2009.10.21
Get Motivated!
Talking Points Memo reported yesterday that former President Bush has a new gig. Unlike past ex-presidents, Bush isn't forming a global foundation to address health care, economic issues and education. He isn't getting involved in Habitat for Humanity. He isn't even simply retiring to the ranch in Crawford.
Nope. He's headlining a motivational seminar in Fort Worth, Tex. You can attend - for just $19 (for your entire office).
Other motivational speakers on hand include Terry Bradshaw, Colin Powell and Zig Zigler. Years ago, my brother, then a salesman, went through a Zig Zigler phase, and I was subjected on a drive from Houston to Kansas City to hours of this guy's spiel. The only part I remember is that he didn't call his alarm clock an alarm clock. He called it an "opportunity" clock.
Certainly, Bush should be able to top that.
RSS feed 
You know, at least Bush has the class not to slam his predecessors or successors unlike Carter, Clinton, and 0bama.
As far as Clinton, I can't think of anything relevant he did after his term until Bush sent him to Indonesia other than pad his pockets making (motivational?) speeches. Poor Carter hasn't done anything except spend 30 years trying to revamp his pathetic legacy. I guess certifying fraudulent foreign elections is his way of trying to do that.
Comment by Suzie — October 21, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Bush slammed Clinton all the time for leaving him a peaceful nation in the midst of the longest peacetime expansion in history.
And he made damned sure not to repeat that mistake for his successor.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 11:49 am
You know, at least Bush has the class not to slam his predecessors
There are a sizable number of Americans who want Obama to jail his predecessors.
Comment by Art Hill — October 21, 2009 @ 11:54 am
#2 Link?
Comment by Suzie — October 21, 2009 @ 11:58 am
@ Dan # 2
"Bush slammed Clinton all the time for leaving him a peaceful nation in the midst of the longest peacetime expansion in history."
Quote please?
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Sarcasm, people.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
Nice recovery, Dan!
Comment by BUD — October 21, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Bush no longer has his "front" ranch, he sold it after he did not need the front The guy does not like to be around horses. History will tell how bad this guy is, he left a mess.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 21, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
Dan,
Your obvious disdain for a former president of this country taints the content of your posts. It makes it so that even when you might have something factual or relevant to say about the former president it gets discounted because of your obvious disdain.
At $19 a pop, President Bush is obviously not trying to make money on this, which is not the same as his predecessor who makes a very handsome living from honoraria on speeches. That indicates that President Bush's intent is good even if you question his abilities.
When will it be time to give the Bush deal a rest? When will you libs get over that Bush was president for 8 years and it si now over.
Comment by Bob H — October 21, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
#8 - Nothing like the mess 0bama's gonna leave. Just wait...
Comment by Patrick — October 21, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Let's see, Bush hasn't even been out of office a year. We're still dealing with the deficits, unwise war in Iraq and other disasters caused by his policies. I think there's still some clock left on "the Bush deal."
Clinton, in the meantime, left a surplus and a nation at peace, but that didn't stop conservatives blaming him for everything that went wrong throughout Bush's entire two terms.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
@3..There are a sizable number of Americans who want Obama to jail his predecessors
there are a sizable number of people wanting OBAMA in jail, me included
Comment by pammala — October 21, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Your obvious disdain for a former president of this country taints the content of your posts. It makes it so that even when you might have something factual or relevant to say about the former president it gets discounted because of your obvious disdain.
Oh, the irony!
At $19 a pop, President Bush is obviously not trying to make money on this,
According to the media, Bush stands to make about 100,000 dollars for 40 minutes work. Maybe he can donate it to charity.
Comment by Art Hill — October 21, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
@ Dan #11
Are you blaming Bill Clinton for the 9/11 attack? After all, if we use your '[X] hasn't been out of office for a year. We're still dealing with...' argument, I don't see any way to reconcile you application of the one year standard and your (now) sarcastic quote in #2 about a nation at peace.
I assume you are OK with President Clinton accepting millions from foreign governments to lobby his friends in congress, but I would propose that President Bush speaking to folks who pay $19 apiece is far more benign.
After all the RTEB's whining about the corrupting influence of money in politics, this would seem like a welcome change. Sadly, it's just another double standard which only adds to the perception of intellectual dishonesty.
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
I am a conservative and I did not blame Clinton for more than the stains left on the oval office carpet.
I blamed Bush for an unwise war in Iraq, not dealing with our borders, and not giving a private option to Social security as he campaigned that he would.
Even the most ardent liberal admits the first attack on the trade towers occurred under who?, and that most of the materminding and planning of the final terrorist act that toppled those towers occurred under who? You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal to see this, all you need is a calendar.
Clinton even admits that his adminstration had Bin Laden offered to him but didn't act on it.
You can live in the past if you want to Dan (I guess that is being progressive). I prefer to move on. BH0 is president now. He can address the problems of the country or he can go and sit with all the other liberals who still seem to want to disparage Bush than to get on with the business of the country.
It's past time to govern......
Comment by Bob H — October 21, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
@Mike #14: The conservatives certainly blamed Clinton for 9/11, didn't they?
Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Clinton presided over eight years of peace and prosperity. Bush presided over eight years of war and economic stagnation. Conservatives blamed Clinton for everything that went wrong during Bush's entire term, but now, less than a year after Bush left office, everything is on Obama's shoulders.
That hypocrisy is what I was responded to with my sarcastic and facetious response in #2.
I think there is plenty of blame to go around for 9/11. I don't believe it can be pegged completely on any one president or, with the exception of bin Laden, any one person.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Well, since my original reply got trashed, I'll try it again:
#11 - Dan, in my experience, Liberals seem inable to accept responsiblity for their actions. It's always someone else fault if they fail...usually a Conservative.
Therefor, Bush will continued to be blamed for what's going on for a LONG time.
Comment by Patrick — October 21, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
@ Dan # 16
We are in agreement that no one person (save UBL) can be blamed for 9/11. Of course, your statement about conservatives doing so belies the double standard in your posts which you decry from conservatives.
The notion that we were 'at peace' has proven to be false (ask the sailors on the USS Cole), and the economic model proved to be artificially propped up by the .com bubble and real estate speculation.
The bottom line is that Bush and the Republican congress created a mess by overspending (more than any other congress in US history). For that, they were rejected by voters. Damocrats, like Pres. Obama told us they needed to pass their stimulus bill in order to prevent 8% unemployment. At that point, Pres. Obama put himself on the hook for unemployment if it went beyond 8.1% (which looks to be here to stay for at least a year).
I like to think you have higher intellectual standards than the Republicans who blamed Clinton for problems in 2001 and 2002. From your language in post #16, it sounds as though you may not want that impression to apply.
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
@Mike #18: "Of course, your statement about conservatives doing so belies the double standard in your posts which you decry from conservatives."
I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. If I point out hypocrisy by some conservatives I'm engaging in a double standard?
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence, either.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
#16 - Dan, Bush and Clinton are gone...0bama is in charge now. EVERYTHING hinges on what he does. Continuing to say it's Bush's fault or Clinton's fault is meaningless. It doesn't matter what was done in the past...what matters is what 0bama is going to do.
Comment by Patrick — October 21, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
I cant find anything about White House interns under the 'What We Do' section of Clinton's website... am i looking in the wrong place? Would it be under 'Terns of use?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 21, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
#17 speaking as only one liberal that is not true but do you think this guy Bush should be held responsible for what damage he and his bunch did?
Not taking charge during Katrina
The ill-begotten war (Iraq)was supposed to only cost us $65 billion. It has now cost us to 300 billion.
The Military-Overused and over-deployed.
There is a long list. But why does the right not take responsibility for the mess someone has to clean up?
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 21, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
@20
Wow, that would sure be convenient for the Republicans. Not a chance, dude.
Comment by Art Hill — October 21, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Funny, Patrick, how that wasn't your standard for Clinton.
I agree, though. Obama will set the course for the next four or eight years. But it's silly to pretend that all the difficulties currently facing the nation are all his fault.
The economy is in far better shape than it was when Obama was elected.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
#22 - Bill, blaming Bush for not taking charge during Katrina is a perfect example of my point. Thank you!!
Ray Nagle FAILED to protect his people. He had plenty of opportunity to evacuate people but didn't do so. Yet it's Bush's fault.
Comment by Patrick — October 21, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
"speaking as only one liberal that is not true..." Bill
To what? Your country? Your fellow man? Yourself?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 21, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
#24 - Dan, I'm not blaming all the current difficulties on 0bama (despite many of them being so). My point was that everyone is always pointing fingers at the past and it does no good...what's done is done.
And yes, Clinton failed those of us in the military at the time.
BTW, when can the rest of us get the ability to do searches on past postings?
Comment by Patrick — October 21, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Its all Obama's baby now. Its his chance to lead - isn't it. Great leaders do amazing things when handed a mess (your claims not mine). What has your guys done so far to fix these problems? Squat, Diddly, Nada, Zip and Zero Right. Stimulus - a major flop so far. The Cash for clunkers - flopped. Yet he is spending time trying to destroy a news organization other than fixing anything? Great use of time Dear Leader.
I really do hope everything you Dems and BHO have working for that "Hopey, Changey" thing works out. The way you guys are STILL acting towards Bush at this point in BHO's presidency is going to haunt you just as your disrespect and disregard of Bush is haunting the Dems now with the overwhelmingly loud and disapproving voice of this center right country. You guys will never learn will you. Arrogant until the end. Keep it coming. I don't want to hear you crying and whining when the shoes on the other foot in 3.25 years!
Comment by Walker — October 21, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
@ Dan # 19
I'll simplify.
- You said that GWB has been out of office less than a year, and imply that our current issues are Bush 43's fault (post 11)
- You pointed out that it was wrong for conservatives to blame BC for 9/11 less than one year into GWB's term. (post 16)
I believe you are engaging in hypocrisy by claiming that Obama's first year problems the fault of the previous administration, while scoffing at the notion that Bush's first year problems were the fault of his predecessor.
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
#26 Speaking for myself of course like we are all doing.
Its not a bad thing to be a liberal.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 21, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Mike,
Perhaps too much simplification is the problem.
It was wrong for conservatives to solely blame Clinton for 9/11. Bush shares a measure of that, as do many others.
It is hypocritical for conservatives who blamed Clinton for 9/11, which happened eight months into his term, to exonerate Bush for any of the problems currently facing the nation, less than a year into his successor's term.
I believe that most of the current troubles facing this nation are left over from Bush's disastrous rein. I think Obama has been working to pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression - a recession that had been going on more than a year prior to his taking office.
I don't think Obama's been perfect, and if you want to give him the blame for unemployment over 8.1 percent, that's reasonable - as long as Bush gets the blame for the first 8.1 percent of unemployment.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
When did conservatives solely blame Clinton? I think they laid SOME of the blame on him for certain inaction, but we also saw the big picture. Damn right there was enough blame to go around. Many conservatives did not agree with ALL of Bush's policies, as well.
Comment by Walker — October 21, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
@ Dan #31:
"...as long as Bush gets the blame for the first 8.1 percent of unemployment."
You do realize that 5% is traditionally considered full employment? The only places with 0% (which seems to be your expectation if we are to blame GWB for the first 8.1%) were typically socialist countries with dubious numbers (e.g. USSR)
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
@ Dan #24
"The economy is in far better shape than it was when Obama was elected."
Really???
Unemployment at the time Obama was elected - 6.5% (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/nov/wk2/art01.htm)
Unemployement as of the beginning of this month - 9.8% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Mike,
Really. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. It doesn't reflect the true state of the economy. The Dow Jones dipped below 9,000 right around the election. It's now up above 10,000. The financial system is no longer on the brink of collapse. The auto industry has not recovered, but is in better financial shape than it was.
So, yes, really.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
#28 Walker "Center Right"??????? Certainly you do not classify yourself as center right. The center right of the Republican Party has left the building. ALl that is left is the far right.
Comment by RichARD — October 21, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
@ Dan #35
I think I better understand your confusion. You apparently have the wrong numbers.
The day of President Obama's election, the DOW closed at 9625. Today, after a trillion dollar infusion into the market, the DOW is at 9949.
And if UE lags so much, why on earth would a wise man like President Obama promise to keep UE under 8% if his stimulus bill was passed in days (before anyone could even read it)?
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
And it was going down then, and is going up now. The economy is improving. Nearly every economist in the nation will tell you that.
Obama helped pull this nation back from the brink of fiscal collapse and has it tentatively back on relatively solid footing.
Only the willfully blind could refuse to see that.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
@ Dan #38
The willfully blind and the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs since President Obama's election?
As for whether or not President Obama helped pull the nation back from the 'brink of financial collapse', I would have to ask why so many liberal commentators mocked John McCain for suspending his campaign and possibly missing a debate in order to address the financial issues. I thought it was a campaign stunt, but now that you say our system was near collapse, I have to wonder why then Senator Obama didn't join McCain.
What was the RTEB stance on McCain's decision at the time?
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Interesting...The RTEB believed that the presidential debate was more important than our incredibly complex economy on the brink:
"The debate that matters most today is the presidential debate scheduled for tonight. McCain can ill afford to snub Americans' interest in weighing the candidates. For them, too much is on the line."
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/178208
Comment by Mike — October 21, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
#39 Mike, how long do recessions last? What is a recession? What actions need to be taken to come out of a recession? Read the economics and you will see that the Obama Administration has taken al the classic moves to recover from a recession. In fact, George W Bush finally recognised the recession about 12 months into it and began taking very similar actions. Fortunately, since 1039 we have learned what it takes to turn a recession. In fact, we have weathered many over the last half century. We indeed also know what causes a recession and have often moved to stop them before they start. However, sometimes we have been so caught in our dogma "free markets" in this case that we refused to try to stop it until it had gotten totally out of hand.
That's why all of blame Obama, hate the stimulus, gov't spending crap is just that. It is economics 101 and a necessity for recovery.
Comment by Richard — October 21, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
#37 Mike, the Dow reflects many things. It reflects the anticipation of the economy in specific sectors from the low anticipation of 6,600 last March to 10,000 today. This isin spite of continued overeation by the banks and refusal to lend, in spite of the banks lying about their condition to GW Bush and Hank Paulson last December. The banks, investment and commercial were in dire straits as it turned out. SO much so that after throwing money at them and AIG, they still cannot recover. The stimulus working, travel through South Carolina as I did this past week and look at the road work being done. Look at the cities improving their infrastructure. Look at the teachers in VA that have jobs that would have lost them. Look at all the infastructure that has been neglected for years that is finally getting work done. Infastructure that improves production and wealth.
Say what you will about Obama in the future, but to date he has done exactly what the economists said needed to be done and moved as fast as COngress, R & Ds would allow. If anything, he has not gone as far as many economists insisted he should, i.e. more spending.
Comment by Richard — October 21, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Dan, I'm not convinced the economy is (much) better than when Obama was elected or took office... we have shed nearly 4 million jobs, the economy has contracted 6+% in 4th qtr of 2008/ 6+% 1st qtr. of 2009 and still another 1+% in the 2nd qtr..I haven't heard 3rd qtr. numbers yet, but we can only fall so far. Just because we aren't falling as fast doesn't mean we're better off. Most economist feel we will need better than 2+% in CONSISTENT economic growth(2-3 qtrs) to start creating jobs.
Comment by BUD — October 21, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
43 BUD You are correct from what I have seen. In fact, the commercial banks continue to restrict lending, retail remains sluggish. Retail should improve in te 4th quarter, but commercial banking remains a serious problem. I bet the 3rd quarter shows improvement, maybe 1%, but the start of the 4th is very sluggish. Economists seem to think some areas are starting to see consistent improvment, but around here, the State budget crunch, lack of manufacturing, and slow bank improvements is keeping things tight.
Comment by Richard — October 21, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
I still shake my head that there are still people who believe Clinton had anything to do with the boom of the late 90s. To refresh people's memories, Clinton tried to spend like a crazy man early in his administration, then the GOP took over Congress and wouldn't let him spend a dime. Welfare reform was done over Clinton's dead body. He vetoed it twice, and then a focus group told him he'd better not veto it a third time.
And to credit Clinton with a peaceful nation is a laugh. He never responded forcefully to Al-queda's six attacks on U.S. citizens. 9-11 was well under way when he left office.
Comment by Suzie — October 21, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
Yep Bud. I hear the left crow about a 10,000 DOW. But from where I sit, that's 4000 points lower than Bush had it at last year. Unemployment was promised by 0bama to go no higher than 8%. Thanks to his spending policies, it's nearly 10%, and even Democrat advisers say it will go higher. The deficit has ballooned at the fastest pace in history, and will only keep widening thanks to massive government spending. The dollar is now at its low for 2009, and as a result, gasoline is going higher.
Frankly, it's hard to see what is going right.
Comment by Suzie — October 21, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Actually, most of the deficit spending is a hold-over from the Bush administration, and the projected deficit for the next decade is less than it would be if Bush policies were kept in place.
But don't let that keep you from Obama-bashing.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Riddle me this Obama-ites. How much of Obama's vaunted "economy-on-the-brink saving" stimulus package has actually been spent? A few weeks ago it was only 10%. On the other hand, how much of TARP has been spent? The obvious next question is why isn't George Bush's TARP legislation being given the same amount of credit for saving the economy as Obama's as yet unspent stimulus? Political expediency in election year? Partisanship? I know the wail that will come from the left is that there was no oversight on TARP and we don't even know how it was spent. To that I would say, at least it was spent. That's more than you can say for Obama's package. Furthermore, while I agree that there should have been more accountability, the fact that there wasn't does not mean that the money did not serve its intended purpose and kick-start the financial system and initiate the economic turnaround months before Obama took office. Maybe someone should have nominated Bush for the Nobel prize in economics. He probably deserved it as much as Obama deserved the peace prize.
Comment by Another Chris — October 21, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
"Where are the jobs?" I see the Fox "News" talking points have made it to the RTEB. All other economic signs point to a recovery, unemployment figures are always the last to rebound and Republicans know they're toast if this president can turn the economy around. Another shining example of the Party of No, who want America to fail in a shameless attempt to regain power. Pitiful!
Comment by Art Hill — October 21, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
@48
Someone's been watching Cavuto. "We don't know where the money went, but it must have gone to the right place because the economy is getting better a year after our boy left office"
A "Bush recovery?" Preposterous!
Comment by Art Hill — October 21, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
#47 Actually, most of the deficit spending is a hold-over from the Bush administration, and the projected deficit for the next decade is less than it would be if Bush policies were kept in place.
LOL. Right. 0bama and his government takeovers and bailouts are going to increase the deficit less than Bush's policies. Source?
Unless you are blaming Bush for the auto bailout that 0bama asked him to get behind. Or the Fannie Mae crisis Bush tried to avert that 0bama was part of. Or the Social Security crisis Bush tried to avert. Or the bailouts last fall that 0bama supported.
Comment by Suzie — October 21, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Great comeback Art. That seems to be the standard liberal mantra when they don't really have an argument. Attack Fox. Though I'm sure it will come as a shock to you, I have never watched Cavuto. The only shows I have watched on Fox were O'Reilly once in a while and Glen Beck once (actually watched coverage of Beck on other shows when that guy passed out).
And by the by, the reasoning that the improving economy is evidence that money must have gone to the right place is no where near as preposterous as the most recent love-in the liberals and the media are holding for Obama. His miraculous stimulus package has saved the economy even though it hasn't been spent. Kind of like winning a Nobel peace prize for hoping there will be peace.
Comment by Another Chris — October 21, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Oh, I get it. I'm slow. Dan's #47 was like his #2. He was just being "sarcastic" hoping to get a reaction. I guess I took the bait again.
Comment by Suzie — October 21, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Some of you are all set to hang everything that's wrong with America on President Obama, but just a couple of you have the class to spell his name properly. How very sad.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 21, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
@52
Great comeback Art.
Thanks, I thought so. Looks to me like President Obama has done a lot more for the economy with a lot less money. Just think how much better things will be when he spends the rest of it.
Comment by Art Hill — October 21, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Clinton presided over eight years of peace and prosperity. Bush presided over eight years of war and economic stagnation. Conservatives blamed Clinton for everything that went wrong during Bush's entire term, but now, less than a year after Bush left office, everything is on Obama's shoulders.
That hypocrisy is what I was responded to with my sarcastic and facetious response in #2.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 21, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Yes Dan, Peace and prosperity....dead American troops dragged through the streets of Somalia, the USS Cole, The first world trade center bombing, Bosnia....and the whole time Clinton sat on his rear and did nothing about it thereby emboldening Bin Laden. You also seem to forget the economy started taking a nose dive just after the dems took over congress. Be sarcastic all you want to, but sarcasm is more effective if it has the under-pinnings truth.
Comment by Jim W. — October 22, 2009 @ 5:58 am
The economy has improved slightly in spite of obama, not because of his policies.
Comment by Jim W. — October 22, 2009 @ 6:00 am
Well I for one, am just glad the economy has "recovered"( cough cough) as our VP Joe Biden has stated the stimulus bill has worked beyond our wildest dreams. I mean with inciteful analysis like that , who can argue otherwise.
Comment by BUD — October 22, 2009 @ 7:02 am
#47 Chris, I certainly give GW Bush credit for waking up in time to start Tarp. He even over rode the Republican Congress who raised their heads for the first time in eight years. Taarp certainly saved our economy and the Worlds from collapse. And I do not even give GW all the blame for the recession. Wall Street and COngress should get the bulk of that. GW just led them down the fairy tale of "Free Market" or they led him, not sure of which.
Obama's spending that your buddies on this site keep harping about has indeed been slow coming forth. That is because it was designed to buy infrastructure. Tarp was intended to jump start the banks. Please remember, that Obama worked with the Bush administration to help get Tarp going, but had no control over the administration of it until Jan 20. Also, COngress in their wisdom, knocked heads on everything Bush or Obama tried. The stimulus was intended to begin the growth process and increase production capacity so that all of the spending of Tarp and Stimulus would not create inflation. This spending on infrastructure has been needed for years. That is not to say the Stimulus package has not started. It has as can be seen in states improving roads, cities improving schools and keeping teachers employed.
Comment by Richard — October 22, 2009 @ 9:36 am
@59 "It has as can be seen in states improving roads, cities improving schools and keeping teachers employed."
Thank goodness. Then Kaine's most recent announcement of new budget cuts that hit education and public safety must have been a bad dream.
Comment by Another Chris — October 24, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Think how bad it would have been without stimulus funding, Chris.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 24, 2009 @ 1:58 pm