Nadler is a moron!!! Congress is both the house & the senate!!!

who was it the sign the repeal of glass-steagall???

Who let fannie & freddie back the sub prime loans?

Obama care has already killed 1500 jobs.

Auto rescue??? GM is in the tank, the Volt is a joke.

The tax payers are on the hook for over $20 billion thanks to GM.

$$$$$16 trillion debt!!!!!!!!!!

How much more do you need?

If you could spend $1 dollar every second, it would take you over 31,000 years to spend just $1 trillion.

The democrats love to spend money!!!

Clinton is RIGHT ON. Talk to any senior educator. We DO NOT graduate college ready, job ready students. Many jobs today require some specialized training. So YES it is a combination of recession cycle AND jobforce readiness.

Talk to someone at higher levels of edducation administration in the K12 system.

Hey greenberg, stop with the grunting & groaning, you sound like farm animal

How are certain State Republican proposals that require a doctor to show a woman and the woman to look at the ultra-sound of her fetus by law, enforced?

You would almost wonder if the Republican leaders are thinking that the ‘bill’ for the procedure is the legal proof, suggesting that insurance companies are pushing the bill for money, along with anti-abortion extremists. However, uninformed Republican leaders may not realize that all doctors use an ultra sound before an abortion as a medical procedure to determine the position of the fetus in the womb before removing the fetus. Perhaps insurance companies are going to charge an additional fee for ‘showing’ the fetus.

Doctors have always been free to ask women if the want to see the ultra sound and women have always been free to see it or not.

This would be like the government legislating that you have to go to the church and look at a cross before or after you make a decision about something. The extremists are attempting to get the government to encourage women to change their minds about abortion, or otherwise, humiliate them.

Our government should not have the power to force any of us to look at something.

We have two issues: 1) Choice - which is the major political issue, and 2) Abortion - which can be more a religious issue. A person can support Choice while being opposed to abortion. This distinction becomes increasingly more important given the Right's position of getting the government off the back of the individual. In These discussions these distinctions are not emphasized enough.

I fully support women in the workplace, but I have spent a career as a single person watching the workplace become more and more single-unfriendly in the name of being family-friendly. When mom or dad go off to their kid's play, or teacher meeting, or are late because the kid is sick, who has to make up to slack at work, without additional compensation and generally without appreciation. In fact, even bringing up the subject you are accused of being heartless and not understanding how important kids are. Businesses provide "family benefits" without providing equivalent "single benefits", so family members effectively get pay and benefits greater than single people. When talking about women in the workplace, or family friendly policies (which affect male and female), we should remember that another choice is the choice not to get married, or not to have kids.

Michelle Obama's speech comment that her primary title is "mom-in-chief" raises for me a very important issue about balance in the parenting responsibilities.

Parenting should be the top priority for both parents. When one of those parents has an economic opportunity to provide exceptionally well for the family, the other has to shoulder more of the parenting load. So, if the mother has an economic opportunity that makes her the primary bread winner, then fathers should bew willing to become "dad-in-chief."

I think daycare centers amounts to "outsourcing parenting." We did everything possible not to outsource our responsibilities. Parents who do so in deference to their careers, do so at their peril. They are outsourcing all the important things about parenting to others. Nothing compares to a mother or father's hug. Nothing compares to the warmth of the voice of a parent expressing love to a child. Nothing compares to a parent helping a child to take their first steps, and being there when they fall. Outsourcing doesn't make it batter. The consequences cannot be recovered from. Our children grow up distant from their parents, and the teenage confrontations that are natural cannot be resolved by the love of parents because that all-important foundation was outsourced.

Is anyone else tempted to throw something at the tv when the MomsRising spokesperson is talking? Full disclosure: I'm a mom and a lawyer who worked full-time for 38 years. I couldn't love my daughter more. But I cringe when FLOTUS does her "mom-in-chief" bit. That's not what comes to mind when I watch one of her apperances. I'm cheering Jessica Valenti, the guest author of "Why Have Kids."

Amazing-You will criticize ANYTHING that a Republican says or does. How in the world can you find fault in what Mrs. Romey said about motherhood? It appears that you're going out of your way to find something wrong.

Can a Republican do anything right in your view? How in the world can you find fault in what Mrs. Romney said about motherhood? It appears that you are going out of your way to find fault with everything that Republicans say or do.

I'm glad Jessica Valenti is on the show this morning and look forward to reading her book. I also cringed at the "mom in chief" line, for too many reasons to list here (but one being that, as the mom of two BOYS, I get really tired of the subtle and not-so subtle messages they get through various media about mothers basically holding the world together - it's as if they're being let off the hook before they're even out of middle school).

As for the single/childless/family divide...I think we should all try to keep from positioning ourselves against each other. An employer who makes allowances for family commitments is going to have happier employees, whether the allowance is for a single, childless guy to take his father to a doctor's appointment (a type of family care which is going to become more and more burdensome in the years ahead) or a dad to take his kids for their flu shot.

A childless colleague once berated me, when my kids were babies, about how women with children got to take time off without being taken less seriously at work (which just shows how out of touch he is with reality, but that's a different issue) while his wife didn't get to do the same. I was not in a position to argue with him, but I couldn't help wondering how many times she had ever been up all night with a baby with an ear infection and then had to get dressed and teach a class. Going off on me as if I was somehow taking things away from her, when I was so exhausted that I felt physically sick, was just obnoxious. So maybe if you have been accused of being heartless, you should look at the situation in which you have raised that issue.

The same person has twice quit a job to accompany her husband to teach in another country for a semester or year, and each time has been taken back. And those are opportunities that would have been nearly impossible for someone with a family to take. But it would be pointless for me to resent her freedom to travel, just as it's pointless for her to resent my freedom to leave work early because my two-year-old just threw up at preschool. Instead, we should both be appreciative of flexible employers and should encourage others to do the same whenever we have the chance.

Chris great show as usual. When I think about the auto bailout and the President bailing out the auto industry here is my thought on this. Paul Ryan said candidate Obama said he would keep the plant open in Wisconsin. As we well know the plant closed before the President was inaugurated but when the President bailed out the auto industry the responsibility became General Motors to re-open the plant. I do not know if my feelings are correct but since the auto bailout was given I feel the auto bailout may have included all plants regardless of location so it was General Motors responsibility to re-open the plant in Wisconsin. So if you view the bailout in the sense plants in Ohio and Michigan were rescued then Paul Ryan's beef is not with the President but with General Motors.

Second. When you talked about the President not talking about the Jobs Bill; when the President said he would create jobs in his next term; here are my thoughts on that. When I think about the number of times the Congress voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act it became an OMG moment. First the Republicans would have accused him of whining because the Jobs Bill did not pass. Second when you think of the number of times Congress tried to repeal the ACA then I am of the same opinion as Governor Patrick. The Democrats need to develop a backbone. The Jobs Bill went to the Senate in several different forms. How is it the Democrats did not take the Jobs Bill to the floor as many times as the Congress took the ACA bill? Let the Republicans filibuster as many times as they wanted and this would have confirmed the belief the Republicans did not care about the people of the United States because their only concern was to get rid of one person. No working across the aisle. Yes Governor Patrick is correct. THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO GET A BACKBONE.

Barbara, we were able to do both, have 2 boys and lived in Jakarta, Indonesia for a year, husband in Oil Gas Industry, extroidinary opportunity for the family. Can be done.

Anyone know why the Republicans hold up the vote on the Violence Against Women Act, its a no-brainer.

You totally ignore the problem many mothers have when they MUST quit their jobs to care for their children, leaving them with minimal social security payments when they reach eligibility age and for whatever reasons could not return to the workforce. They end up living out their days in abject poverty. This is often the case for single moms and for divorced moms who cannot collect on their ex-husband's social security accounts.

This is a problem that is so under-reported it is almost criminal.

We have these blinders on. We hear a fellow Dem begin to say things about out sourcing and machines and we prepare ourselves to hear another rendition of some medieval approach to protecting markets with tariffs and neo luddism about mechanisation. "No no no, let's have the mature debate- the 'real' debate. Let's regurgitate the stock lines of the cyclical- structural debate." It was mind numbing watching Up's segment on economic issues this morning.

Utterly awful.

Ok, let's be adult. Can we step back from this a little bit more and take the broader view? Throughout all those solutions to the multiple cycles and the many solutions to structural shifts in the needs for new economies over the past 40 years, there is an overall trend that is absolutely consistent in spite all those "successful" solutions to those structural and cyclical problems. And it tells of a story of the miserable failure of both approaches.

There is the trajectory of US GDP.

There is the trajectory of Middle class income.

So the cyclical guys have it right that it is a demand problem, but they have it wrong in that it is not a huge structural problem, only structural no in the narrow sense of skills mismatch but structural in the sense of whether businesses have any tangible incentives to increase US jobs numbers and salaries.

Because structurally, they have every incentive not to. With a system of payroll credits similar in incentivization theory to a system carbon credits, business managers would have an indestructible reason to tell their bosses that they are hiring a US engineer rather than one in New Delhi. The consequences of not hiring the US engineer whose compensation package costs five to 10 times as much is that the company will not acquire the necessary amount of US payroll credits to avoid confiscatory corporate taxes on profits. (For more than this thumbnail sketch, tThere is more detail in a maddowblog thread discussing this yesterday)

As is apparent, we are playing the stock idiotic political memes and games that are played out around every economic blip that have happen every 10 to 15 years for the last 200 years. The political hacks know that all that matters is that you dance the dance well and everything will be fine for your party. You go by the playbook and just ride it out.

Well it is crap because those GDP vs household income plots give you the irrefutable 10,000 foot view of why constriction of demand is structural with a capital S.

Thanks for discussing the politics of motherhood on the show. These issues are so critical to moms, but rarely get discussed by the national media in a thoughtful, non-sensational way. Great to hear discussions about policies like paid family leave and affordable childcare!

Does Chris Hayes identify himself as a Democrat? Or, like Rachel Maddow, does he separate himself from the Democratic party? I wish some of the cloaked MSNBC hosts would actually politically identify themselves. People took for granted for years that Maddow was a Democrat and it is only in the last month that she told "Rolling Stone" that she is not a Democrat. She said for a long while that she was a Progressive, but she isn't. It was all very clearly and unquestionably disingenuous and dishonorable on Doctor Maddow's part. She's more of a corporate liberal. It seems probable that Hayes falls into the same category as Maddow, and actually represents only a very, very small % of Americans who are the left of the left of the left. . Does he identify himself as a liberal .... or a progressive? Real Democrats actually seem to be a relative minority at MSNBC. In seems that corporate NBC/MSNBC has quite a gaggle of quasi Democrats, who seem to pretend to be real Democrats. MSNBC is corporate political media, and only 10% of Americans currently approve of American corporate political media. One reason only 10% approve is surely the disingenuousness of the craft. So why not have Hayes come out in public and declare where he stands on the political spectrum? Or perhaps he could at least declare where he doesn't stand, like Doctor Maddow did in "Rolling Stone?" At this point, the Maddow experience for example makes it extremely difficult to trust MSNBC or corporate political media. David Gregory's corporate shilling and Maddow's disingenuous and distruthful example along with other disingenuous "liberal" corporate pundits moved me firmly into the same category as the 80% of Americans who don't trust American corporate political media. Tons of Dems. bailed out on Maddow after her year of Obama bashing in 2010. . Her record is one of disingenuous dishonesty and Hayes shouldn't get caught in the same trap. Perhaps Hayes could help to re establish some trust and truthfulness in American political media by simply telling the truth as to his political standing. He should just tell the truth.

Gobama!

Hayes shouldn't allow himself to be permanently compromised as to professional respectability, like Rachel Maddow. Maddow will never, ever be seen as politically respectable again by mainstream Democrats who are familiar with her disingenuous and untruthful corporate political posturing. She's a proven fake. Chris Hayes should learn from her folly, and not repeat it. People respect truthfulness. Hayes can set himself on the top of the heap of the professionally cynical punditry if he just tells the >actual truth< as to his political identity. Actual truth, not corporate connivance is the key to respectability. Folks don't respect fakes.

hayes is nothing more than a demo hack, in other words a CS.

Another good show. It's so refreshing to hear intelligent people talking about real issues honestly. No wonder there are so many trolls here. You won't get much in the way of honesty or intelligence on Fox or on Meet the Republican (And John McCain), Face the Republicans (and John McCain) or This Week with the Republicans (and John McCain).

The quote is actually from "Real Time with Bill Maher." The Maddow quote was in response to Nick Gillespie. I thought the quote was also in "The Rolling Stone" interview, but apparently I was incorrect. The quote is from Bill Maher's program and is easily verifiable on the internet. Maddow said, "Listen Dude, I'm not even a Democrat. "

Maddowites, in many instances, are simply off the planet. They create their own realities. All who dissent or critique in regard to Doctor Maddow may be seen as right wing fanatics in their eyes. They really tend to be far out. They can't help it. The far out left is an inverse mirror image of the far right. That is the truth.

I think we need a gender quota in state legislatures and Congress if we want to quickly and seriously address personalizing the political. 53% of the workforce can not be represented by officials who do not support equal rights for women and equal pay for equal work. Or was that 50% of the workforce is female with 53% of them being head of household? Either way, their interests are not being represented.