate went up. The Post calls the business climate 'predatory' and 'exploitive' in the treatment of the labor market overall. This is the main reason why median household income has plunged and the stock market has gone through the roof. Much of our current problems have to do with Corporate America- it is not always the government's fault.

Randy: The Dow is something that should not be part of the equasion, this is just a result of demand. The unemployment numbers are bogus, we both know that is not the accurate measurement because of those who have stopped collecting UC or are underemployed.
The income gap is a world wide issue, even in socialist Nations.
I take issue with your statement "Bill Clinton may have sent some jobs to China (more like he allowed people like Mitt Romney to do that) but he isn't the one who started that trend. The income gap started to widen with Ronald Reagan and his trickle-down 'voodoo' economics."
Clinton is precisely why this economic issue happened, regardless of how many Bain Cap's there are. The income gap has been around since the 1700's, of course it will grow wider: Those who have millions stashed away earn compounded interest or gains on that money. Those who live paycheck to paycheck, never grow their net worth because there is nothing to grow.

@Craig Economists measure the overall health of the economy by what is called money flow. This concerns how well money is circulating throughout your community. Obviously, the greater the amount the better circumstances will result for more and more people. When wealth is concentrated and hoarded, then fewer and fewer people actually benefit from the situation. That is what we are currently facing.
To get an objective and fair indication of the state of our economy look up state sales tax revenues. Of course, when these revenues go up, it is a valid sign that there is greater economic activity. Likewise, when it drops significantly it could preclude another recession.

@Michael McCluskey -- Let me comment on what you just said. People need confidence to spend money -- confidence that they won't be losing their job next month, confidence that they'll be able to live in their old age.

I'm no Daddy Warbucks, but when the markets are up, I do have more in my retirement nest-egg to spend and remain below my prudent rate of 4% liquidation. That's one factor. The other is my concerns about Medicare and future expenses. This has made me batten down into austerity mode so that I'll have it if necessary AND to preserve my principal to leave to my son in case he will face much greater challenges in retirement. This is not good for the economy if everyone does that.

@Randy1949 You are right. I forgot to mention that medium household income has fallen in the last 3 years, which actually reduces spending by itself. The American people have done well to reduce their outstanding debt; they are also reluctant to take on new debt. The psychological factor of job security also contributes to a lessening of buying. The markets are counting on perpetual demand- that is why I am a bear.
What can be done to help out your average Joe? Fire Bernanke and get a hard money man in the Federal Reserve. This would increase the value of the money in your wallet, which would allow you to have actually more purchases than would be otherwise the case. Bernanke's inflationary policies are going to send us all into the poor house.

@Keith Best Neither side has a magical plan for the economy. We are all going to have to bear this storm out as best as we can.

@Michael McClusky, I don't see how those that hate and demonize business know what will improve the economy. Think about this.... what makes people think a FIRST-TERM senator who spent most of that first term running for president, knows anything about overseeing the world's largest economy. And before that he was a FIRST-TERM state senator who spent most of that first term running for another office.

Our current president is an excellent campaigner, but now you know the real reason this has been the slowest recovery after a dismal economic collapse. I stand by my previous comment.

@Keith Best With the advent of globilization of the economy national governments have less and less affect on economic performance. Congress, of course, has more to do with federal spending than does the White House. It is Congress that controls federal spending.
What can the government do to improve things? Fire Ben Bernanke and replace him with a hard money man. Have true campaign finance reform so that all of our politicians don't have secret agendas. Review our trade policies so that the end result would benefit the American people, not Wall Street?
Is either Obama or Romney proposing such things? No way!
Vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party!

Voting for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama. THAT is the reality. I would hope you might have taken in the movie "2016, Obama's America" to see what could happen to this great country if Obama wins. It's on Time Warner pay per view now, check it out.
Johnson won't get more than 1% of the vote....what a waste.

@Keith Best I have already seen that movie that you mentioned and it only confirmed my suspicions that he doesn't have a clue about much of anything. My protest against both major political parties has to do with campaign reform, economic policies and the actual role of government in our country. Both parties say nothing about campaign finance and the secret money they are receiving. Both parties are focused on the supply side of the economic equation (hence their corporate sponsors) and not on the real problem- the demand side. If people are not making any money then they will not buy anything. Both parties are for big government- they only quibble about the size of the increase.
Gary Johnson is not always included in the polls that you see. In Nevada, where the economy has really fallen off, many Obama supporters are turning to Johnson in disgust. Nationally, when Johnson's name is included, he polls anywhere from 3 to 5 per cent. In a close election Johnson can end up being the deciding factor.