[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate] Overcast ~ 14°F  
Feels like: -3°F
Friday, Nov. 28, 2014

Democrats open office in Spencer

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

(Photo)
Area Democrats show their support for President Barack Obama during the Sunday afternoon opening of an Organizing for America office in Spencer. A total of 30 new OFA offices opened in Iowa as part of the "Gotta Vote Early Weekend of Action." The office will be used as a headquarters from which volunteers will register voters, knock on doors and talk with their neighbors about the campaign leading up to the early voting period which begins Sept. 27 in Iowa.
(Photo by Gabe Licht) [Order this photo]


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on spencerdailyreporter.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How is that hope and change working for you? If the American people elect that guy again, we deserve to become the third world country he is wanting us to become.

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 8:49 AM

Did you notice, housing values have risen over the last quarter? That's the first such increase in property values nationally since 2010. I like a posetive perspective in my politics, thankyou.

(DOWN, YOU ARE A DOWNER)

-- Posted by A. View Point on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 9:37 AM

This news restores my faith that the people of NW Iowa can read letters other than an R on a ballot!

Fivethirtyeight.com does statistical and scientific analysis of polls to determine odds and predict results as is used in baseball. Pollsters scoffed at previous predictions but were proved wrong.

The president will be re-elected with a mandate, that's a given. But we want to also give him a congress that will work with him and not have a priority to make his job as hard as possible just so they can point and complain.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 9:54 AM

There's plenty of room in Northwest Iowa for both parties and both parties bring positives and negatives. The key to this election will be to choose candidates that are willing to embrace useful and productive compromise rather than engaging in divisive rhetoric.

-- Posted by bburns01 on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 10:47 AM

Please give me Obama's record without "spending government" money. Please check his record out. Think about it this way.

That $6 trillion OBAMA! has borrowed is not only more money than any other president has ever borrowed before. But it's more money than every president has borrowed combined. When OBAMA! took office in 2008, the federal government was paying interest on $5.3 trillion in debt held by the public. By the end of this year, that amount will reach $11.3 trillion.

The reason Democrats are so happy with Obama is he is giving away "your" money.

Do you really believe another 4 years and possibily another $6 trillion added to the debt will be a good thing for you or your kids?

Not everyone can work for a government agency of any kind without other people working to pay for it. Creating more government paid jobs is not "creating jobs" but feeding the public opinion of creating jobs. At your expense.

November is very important to Americans not just Democrats and Republicans.

-- Posted by ksoat on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 10:56 AM

I'm TRYING my best to find a reason to vote for Obama again, but I'm having a REALLY hard time coming up with ANY reason whatsoever! I'm not trying to be "negative", just realistic! Our nation's economy is the WORST ever, gas prices have continued to soar, Obama is not interested in providing more jobs for Americans (against pipeline, coal, etc. that would create JOBS... not to mention the MANY small businesses who have had to fold in the last 3 yrs.), he has told my husband and many of his friends who have worked SO hard in getting their small businesses up and running that THEY are not responsible for even building their business (can the banker just send Obama the business loan to pay off then???), foreclosures are still record high, 50% of doctors are not planning to even continue in practice under "Obamacare", the list goes ON and ON!!!!!! I just can't justify his re-election! Sorry! =(

-- Posted by Funkyjavagirl on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 11:59 AM

Iowa wake up. When I grew up in Iowa, my grandfather had what he called "government acres" on his farm, some call them "set aside" acres. The USDA pays you not to grow crops on those acres. It is alive and well today.

http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/97...

This program helps control the amount of crops grown each year and actually could be called an early form of government price control. One way farmers can be assured of a fair price for their crops and stay in business, not to mention the check they got for "not growing" anything. A Government program which has been running since the 1930's.

It is amazing how angry Iowans/Farmers/Democrats are about the Wall Street, Banks, Insurance Companies, and Auto Manufacturers Bailouts. Shouldn't the Banks and Auto Makers be allowed to get their "government acres" also? The Democrats have been blaming Bush since the 2008 election for the bailouts. I think the blame Bush line is getting a little worn out. Look at my first post.

Farmers have been bailed out all of their careers for some. I won't even go into the Dairy business bailouts, maybe you call them subsidies.

How many Teachers, Firemen, Policemen, White House staff, Czars can you hire under the guise of JOBS before someone realizes "Who pays these people?" Where is the money coming from to pay these JOBS? How many billions can we lose or lose track of by investing in the Solar Industry? It's already bankrupt. Wind? I know that's dear to the heart of Iowans.

I wonder how many Farmers are in this picture of the new DEMOCRATIC office?

-- Posted by ksoat on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 12:10 PM

WOW!! I see the GOP false talking points are out in full force!

- Presidents don't control gas prices, Bush or Obama. The #1 US export is oil. Oil speculators on Wall St. have a huge impact of price.

- All people and business use infrastructure, gov't programs, regulations in some way. We're all in this together. How many people look to the fed. gov't to bail them out during a crisis but want to deny as much to others?

- Jobs: Btwn April '08-Oct '09 losses were 199,000 low to 818,000 high. Currently there's been 22 months of job gains. See Dept of Labor.

- Bush netted zero new public sector jobs after 8 years. See Dept of Labor.

- 2005-09 debt increased by 20.7%, 09-11 by 15.4%. see Wikipedia Hisory of US Public Debt.

- People support the Affordable Care Act when asked about the specific pieces of it, such as keeping kids to age 26 on parent's ins, no denial for pre existing conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 1:15 PM

Correction:

- Bush netted zero new PRIVATE sector jobs after 8 years. See Dept of Labor.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 1:17 PM

Excuse me. You're going to quote percentges of debt. $5.3 Trillion to $11 Trillion increased more than all presidents put together and you quoting a percentage of increase by Bush. No New Public Sector Jobs like that is a bad thing. What is wrong with you people? Where was anyone talking about Gas Prices? Leave it to a Democrat to change the subject.

-- Posted by ksoat on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 3:07 PM

Here is a factual, nonpartisan graphic with commentary on the differences in the federal deficit, in dollars and percentage of GNP, under Bush and Obama.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling...

It's not that Obama has been so great, but he's not worse than Bush. He had the economy he inherited from Bush to contend with, as well as a war that was ongoing, and possibly whose invoices were coming due during his administration.

-- Posted by AmyPeterson on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 4:13 PM

This is from you factcheck site you just posted.

"That's a huge increase to be sure -- 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama's first four years than it did in George W. Bush's entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history."

My point exactly. Do you even read any of this stuff or only look at the stuff they say about "how bad Bush was"?

-- Posted by ksoat on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 4:49 PM

@ ksoat, the link you provided must be from some time in the '90s when Clinton was president. At least try to be current with your info. Much of those acres enrolled in the CRP prorams are highly erodible or classified as wetlands. Personally I am all for getting government all out of farming.....on 2 conditions, Government stays out of all export restrictions at times as well as what we do with our land.

@ helped_myself, I looked at the Bureau of Labor staistics, and found this, number of people fully employed Jan 2009-- 133,561,000, July 2012-- 133,245,000. By my math I come up with a loss of 316,000.

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 5:06 PM

All employees, seasonally adjusted Jan 2009, 133,563,000, Dec 2012, 131,900,000 down 1,663,000

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 5:19 PM

I'll stand corrected on the acres issue.

But listen to what you said "highly erodible or classified as wetlands." Why should anyone get paid anything for that type of land? Not that it matters to me, I'm not a farmer anymore.

My point was to show that farmers have been receiving government help for a long time. Pointing angry fingers at AIG, Banks, and Auto Companies at a time where it seemed to make sense, doesn't make sense to me. Unfortunately, our kids will be paying for "all" of this and continuing down the same path usually leads to the same result.

As far as jobs, here are the numbers from the site you posted.

"From January 2009 through December 2011, 6.1 million workers were

displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years, the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was down from 6.9

million for the survey period covering January 2007 to December 2009.

In January 2012, 56 percent of workers displaced from 2009-11 were

reemployed, up by 7 percentage points from the prior survey in January

2010.

Displaced workers are defined as persons 20 years of age and older who

lost or left jobs because their plant or company closed or moved,

there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift

was abolished. The period covered in this study was 2009-11, the 3

calendar years prior to the January 2012 survey date. Most of this

period was characterized by modest employment growth. The following

analysis focuses primarily on the 6.1 million persons who had worked

for their employer for 3 or more years at the time of displacement

(referred to as long-tenured). An additional 6.7 million persons were

displaced from jobs they had held for less than 3 years (referred to

as short-tenured). Combining the short- and long-tenured groups, the

number of displaced workers totaled 12.9 million from 2009-11. In the

prior survey, which was conducted in January 2010 and covered 2007-09,

this group numbered 15.4 million. This previous survey reflected the

steep employment declines associated with the recession that began in

December 2007."

My point is Government jobs cannot replace 12.9 million jobs. So jumping up and down about how many teachers, firemen, policemen and government agencies you create will fill the void is just wrong. We need more real jobs, more real businesses, more real taxes being paid not being spent. Taxes like withholding, SSI, Unemployment, Sales Taxes which relates to a vibrant economy not Income Taxes from the only people making any money in this economy. Put our people back to work.

-- Posted by ksoat on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 5:29 PM

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am however, very frustrated by a few comments ksoat. You would know absolutely NOTHING if someone hadn't taught you. The arrogance you have to say that a teacher is not a real job! Farmers can't farm if no one teaches them. Laborers can't labor if no one has taught them how. Ignorance serves no one! Firemen and Police officers already have a thankless job and you want to "under sell" their importance! I think the economy would be the least of our concerns if these three "fake" jobs were eliminated. You sir are a fool.

-- Posted by old timing man on Wed, Aug 29, 2012, at 8:51 AM

I see everyones points, however, Not one Republican can say they believe everything the meaning of "Rebublican" is about and in the same statement, Not one Democrat can say they believe everything the meaning of "Democrat" is about. I know that I want to live in a country that is governed by the people where we can decide what the best is for us! If you want things to change, we must change it ourselves! God Bless the USA and I will always Pledge Allegiance to flag of the United States of America!

-- Posted by ChangeSpencer on Wed, Aug 29, 2012, at 10:08 AM

ksoat, I corrected my post.

- Bush netted zero new PRIVATE sector jobs after 8 years. See Dept of Labor.

clayfamer, Yes, we continued to lose jobs before the stimulus kicked in, after which there's been 22 straight months of job gains. Of course it'd be great if the gains were bigger, but they're still gains. Without the stimulus there'd probably still be losses.

Imagine where we'd be if there was a congress interested in doing more than making the President look bad.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Aug 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM

If jobs is what we're talking about, the President neither hires nor fires anyone, outside his own cabinet. He appoints Supreme Court justices as their spots vacate, and he appoints certain other federal positions. He has no bearing whatsoever on unemployment figures.

If the government has anything to do with that, it is in Congress and state legislatures and their economic and business policies.

The biggest factor in unemployment is the fact that companies are now willing to hemorrhage human beings so their CEOs can keep their bonuses. Or they are freaked out by the macro economy (also not controlled by the President) so they lower wages and freeze hiring.

-- Posted by AmyPeterson on Wed, Aug 29, 2012, at 3:28 PM

I appreciate everyone's opinion, and it's great that we have the opportunity to pen them freely. That being said, I'll offer my viewpoint to which I'm certain there will be some criticism.

Great leadership should instill confidence in people. From this confidence, we are capable of great things. Not one man, Republican or Democrat, can solve the country's problems; it takes a joint effort from all citizens. I believe we are too quick to blame Washington for our problems when we should be looking at ourselves to see what we can do to improve the situation. Collectively, we can make a stand for what is right and make a difference when we feel our leadership fails to represent the best interests of the citizens of our nation.

So when we vote this November, choose the candidate that you feel instills the most confidence in people; we have more power to change the situation than one man in Washington does.

-- Posted by Culture Warrior on Wed, Aug 29, 2012, at 8:39 PM

And keep in mind, was not long ago Obama said "the private sector is doing fine."

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 7:16 AM

While I don't profess to be a die hard Republican or Democrat, nor do I believe only one side of these two parties is the only one guilty of misrepresenting information during this election, there is one thing that is really busting my chops! When Obama said, in reference to small business owners, you didn't build that, he wasn't saying you didn't build your own business. Listen to his entire speech. He said, "Chances are you had some help along the way. You had a great teacher or the roads which lead to your business, someone built those for you." I built my own business from the ground up. I worked REALLY hard to do that and am very proud of my accomplishment. However, I am not silly enough to think I did it without ANYONES help. I had two supportive parents, I had AMAZING teachers (paid for with your tax dollars), I used the public library (tax dollars), I had Pell Grants (paid for with your tax dollars), I had student loans (tax dollars), I have customers that get to my business on roads built with our tax dollars, I could go on and on....so no I didn't do this on my own, no one can. We pay it forward. I never post on this site especially about politics cause someone is always so quick to jump on you for this opinion or that. And I know the Democrats are taking things out of context too, but this one is appearing everywhere, it's on Facebook, I get emails, heck it's even the theme for the Republican Convention, "We Built That" when the Tampa Bay Time Forum was paid for in large part by our tax dollars. Sorry to go on and on......just my two cents I guess.

-- Posted by nwianative on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 9:33 AM

I deeply apologize to any teachers, firemen, or policemen who might have taken my comments to heart. I truly respect the jobs they do and please do not let me or anyone cause you the injustice to think you do not matter in the scheme of things.

My point is your jobs are paid for with "public funds" from taxes of some sort. Not eveyone can have a "public" job without someone not being paid by taxes. It works in China but not here if we want it to stay the same.

If we all jump up and down about more "public" jobs and do not concern ourselves with "private" jobs, as clayfarmer brought up, the money to pay for "public" jobs dries up. Hence where we find ourselves today.

Today rich people are considered by Obama as folks making over $250,000 a year and they should pay more because of that. When that doesn't work would rich be considered everyone with over $100,000 a year, how about $50,000 a year?

What I'm saying is more "tax paid public jobs" would be nice but won't get us out of this situation we are in.

Please understand when I grew up in Iowa, our teachers were the very best in the country and I still believe they still are. Sorry again for my rash comments.

-- Posted by ksoat on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 12:07 PM

I think the point that is missed is that salaries and wages paid to the public sector do create private sector jobs. If you eliminate some of these jobs there is less money to buy the goods and services from the private sector. The private sector will not hire more workers until there is more demand for their products and services. The hoarding of the money by the super rich and lowering of wages for the middle class has really hurt our economy. If it takes raising taxes on the rich to create more jobs I say do it. They are not creating jobs by hoarding their money.

-- Posted by Henry Blake on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 3:43 PM

I think it would take 4-5 new private sector jobs to pay for 1 new public sector job. Or we could just borrow it or print more money.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-...

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 5:49 PM

@ Amy, Obama has been responsible for some hirings/firings. Remember the 30 something new czars he hired?? The firings, I think after he took over GM he closed some plants and dealerships. Come to think of it, that's the same thing Obama accuses Romney of doing.

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 5:57 PM

Henry, where are the rich hoarding their money, the stock market, real estate, farm land for sure. All of this hoarding is investing in America, hopefully money to be used to employ people here, not out source them to countries paying $.50 an hour wages.

You need to consider whether someone is talking about getting more jobs here in America or spending more Government money to hire more people here.

There can only be so many Government jobs paid for with taxes, whether it is income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, it is still taxes and raising taxes on the 1% considered rich will not be enough to fill the gap. It has to come to businesses and jobs here in America that are not being funded by Government.

Do you think the hoarding is in the banks at 1%? No, it is in investments usually carrying a risk, of which, they are usually afforded a "tax deduction" for taking that risk on the money they make. Why a tax deduction? To promote investment in places with risk which hopefully delivers a higher return. They take the risk because if they don't they don't get the tax deduction and it goes to the government anyhow. Of course, if you are the government, then you have more money to hire people working for the government which in turn "discourages" investment into businesses. Thereby lowering taxes in the long run. It is not rocket science and people should not be looking to the government to rid our country of "rich" by taking away their opportunity to "invest". Small companies wouldn't have become large successful companies without someone accepting the risk.

I think you will find businesses were here before government, creating the need for government, but just how much government is to much.

If you discourage people from being what you call "rich" what do you do when you get there?

If you do not plan on getting there "ever" why punish the ones who did? Do you think they used the roads more than you, sent more kids to school than you, had more fires than you, called 911 more than you, probably not.

They had opportunity and grasp the risk of getting there, probably more than you. They shouldn't pay more, they should pay their fair share and you should be ashamed of expecting them to have to. Think about it.

-- Posted by ksoat on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 11:57 PM

Just curious...is anyone bothered by this:

http://muslimbureau.com/jumah-at-the-201...

-- Posted by Dennis the Menace on Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 1:19 AM

Raising taxes is not going to create one new job now, unless it's done with borrowed money. We have a $1.2 trillion dollar yearly budget shortfall. You would have to take the equivalent of ALL the net worth from the top 11 billionaires on the Forbes list of the richest. For just to balance ones years budget. To balance the next years budget your would probably have to go for the next 20 on the list and take all away from them. The country doesn't have a tax probem it has a spending problem.

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 7:16 AM

No, not bothered by it. It takes very little digging to find that it's not true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/...

-- Posted by DHarris on Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 10:10 PM

Snopes doesn't say that the link I mentioned wasn't true...besides, BIMA is even collecting donations for the DNC via their brochure:

http://muslimbureau.com/wp-content/uploa...

There's a substantial and growing number of Americans that believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim and an event like this coinciding with the DNC just fuels that even more.

-- Posted by Dennis the Menace on Sat, Sep 1, 2012, at 1:31 AM

Menace, I admit I was hasty in my comment, saying "it's not true." Seems like soon after I scold someone else for jumping to conclusions, I do the same thing. What I was responding to was the "Claim" paragraph in Snopes that addresses a rumor, then investigates and posts the results as True, False or Inconclusive.

CLAIM: The Obama campaign is sponsoring an "Islamic Jumah" at the Democratic National Convention but declined to allow a prayer from a Catholic cardinal.

CONCLUSION: False

And then a long page of sources and explanations sited for the conclusion.

I realize Snopes didn't say the link you provided isn't true, nor were you pointing any fingers. I reacted too quickly and for that I apologize.

-- Posted by DHarris on Sat, Sep 1, 2012, at 3:32 PM

No apology necessary DHarris. I had heard the Catholic thing and knew it wasn't true. My point was that the DNC may have made a mistake by advertising the event on their calendar, which they eventually removed...I suspect there may have been some backlash even though it wasn't associated with the convention.

-- Posted by Dennis the Menace on Sun, Sep 2, 2012, at 10:40 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.