Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I daresay a 66-yo GM remembers democratic leadership slaughter

Posted By: and 60s hate speech. Serious business. nm on 2008-10-20
In Reply to: I saw that too... - SM

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Websters definition...I daresay....sm
our little "last worditis" poster is described fairly well in #1 in the first definition....and then #1 and #3 below.....especially #3, as in harassment.....I daresay that poster was definitely harassing the previous poster, stalking and following them all around the board....see? "Stalker" does, indeed, fit, according to the definition.



stalker
One entry found.

stalk[2,verb]


Main Entry:
2stalk
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English bestealcian; akin to Old English stelan to steal — more at steal
Date: 14th century

intransitive verb
1 : to pursue quarry or prey stealthily

2 : to walk stiffly or haughtily

transitive verb
1 : to pursue by stalking

2 : to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry

3 : to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
With a 37% approval rating, I daresay
these are *embittered partisan protests.* So, maybe you aren't proud, but I still do not feel my *indignation* is misplaced. You are the one thinking partisan.
Actually, we're all headed for the slaughter
x
Geez.....all that because I would like to stop the slaughter of the unborn....
and there is not a bit of that in you pile-on, ranting, screaming, judgmental zealots with poisonous, nauseating, self-important dreck for beliefs (mostly your words, I substituted one). Yep, persecution complex seems to have attacked you all en masse. Only it is not the world, it is one little poster named sam who you think is against YOU. Not you, come out of persecution palace. It is the act of abortion I am against. Way to personalize there in persecution palace. This more describes you, the pile on and try to silence the pro-lifer group. Which is exactly what makes people reject YOUR beliefs and ideology.
More lambs to the slaughter.....oh lordy, gotta have
nm
Maybe our top leadership....
has bigger fish to fry, ever think of that? Women have been self-inducing abortions for centuries........she is probably mentally ill or she would have sought proper medical assistance instead of poisoning herself. Get off the abortion BS - it's a law. Nobody likes abortion, but at the same time no one has the right to tell another person how to choose what is right for them. God gave us free will.
Slaughter of Foreigners in Yemen Bears Mark of Former Gitmo Detainee
 

The fate of three of nine foreigners abducted in Yemen last week is known — their bodies were found, shot execution style. The whereabouts of the other six — including three children under the age of 6 — remain a mystery.


But terrorism experts say their abductors and killers are almost certainly not a mystery. They say the crimes bear the mark of AL Qaeda, and they fear they are the handiwork of the international terror organization's No. 2 man in the Arabian Peninsula: Said Ali al-Shihri, an Islamic extremist who once was in American custody — but who was released from the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Link for full story:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527868,00.html


This is about responsible leadership.
No blame game here. That's your job. This is about what Bush did and did not do while the catastrophe was unfolding in front of our very eyes. Your post demonstrates the blind eye you are turning toward the abysmal response on the part of Bush and the feds. Bush was on vacations turning his blind eye. The viewing audience did not turn that same blind eye, and they remember seeing all the local official's pleas for help fall on deaf ears. This is what republicans do. Deny, divert and dismiss in their hurry to make anybody and everybody else responsible for their own failures. All the spin in the world will not change what the American people are smart enough to figure out for themselves. Ask them who failed New Orleans.
Appreciate that. I'm praying for our leadership
nm
all under the leadership of Bush, nm
nm
82 sex offenders from pub party leadership.
xyz
Yep, under Bush's lack of leadership nm
nm
Yeah. We'll be falling right into the leadership shortly
nm
Right! Bush leadership and republican congress tanked us
nm
The biggest welfare in US history is the Wall St bailout under the leadership of
in us history
I will not stop trying to stop the slaughter of the unborn in this country...
I never said you were a stupid wretch. What I said was, if you can watch that video below and not feel something, your heart must be seared over. If you can watch that video and advocate what you advocate, yes, I'm sorry, I find that cold. I am entitled to my opinion and all your ranting and name calling and belitting is not going to change that. Someone needs to speak for the child. You certainly aren't allowing it any rights, including the right to live. You are okay with that, I'm not.
Who is your top democratic candidate?
Barack Obama is who I am rooting for, but I'd like to know what democrats are thinking about the other candidates.
Who do you think will get the Democratic nomination

And, what do you think the Super Delegates will do?


voting democratic



CI'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe everything the main stream media tells me about the Presidential candidates.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq , I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar icecaps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm thinking abou t voting Democratic because oil companies 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government taxes of 18% (federal and state) on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because now I can now marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because they know best how to run a mortgage company like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They will guarantee I get a low interest loan even if I don't have a job and can't pay it back.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I agree that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac executives should get 10's of million dollars in bonuses, then leave and join a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign as his advisors.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it?




You cant thank the democratic congress too.
nm
way to go democratic congress
nm
Can the Democratic Party Survive
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/shore/2005/shore022805.htm
But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.

In order to smear it.


No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.


Democratic talking points 101. nm

Republicans and democratic are worlds apart
One party represents BUSINESS. the other PEOPLE. That is the bottom line.

You americans need to get your two parties together without the politicians around and figure out how to come to terms with your disagreements cuz you folks are on the same ship and it is sinking and only the rich have a paddle.

Want us Canadians to provide a neutral ground? We are very concerned about the runaway train that has become America. It is like a bad movie.
Exactly, that is the common thread in Democratic...
party these days. And the only way to end that stalemate in Waashington is for that, for lack of a better word...crap to stop. McCain and Palin are reaching across the aisle, saying they are willing to work with democrats to stop the stalemate...country first. McCain says he wants Democrats and Independents in his cabinet. Country first. This election is a no-brainer for this Independent. McCain/Palin.
'scuse me...have you read the democratic...
posts on this board?? lol.
My Lord, what do you expect from the Democratic rag, the
Washington Post? Give me a break and the rest of us here. Why don't you read some real new for a change?

Did you know that just a tiny bit of arsenic can make you deathly ill?
Impeached by a democratic majority?
What YOU smokin?? lol.
Tell that to the democratic congress - they are responsible
And while people are getting laid off left and write the democratic congress who gave the bail outs are not giving back any of the money. And the people who ran FM/FM are not giving back any of the money. And the money that was given for the bail outs but instead the people used it to take lavish vacations and put more money in their pockets are not giving it back, and the DEMOCRATIC congress is not enforcing that they should give it back.
58 +/- 2 democratic leaning indies =
jangled nerves over this one undecided seat. Cornyn is hedging no bets and preparing for the worst case scenario, rather than simply letting the state satisfy itself that it is sending the duly elected representative to Washington based on the most accurate vote count possible. Why is that such as scarey proposition? How much traction do you really think the obstructionists are going to have in the Senate anyway. Not all the pubs are onboard with administration sabotage. Some of them actually remember that their constituents expect them to get something accomplished and to wait until at 16 to 18 months before starting to campaign for their next race.
Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM


Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg


Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003


U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.





Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake


By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau


WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.


Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.


The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.


Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.


During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.


There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.


Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.


And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.


Voted to back Bush


In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.


Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.


After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.


Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.


While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.


The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.


Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.


Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.


The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.


But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.


A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.


He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.


Norm ... has agonized


All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.


Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.


In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.


Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.


By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.


We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.


By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.


That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.


Growing doubts


On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.


Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.


That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.


Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.


Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.


The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.


Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.


The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.


Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.


The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.


Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.


But he added, We can't take forever.


Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.


I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.


Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com



Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:

1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.

I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.



And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:

Stand up to whom and why?  The Congress is run by Republicans.  Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional. 


He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist.  If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them. 


This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans.  A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists.  He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies.  He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy.  He just can't be trusted, period.


None of the top tier of Democratic candidates will commit...
to having the troops out of Iraq during their 4 years.  I know some of you have posted that you would not vote for Hillary for that reason.  What if she is the candidate?  Second question...if none of them are going to end the war immediately and that seems to be a major issue for most of you...I assume you are going to vote for one of them anyway...whichever one gets the nomination?
All this is all well and good and right down the Democratic party line...
the fact is...a few months ago Joe Biden said: "I would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain." Last night he attacked him. So...take your pick. He was lying then or he is lying now. He lied. Perhaps you are impressed by throwing friends under the bus, lying or whatever it takes to toe the party line. I am not. I think it shows marked lack of character. To each his own.

Questioning his experience is not a personal attack, spineless or otherwise. You could leave the spineless personal attacks on people who disagree with you to the side, it might make someone more willing to listen to your viewpoint. What I have heard him say in interviews, what he has said himself, plus the marked lack of foreign policy exposure and experience in his resume do cause me pause. Yes, I admit it. The fact that I fear he will fold like a house of cards if someone gets in his face is a concern. It really does not matter to me if you are sold on him...I am not. And that should not be the basis of an attack on me from you. THis is exactly what I am talking about. Obama supporters attack anyone who does not agree with them. Thank you for making my point.

By all means though...STAY LOYAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE PARTY. Friends under the bus, lie, whatever it takes. I get it.
Case in point...what a democratic view....NOT.
YOu have been exposed for what you are, and in typical spin, turn it on to someone else and make them the villain. You guys are like the Wizard of Oz...one head and lots of little bodies running around. :)
Who supports Obama? Everybody in the democratic party
it appears. I was a Clinton fan as I know she takes care of business and knows how to get things done in the Senate and Congress.

McCain and Palin will lead us to a supreme court nominee which will be a republican and we cannot afford that.
Tracks for both sides. Obama is more of the democratic same...
and John McCain has never been a toe the line Republican. Republicans will tell you that.

I post links most of the time. How is that twisting and manipulating words? How is that making something come out the way I want it to? Good grief. lol. If you see something that I post is twisted or manipulated, refute it. No one is stopping you. The best you seem to have is to attack me. Why is that the first line of democratic defense? Oh yes...the Alinsky method. If you can't refute....attack. lol.
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm


http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/

Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.




Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
I'm voting democratic to relegate ignorance like this
su
Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress.
.
Plus the democratic congress. Get your facts correct.

Democratic presidents 'suck' in the eyes
of Reps, and Republican presidents 'suck' in the eyes of Dems.....and round and round it goes...
they can't hold a candle to the Democratic Underground or Moveon.org.
Those two are evil incarnate.
Transcript: Democratic response to Pres. Bush's

Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.


Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.


CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.


However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.


To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.


This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.


Sadly, on Wednesday, President Bush - in the face of bipartisan majorities in Congress, and contrary to the will of the American people - vetoed our bipartisan bill.

The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.


The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.


Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.


The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.


The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.


The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.


As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.


Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.


In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.


But he has done just that.


But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.


Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.


This is a defining moment for this Congress.


In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.


In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.


I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.


Ask them to support our children.


Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.


Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.


Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.


Okay....right alongside them should be the Democratic local authorities who also have culpability.
fair is fair. This is particularly nasty little ol' post.
The current Democratic Congress has also floated the notion of.....sm
outlawing the current 401K's that most of us have with our retirement funds in them.

Why?

Probably because they know how to invest our money better than we do, and want to make us put all our extra money into government backed retirements funds.


Sounds to me like a repeat of Social Security, where they'll use our money, put an IOU in a drawer someplace, and then say oops.....sorry, your money's all gone....

and that pesky democratic congress...funny, how you forget...

Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout...sm
Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout
Obama and his staff receptive to ideas, Doyle says

By SCOTT BAUER • The Associated Press • January 3, 2009



MADISON — Five Democratic governors are asking the federal government for a $1 trillion bailout package, including $250 billion for education and $150 billion in middle class tax cuts.
Advertisement

The governors from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio on Friday said they have presented their plan to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team as well as congressional leaders.

They said that level of federal aid is needed to deal with unprecedented state budget shortfalls in 41 states and Washington, D.C., that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pegged at $42 billion for the current fiscal year alone.

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle said congressional leaders and the Obama team have been receptive to the governors' ideas.

"That's not to say they've told us this is what they'll do or they're with us all the way," Doyle said. He also said other governors were involved in creating the plan, which grew out of an early December meeting that Obama had with the nation's governors.

Obama's aides and congressional leaders have been talking about a package roughly half the size of the two-year plan the five governors proposed Friday.

A $1 trillion is equal to 6.7 percent of the gross domestic product, the U.S. economy's total output in a single year. A package of that size is likely to draw significant opposition from congressional Republicans and concern from moderate and conservative Democratic lawmakers who oppose large budget deficits.

In addition to the money for education and tax cuts, the governors said their plan includes $350 billion for road construction and other infrastructure projects and $250 billion for social service programs such as Medicaid.

The governors all said their states are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls that will require deep cuts to services and possibly irreparably harm their education systems.

"We aren't crying wolf," Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said. "These are real circumstances, unprecedented situations we are facing."

Ohio's budget deficit could grow to $7.3 billion even after $1.9 billion was cut from its current budget, Strickland said.

A forecast from Global Insight shows that the economy hasn't hit bottom yet.

National economic growth is now expected to drop 1.8 percent this year, rather than increase 1 percent.

The U.S. labor market is expected to lose 3.7 million jobs during the downturn, with unemployment reaching 8.7 percent in the first half of 2010, it said.

That forecast assumes there will be a $550 billion federal stimulus package, roughly half of what the governors requested.


http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090103/GPG0101/901030590/1978