Good Morning America

and where's the recovery?

Good question: where are they?

Is this another snipe at the Obama administration because they haven't twitched their noses and fixed what the Bush administration and his predecessors both Republican and Democratic, broke?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- he has good neutral points.

The other threat is that the failure to resolve high rates of joblessness will open Democrats up to the neo-populist attacks some Republicans have been employing as they blame the administration for focusing on saving Wall Street but not doing much for Main Street.

Well, Mr. Zelizer (CNN) you're a history Professor, at Princeton no less, but I'd like to add, that American jobs went on permanent hiatus, starting back in -- oh let's say; 1986 under then Republican President Ronald Reagan; in case anyone out there didn't know.

Both parties still want to play games. Namely, the blame game. America doesn't have time for that. People want their jobs back:

It is possible that continued frustration about jobs allows Democrats to target Republicans as an obstructionist party that has in fact hampered their efforts to revitalize economic growth. During the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt understood that you could not have recovery without jobs. This is why he made public works programs the centerpiece of the New Deal. READ MORE

Frankly, most of us rational thinking people don't care who's to blame. We don't care about the hows and the whys of the situation, we just want money back in our pockets, a roof over our heads, and to be able to pay bills that seem to keep going up, up, up.

In 1986, American jobs started sneaking out of the broken windows of America,  like some slimy burglar on the run.

And boy, did those jobs run, they ran to India, to China, to Korea, to the Philippines to. . . need I go on? READ MORE


Now, now . . . in 2009 -- the new millennium, NOW people are more ardently asking, than ever before, "where" are the jobs and "where" is the recovery?

Makes one wonder why now all of a sudden, their urgency. Think about it, didn't people understand back when this whole fiasco started, that sooner or later the economic chickens would come home to roost.

Can anyone out there honestly say they never expected or suspected, that one day the stocks were going to plummet, banks were going to fail and the housing market would flush down the proverbial porcelain throne.

Why weren't people up in arms and asking these questions back when our jobs first were outsourced? Everyone should have known the outcome when the Steel mills and the Tire companies [you remember Goodyear, Firestone and Goodrich]  started folding and deserting the American work-ship.

Has anyone out there lately, called HP or Dell with computer problems? Or have you received a call from a bill collector with an accent? Guess what, those people on the other end of the line are in India, or the Philippines or some other foreign country.

In the 90s, when I was with Sprint PCS and fell behind on my bill, I received a phone call from India [I asked where they were calling from]. I promptly told them [my apologies to my Indian friends] that I don't do business with people or companies outside of the United States and hung up on them.

Sure, back in 86, some people did squawk -- a little. But it seems that now in 2009, when America has its first Black-American President these people have all of a sudden realized -- hey, we're in trouble, I no longer have a job, hey why are my household belongings out on the curb.

Ahem! I hate to tell you folks this, but this disaster has been in the making since the Reagan years. None of you can put any of this on President Obama. Bush number 2 did more damage than any other Republican President. He made sure the "good ole" Boys Network [the top 10 of 1%] received their wealth off the backs of what's left of the American workers.

Then like the thieves in the night that they were, ran to other countries with our jobs.

And now, the cry-baby-whinny-butt element of American society, wants to blame it all on President Obama and the Democratic party -- are you all serious? Are you that ignorant, or bigoted  or both?

Two things people must understand:

1. President Obama didn't start the Iraq war.
2. President Obama didn't outsource American jobs.

Our President is doing the best he can, with what he has. He's not a Dictator, he can't just command things to happen, he has to go through the political process.

What else is President Obama suppose to do, twitch his nose and fix everything in one fell swoop?

His name is Barack Obama not Samantha Stevens.

Traveling along cyberspace, I came across this article at BlogCritics by Dave Nalle entitled "Do Supporters of Socialized Health Care Just Not See the Irony?"

Sure we do, of which irony are you writing?

Nalle wrote:

The left is eager to dismiss the failures of socialized medicine worldwide and point to irrelevant statistics like life expectancy as if they mean something and wring their hands over the uninsured and call us racists or rednecks or some other sily name to distract from the real issues. But with new examples of how disastrous nationalized health care can be popping up almost every day, their attempts at distraction seem feeble and pointless.

This makes me question what is the real opposition to Obama's health care plan. What really has so many shorts/panites in such a bunch. So far the main complaint I've read is that anything government run is considered socialism or worse.

The catch-all, be-all buzz phrase that has everyone chomping at the bit is the word "socialized"  If anything even looks as if the government wants to be i n
control then it means to people like this, that we're becoming a socialist state, or a communist state.

Baloney! WhooWee!, Bull Paddies!

The left understands why the land of the free and the home of the brave are resistant to these buzz words. We, don't like them either. [not that I'm left, I'm more down the middle]

No, not everyone on the left admires the British National Health system, it's flawed -- we grant that. What we like is the idea of everyone having health coverage. We like the idea, that when a catastrophic illness happens we can go to the doctor without fear of loosing a car or a house or maybe having to sell off our first born child.

The old right way didn't and doesn't work. What did work for them  was pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies and hospital boards became rich. And we wonder how hospitals get away with charging $20.00 for one aspirin.

46.6 million people fall through the cracks. They're not rich enough to afford or their companies refuse to provide, health insurance. Or, they're not poor enough and have loads of kids running around to qualify for welfare health coverage. 

So, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place and just plain mad.

These are 46.6 million people have worked or are working and can't receive health insurance.

All we've heard from the naysayers of nationalized health care is "we're becoming communist or the socialist are coming, the socialist are coming" yet, these same complaining people have no other viable solution to this problem, this very serious problem.

Read More ===> Nalle

Well, some of us want to say to them -- come up with a better solution or just -- shut up.

If some number crunchers were to take a poll among the anti-nationalized health care group asking how many of them have health care versus how many have not -- who's willing to bet that most of them do have health care coverage and could care less about those who don't.

But, [yes, the proverbial but] when over 46.6 million Americans, with no health care coverage, are nonchalantly thought of by the right wing of the most powerful country in the world, this is what's called irony  Mr. Nalle and all those who agree with him,  it's dispassionate, it's amoral,  it's a national  travesty.

It's the same old song, "I have you haven't"-- Marie Antoinette's would say "let them eat cake"  --  oh and sorry about your luck, you won't get to see a doctor when you become diabetic.