Really proud repub, just what policies have the dems put in that has put us in this hole. You have the spin the dems have had the house the last 4 yrs and just gain control of the senate recently. So who was the potus up until 2009? your boy "W" he also had the veto pen so anything that passed the house had to get by the Senate and "W" in the last 2 yrs the Senate has been holding up legislation with record filibusters, total obstruction of Gov't, & yet the republicans want the people to believe its the Dems when its really the repubs. Clinton is right about what he is saying also the republicans always count on the low information voters to win. Republicans have no plans or idea's its just the same old B.S.

USMC...

You have the spin the dems have had the house the last 4 yrs and just gain control of the senate recently.

The democrats took control of Congress at the beginning of 2007.

The deficit rose 25%, the last four years of the Republican Congress (four years of Bush).

The deficit rose 63%, the first four years of the democratic Congress (two years of Bush, two years of BO).

in the last 2 yrs the Senate has been holding up legislation with record filibusters

Can you imagine how much more money the democrats would have spent if they hadn't filibustered?

Global 77, sure the deficit went up during those years, hell were, & still are paying for two wars and recently record unemployment so again how is that the dems fault. Come up with some facts not the typical crap!!

Ever heard of CRA? Thats just one.

But keep talking about low information voters, that always seems to work. By the way.....you forgot to throw out the race card.

Again proud repub, give me facts. As far as the race card thing i am lmao because thats what the right uses all of the time to scare people.

USMC... the Dems voted YES on those two wars that you want to lay at the feet of the republicans.

Think about it!

Sick of bickering, some dems and repubs voted on the wars, that's not what i am talking about, i want to know what policies have the dems put in place that you conservatives keep saying that got us into this mess. I don't hear anything with substance coming from anyone of you conservatives except for the fact you want to blame the dems. Give a freaking break.

This has been posted before, and I will post it again.

You CANNOT - I repeat - CANNOT lay the deficit of the Bush years at the feet of the Dems. It is the President that takes credit for a deficit. This is because the President is the ONLY ONE that can make a bill into LAW (you can go an watch Schoolhouse Rock's 'I am a Bill'. It does a great job of explaining how the legislative process works).

Now, when President Bush was elected, 2001 through 2008, we had a Republican Congress from 2001 through 2006; We had a Democratic Congress from 2006-2008.

The debt that was piled up was under President Bush's watch, as he signed appropriation bills submitted to him by BOTH congresses, with the majority of those appropriation bills signed from 2001 through 2006. Lets not forget the Medicare Part D, the tax cuts passed through reconciliation, which will expire at the end of this year, and all of the 'supplemental' appropriations (that is 'emergency spending' for those who are keeping track) for the 2 wars we found ourselves in. These supplemental spending bills were kept OFF BOOK so they were not initially counted as deficit spending.

President Bush could have VETOED the spending bills if he wanted to; He DID NOT. Since President Bush did NOT, he gets to CREDIT for making those bills law. The Congress CANNOT spend money unless it has been signed into LAW.

This assertion that the Democrats ran up the deficit is a crock and it has been debunked many times.

USMC28 - you wanted facts, here they are.

With so many people concerned about the race card the more divided the people are.

Republicans run on family values because who is against family values. Not that anyone has ever clearly defined what that means when uttered by a politician. The social issues are a rouse, to keep people in one camp or another. The more polarized the social issue the more republicans benefit.

While I agree with DADT, I think the political energy allocated to the issue is wasted. It only serves as another social wedge between people.

The budget issue is serious, but neither party has all of the solutions.

The employment issue is serious, but cutting government spending means cutting jobs. There is waste in government contracting and pork belly projects, but as we seen no politician has ever turned down money for his district or state.

Personally I think we need change in Washington, but a not change back to failed policies. We need some trickle up economics.

No revisionist history -proud repub-- Your party got us into this hole...Your statement is so much BS...Not a scintilla of fact!

If you had said slick helped the repubs get us here you would have a point..but we did not get here in 4 years ..You are delusional!

Bill knows how to nail a fact though..repubs are counting on the voter not thinking or maybe just staying home..Like they recommended in Nevada! Racist revisionist fools!

USMC: When were you in the corps? You sound like a 1960's throwback.

If you are a modern day marine, you know as well as I do the Democrat party hasn't done a damn thing for the military. Hell they wan't to shrink it even more. They complain about contractors but yet who downsized it back in the 90's? etc. I can go on for hours about the mistrust the military has for the Dems.

Wow, all the rock stars are coming onto the stage for the finale.

Here's a FACT for all you Republi-can'ts, your constant BS on "caring about the deficit":

Never mind the two unfunded wars; JUST the GOP's unfunded Medicare-Rx bill adds more to the deficit/debt than TARP, the Stimulus, and HCR COMBINED.

So I'll thank you not to imply that you care about your grandchildren more than I care about mine - EVER AGAIN !!!

OK Libbies, you're right. Bush should have vetoed everything, especially the stuff with pork. Wait a minute ... that was everything.

Bush was big government that spent too much. That got us in the hole? OK, so you defend a bigger government on steriods and spending intelligence like Paris Hilton on LSD. And Big Bill says people don't pay attention?

Most people that have a functioning above the ability to fog a mirror acknowledge that the financial crisis, or your hole, was precipitated by Fannie and Freddie. Beginning in 2003, Bush tried to overhaul Freddie and Fannie and finanly introduced the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005. Seems it didn't make it out of committee. Repubs 55 - Dems 45.

Who's obstruction helped cause this hole, and who's obstruction has kept the hole from getting deeper.

I know it's all Bush's fault.

He should have been crying about obstruction and blaming the other guys.

The financial crises was cause by banking deregulation. Fannie and Freddie was part of the problem, but they were not the reason. The mortage backed securities was the reason and yes F&F bought into those like many other investors.

You want examples of democratic policies that have put us in this hole?

Here are two: the March 2009 Omnibus spending bill with more than 9000 earmarks, which cost over $400billion, and the $840billion stimulus bill for shovel ready jobs that even Obama admits do not exist.

Those two, alone, account for well over a trillion dollars in spending. Given that Obama has increased the debt by three trillion dollars, knocking off a third would be a great start.

There is no budget for this year; the lame duck congress will probably ram through another monstrosity before the republicans get a chance to take back the house.

What they must do is go through that budget line by line, and cut mercilessly. They can start with the nine billion dollar program that sends home healthcare workers to the homes of first time, poor mothers. Are they so poor they cannot afford mothers of their own?

They can cut government payrolls back to 2004 levels. Bye, bye, all those new Obama hires. Go get real jobs.

They can cut unemployment insurance back to 26 weeks, long enough to find a job, even if it is not in your field. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system with this many illegal immigrants doing jobs Americans will not do, while over 14 million are collecting almost two years of unemployment benefits.

They can, finally, regulate Fannie and Freddie so that we do not have a repeat of 2008.

That is a start. There is plenty more where that came from.

Salty,

Didn't say caused, said precipitated.

If you cannot fix Fannie and Freddie, if you cannot fix social engineering ("affordable housing" for those that can't buy houses they can't afford), where do, or can you start?

And as Barney Frank the ranking (was Frank a repub?) on the Financial Services Committee said:

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

BTW - Since you mention banking deregulation and that Fannie and Freddie was part of the problem, was addressing Fannie and Freddie less important than ATM fees in Obama's legislation?

Freddie and Fannie might have to ask for more bailouts...Oh wait, they alreadt have.

Fannie and Freddie has to be fixed, but who is going to buy all of the toxic assets they hold? Either the Federal Reserve or the Federal government will have to step in until the foreclosures run their course. Unless they force the banks to buyback the debt no one else can absorb those mortages. I doubt the banks will be forced into something, since they have a stong lobby. It is beyond what went wrong, so the question is how to fix the problem.

no joe - the lame duck congress will probably ram through another monstrosity before the republicans get a chance to take back the house.

ya mean in 2016? Impossible - the Dems will have Michelle's Presidential Coat-tails to ride, and her husband will be the first POTUS to already be on Mt. Rushmore during his term!

Salt Grass,

It would have been nice to start this 15 years ago with the Republican/Bush legislation mentioned.

You're right let's move on.

First step - quit blaming Republicans/Bush.

First step - quit blaming Republicans/Bush.

BOB-185084 - I REALLY wish we could. Sincerely. But, we are still finding out about things - horrific things - that have been buried by the Bush Administration that are coming out now that NEED to be DEALT WITH.

I would LOVE to stop blaming President Bush, but as a part of history, President Bush has made his place. He has sealed his legacy of all of the things NOT to do as a President. Students of history - who WILL look back and study this point of history - will have no good conclusions to draw based upon the history and fallout from the Bush Administration.

In history, the Republicans will not fare much better. All of the speeches and what was done to the country - and supported by the Republicans - are a part of history that CANNOT be erased.

If the country was not in the midst of a deep recession (oK, we are in recovery now), massive fraud and waste, and dealing with the aftermath of an economic policy that almost brought the WORLD to its knees, then yes, we could move on.

We can't move on until we clean up the mess. We cannot clean up the mess until we can understand the problem(s) and craft the necessary solution(s).

So, until a solution is crafted, we will HAVE to blame President Bush for the mess we are in. Who else are we going to blame? Wasn't President Bush the CIC - head of the country - during his term?

Like the coach of a sports team, if the team executes badly and/or loses all of the team, who gets fired? The players? The assistant coach? The trainer?

Sorry, Bob, but we CANNOT 'stop blaming Bush and move on' until this mess is cleaned up, and to clean it up FULLY will take decades.

Pietro,

If the country was not in the midst of a deep recession (oK, we are in recovery now), massive fraud and waste, and dealing with the aftermath of an economic policy that almost brought the WORLD to its knees, then yes, we could move on.

What were the "horrific things" about Bush's economic policy that almost brought the WORLD to its knees, Pietro. Tax breaks for everyone? What was so radically different about Bush's monetary policy, about his fiscal policy that almost brought the WORLD to its knees? Name one radical, horrific thing.

We can't move on until we clean up the mess. We cannot clean up the mess until we can understand the problem(s) and craft the necessary solution(s).

So, you DON'T understand the problem(s).

Wasn't President Bush the CIC - head of the country - during his term?

(Hate to nit pik, but you might want to know CIC is the Commander in Chief - commander of the nation's military forces. The president is "head" of the country.)

Like the coach of a sports team, if the team executes badly and/or loses all of the team, who gets fired? The players? The assistant coach? The trainer?

OK. Say the Bengals have a couple bad years and they fire the coach. The new coach is approaching the end of his second season and his record for the first season was worse than the previous coach's worse and this year is just as bad as the first - no tangible improvement.

AND YOU STILL WANT TO BLAME THE PREVIOUS COACH! Yea, that's reality, that's the way it works in the real world.

Sorry, Bob, but we CANNOT 'stop blaming Bush and move on' until this mess is cleaned up, and to clean it up FULLY will take decades.

Sorry, Pietro, you and the minority liberals may not be able to move on for "decades", but the rest of emotionally healthy Americans are moving on - starting in a little over a week.

Pietro-

Do not be so presumptuous as to assume that you somehow know, with certainty, how the presidency of George W. Bush will be regarded by future historians.

That's quite arrogant, even by your standards.

There are far too many pieces on the board that are still in play, Pietro...including the presidency of Barack Obama.

At the moment, President Obama is confronting serious questions about his own leadership and competence...with the electorate poised to render a verdict on his performance thus far. Honestly, Pietro...it isn't looking too good for him at the moment, is it? And rest assured, Pietro...serious, qualified historians will compare Obama's leadership ability to that of his predecessor.

In January, 1953, President Harry Truman left office with roughly the same job approval levels as George W. Bush did. As he departed, he left his successor an economy in shambles, an unfinished, undeclared war in Korea, and a new "Cold War" with the Soviet Empire that many future U.S. presidents would be forced to deal with.

The electorate could not wait to show Harry Truman the door. Historians however, have since concluded that Truman was a far better president than Americans thought at the time that he returned to public life...haven't they?

Pietro...

You may regard yourself as some sort of seer, a naive modern day Nostradamus who has already rendered history's final judgment on the second Bush presidency...less than two years after its conclusion.

Please...just don't assume that everyone else sees things your way.

Bob - you have your assessment, I have mine. If you want to move on and 'forget' about what mess was left after the Bush Administration boogied out of town, that's fine with me. Those issues facing us ALL are not going away anytime soon and they need to be corrected before any of us can move on.

The blatant outsourcing of American jobs is one issue of what needs to be dealt with immediately. I hear a lot of people from across the aisle ask 'where are the jobs?'. Well, the answer is, in no uncertain terms, in India and China!! After doing some research, I have figured out why President Bush used to get so annoyed when confronted about job generation.

The Bush Administration generated jobs all right - over 3 million of them - but they were in India and China!! In the meantime, 1.4 Million jobs were lost here in the United States and they are gone forever. Good paying jobs, too.

So what are Americans supposed to do? Why is offshoring SO acceptable to the pro-business crowd? How are Americans going to 'get a job' when the available jobs are being shipped overseas? That is the question that transcends a party line. As Americans, we will have to do SOMETHING that will generate new industries in this country to make sure that people have the opportunity to get good-paying jobs.

In other words - WHAT ABOUT US AMERICANS?

As far as the problems are concerned, I stand by my post. We need to FULLY understand the problems before we can fix them or else we are just wasting time. I say it will take the better part of a decade to clean up this mess, and I have not wavered from my assessment. You may disagree.

So be it.

Mixed bag - Please. What I post is what I see, and since I am not paid to make predictions, I don't. Just because you wish to view the glass as half-empty doesn't mean that the glass is not half-full.

You have NEVER seen me post that the Dems are going to win or the the Pubs are going to lose quoting some poll and that is because I do not put much stock in polls. There are too many questionable variables that go into making those 'decisions' that I don't agree with. You, on the other hand, post will glee the polls that show President Obama in a negative light.

That's you perogative and your problem.

I have noticed your consistent 'doom and gloom' prognostication of what is going to happen on November 2nd to President Obama. You know what? It really DOESN'T matter. No matter whose side 'wins', we will STILL have to face the problems this country has TOGTHER as Americans. If you choose not to see that, or participate, then that's on you.

If 'winning' is THAT important to you, then congratulations.

Finally, Mixed bag, to make a statement that 'I shouldn't assume that everyone sees things my way' is silly and borderline insulting. I really don't care or have the time to worry about what my 'impression' is.

I post what I post. If you like it - great. If you hate it - great. If you want to debate or discuss it - great. If you think I am an a$$wipe - great.

I let the chips fall where they may.

We have far too much to do in life than to be mired in minutae that serves no purpose.

Pietro-

Actually, I am not regarding the outcome of the midterm elections with "doom and gloom" at all.

As you must already know, if the electorate rejects the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party on November 2nd (as I believe it will)...I'll actually be relieved, more than anything else.

I'll also feel a modest, but only modest, measure of satisfaction that so many of those who have behaved so uncivilly here at First Read have also managed to completely misread the mood of the voters...despite the many clues that suggest a deep level of dissatisfaction with the course the current Administration has set for the nation.

You have previously stated that my arguments involve subtlety and nuance...I must have corrected too far in the opposite direction of nuance if you now believe it possible that I regard you as an "a$$wipe". Only at a site like First Read could such a conclusion be drawn. It's not nearly that dire...I merely thought you were wrong, that's all.

Again, I believe that it's a little too soon to make sweeping judgments about what historical scholars will say about George W. Bush's presidency...because the passage of time will almost certainly offer fresh perspective on events that occurred only a short time ago, historically speaking. Certainly, that proved to be the case in the example of Harry Truman, which I cited.

Obviously, you disagree...and, you're not pleased with the style of the rebuttal to your argument that I offered.

Wouldn't be the first time, eh?

Pietro,

You cannot move on due to all the horrific, terrible things Bush did. I simply ask you to name one economic thing that Bush did that's precludes moving on. You couldn't name one. OK. Sad, but OK.

It's funny Obama seems to have blamed Bush for everything except the AirForce 1 photo shoot over NYC, but he doesn't talk about not moving on. Just a thought.

Next you flip to outsourcing. OK. Some jobs outsourced to India and China under Bush. OK. But you're crying over a cup of spilled milk while Obama's pouring a bucket on the floor and putting .44 Smith and Wesson Mag to the cows head.

I guess you don't understand this either. OK

Have a good weekend, Pietro.

Directed at BOB - it is pretty obvious with you that you just want to argue about President Obama blaming President Bush for the current malaise we are in. You asked for ONE instance where economic policy has affected this country. I gave you the issue of outsourcing, which was highly encouraged under the Bush Administration to the DETRIMENT of America and its workers.

That was not good enough for you I see.

Well, then so be it. I specifically picked the issue of offshoring because it affects ALL of us as AMERICANS, which was the thrust of my rebuttal to you. That is just ONE thing that President Bush could have limited to HELP Americans. He chose not to. It is also an issue that does not lend itself to partisan sniping. I see you chose to ignore that as well, stating that I am 'crying over a cup of spilled milk while Obama's pouring a bucket on the floor and putting .44 Smith and Wesson Mag to the cows head'.

Offshoring MILLIONS of American jobs is a 'cup of spilt milk'? Even YOU don;t believe that statement.

You see that issue as a Obama v. Bush issue and not for the extremely dangerous AMERICAN issue that it is. What is America going to do if there are no jobs available? How is America going to survive moving forward if there is no commerce to support it?

Talk about being short-sighted.

Oy.

And Bob - if you don't want to look at Presidient Bush's history to learn what he did wrong in order to fix the problem that he made, that's fine with me. It seems to me that you would just sweep all of what was done under the rug and forget about it. You hate it that President Obama 'blames' President Bush for the issues we face. Well, who else was President from 2001- through 2009?

And yes, I erred when I inferred that President Bush was CIC only. You were correct when you said that CIC is for the military and the President is the 'head' of the country.

My Bad.

And now Directed at you, Mixed Bag, you can state that I am wrong (and why). I have stated that you are wrong MANY a times here on this blog (and why I thought so).

If you have read the FULL context of my rebuttal post to you, it is that I don't really post anything on here to get a 'reaction' from anyone. I say what I have to say, and if people like it - or not - then so be it. My comment about being an a$$wipe has nothing to do with what I think YOUR impression(s) are (since I have already stated, I really don't care). It was an illustration that no matter what the 'reaction' is, I am OK with it.

I would have thought a straightforward post would have resonated with you by now. I guess I was wrong about this with you, Mixed Bag.

Look - your impression is that the American electorate has REJECTED President Obama and his agenda. My impression is that you are WRONG in your assessment because if you are using polls, the data that is used to make those assessments is skewered and it draws the wrong conclusion, IMHO. I guess we will see on November 2nd who is right and who is not.

If you think that my assessment that historians will look less favorably on President Bush's term is wrong, then that's fine with me. Is it early in historical terms to draw many conclusions? Possibly. But looking at the plethora of problems that have been caused by President Bush's Administration, that assessment will depend on how we fix or deal with those problems. If our solutions are correct and the problems are corrected/fixed, then I think that history will be kinder to President Bush. Conversely, if these problems become worse, then history MAY not be so kind.

We can argue about Harry Truman's presidency at another time. Again, I am not so sure that your assessment is correct in that case either.

For the both of you - Bob and Mixed Bag - It really doesn't matter who 'wins' in this instance because we still have major problems that need to be addressed in this country that affect ALL of our well-being. If it would make you BOTH feel better that you 'won', then congratulations.

I am glad you both feel better about yourselves.

At the end of the day, we STILL have major problems that we need to overcome TOGETHER as a country or we will cease to be a country. All of the feelings of euphoria and patting oneself on the back in the long run means NOTHING if we do not work TOGETHER to solve those problems.

You both have a good weekend.

Pietro Posted: If the country was not in the midst of a deep recession (oK, we are in recovery now), massive fraud and waste, and dealing with the aftermath of an economic policy that almost brought the WORLD to its knees, then yes, we could move on.

Bob asked: What were the "horrific things" about Bush's economic policy that almost brought the WORLD to its knees, Pietro. Tax breaks for everyone? What was so radically different about Bush's monetary policy, about his fiscal policy that almost brought the WORLD to its knees? Name one radical, horrific thing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I went back and re-read the conversation between myself and BOB, I saw that I did not DIRECTLY respond to his challenge.

The direct response is this: TARP was necessary to keep the world economy from collapsing on itself due to unregulated trading and derivatives on Wall Street that was FED by the economic policies of the Bush Administration, which caused a near meltdown.

Now, before you blow a gasket, all of these issue are interrelated. Here is an excerpt from a 2004 article on World News Daily titled 'Why President Bush's economic Plan will ultimately Fail':

Mortgages are dependent upon people making mortgage payments, the vast majority of whom succeed in making these payments by means of being employed (which is to say, they work for a living). Outsourcing jobs allows American employers to replace American workers for some expenditure which is usually much lower that American wages. For instance, a software engineer or a nuclear physicist in the United States would expect to be paid at least $10,000 per month, yet his competitively trained equivalent in India is happy at $2,200 per month. Russian nuclear physicists are pleased with $2,000 per month, given that Russian President Vladimir Putin is paid only $2,300 per month.

Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=23752 (the emphasis is mine).

This is why my response was concentrated on outsourcing, and Bob took it to mean that I was not answering his question. As the article snippet shows, by pinning economic 'growth' on Wall Street (as they were making LOTS of money) and unregulated derivitives that were based on people's mortgages (a safe bet, no doubt) AND at the same time outsourcing American jobs, this economic policy created the condition(s) that almost brought the wordl economy to its knees when the Wall Street bubble burst when Americans could NOT pay their mortgages (and necessitated the need for TARP, which was originated during the Bush Administration).

We haven't even touched on the issue of 'liar' loans and mortrgage brokers who sold houses to their pets to collect on the commissions.

The Wall street Journal does a better job of explaining what happened, as excerpted from a January, 2009 article:

While the Fed is most to blame, the Administration encouraged the credit excesses. It populated the Fed Board of Governors with Mr. Greenspan's protégés, notably Ben Bernanke and Donald Kohn, who helped to create the mania and even now deny all responsibility. Meantime, Mr. Bush's three Treasury Secretaries knew little about the subject, and if anything were inclined to support easier money and a weaker dollar in the name of reducing the trade deficit. We know because numerous Bush officials sneered at the monetary warnings in these columns going back to 2003.

When the bust finally arrived with a vengeance in 2007, the political timing couldn't have been worse. Mr. Bush tried to rally with one more fiscal "stimulus," but he repeated his 2001 mistake and agreed to another round of tax rebates. They did little good. The Administration might have prevented the worst of the panic had it sought some sort of TARP-like financing for the banking system months or a year earlier than it did last autumn. But neither the Treasury nor the FDIC seemed to appreciate how big the banking system's problems were. Their financial triage was well meaning but came too late and in a frenzy that invited mistakes.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215327787492291.html

Now, you can go on with the usual partisan sniping if you wish (and this WSJ article will give enough fodder to both sides for their attacks), but the bottom line of the article can best be summed up here:

This history is crucial to understand, both for the Democrats who now assume the levers of power and for Republicans who will want to return to power some day. Mr. Bush and his team did many things right after inheriting one bubble. They were ruined by monetary excess that created a second, more dangerous credit mania. They forgot one of the main lessons of Reaganomics, which is the importance of stable money.

The first bubble that is referred to in this snippet is the dot.com bubble that burst right before President Clinton left office. The reference to 'stable money' is linked back to the devaluation of the dollar, which was done so to reduce the trade deficit (I always thought that devaluation was a bad idea).

So, BOB, I stand by what I said initially. If you want more 'light' reading about the subject, you can take some time and read what I have sourced. I am willing to have more conversation(s) about this if you like.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712 (December 2007 article)

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1029-26.htm (October 2006 opinion piece that you can agree with - or not)

BOB, believe it or not, we are both on the SAME side because we are both AMERICANS. I just choose not to fall for the 'he said, she said' claptrap that we see a lot on blogs like this one. I want to see solutions to problems, and if we have to lay blame as to WHY we have these particular problems, then so be it. If we can learn from the mistakes that were made, then we can move forward.

Again, Bob, have a good weekend.

Hey Pietro,

Your post #1.27

1. I'm not really upset about Obama blaming Bush, because believe it or not, I'm not crazy about Bush. I like him as a person, but he was fundamentally big government. I'm conservative and believe in smaller government. As Paine said, society is a blessing. Government at its best is a necessary evil, at its worst, an intolerable one. Bush was a necessary evil that I accepted, Obama is an intolerable one that I can't accept.

Obama blaming Bush is not taking responsibility and is classless at the least. In most Americans eyes, it diminishes Obama more than Bush as it should. Polls are reflecting this.

2. Outsourcing? It's been going on and was growing on way, way before Bush. Fact of life. What did Bush do that Clinton didn't do and what has Obama done to address it?

The best government can do is to create an economic environment so business doesn't have to outsource to survive. The cow remark was not intended as a snipe, but merely to suggest Obama's policies are killing the cow that gives the milk. That's not short-sighted, it's salient.

3. Most of my opinions are formed from historical perspective. None of this is new and it's all been argued before. Just different names and faces. You certainly do not form that perspective by sweeping anything under the rug.

Your post #1.28

1. See my post my post #1.14 - 2nd sentence of the third paragraph. Might look at #1.17 too. Wiki the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005. Then go back to the Glass Seagall Act by Graham that Clinton signed and you should have a little better, if simplistic, perspective of what happened. That's where it all started and the derivative crap derived from. Outsourcing is not the issue.

2. All presidents make mistakes and miss things, tough job. Bush was no exception.

Short term tax breaks don't work. They only appease the voters and make it look like you did something while you hope the situation self corrects, or something else comes along to distract the voters.

Get back to me after looking at the social engineering legislation referenced above if you want to.

Thanks for your comments, Pietro.

Get back to me after looking at the social engineering legislation referenced above if you want to.

OK, Bob. I decided to look up that 'social engineering' legislation and I did find some things that are pretty interesting.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

The emphasis is mine. I think this is where the derivates come into play with Wall Street.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

I see - an 'old school buddy' said everything was OK.

The recalcitrant Congress tht is referenced in this article? I would gather that it was a Republican Congress, as this was the one in place until 2006.

"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. "Had we, we would have attacked them."

Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.

And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.

"The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."

The emphasis is mine. Interesting social engineering, don't you think? What strikes me is that all of these people who were in charge of thins didn't seem to be up for the task. There seems to be a lot of regrets after the fact.

The NY Times article goes on:

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

Additional reading on this issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

Unfettered Capitalism with little or no rules is what we saw. President Bush himself - although admirable, but misguided - pushed for the relaxing of the rules to get home ownership to the levels he wanted.

Here is more on this 'social experiment' that you talk about:

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

(snip)

Weicher says the change is aimed at potential home buyers whose credit excludes them from the private mortgage market. Borrowers would need sufficient income to meet monthly payments. But, he said, the plan would eliminate the single largest impediment to homeownership for millions of households — lack of money for a down payment.

The most recent government figures show a national home ownership rate of 68.4%, the highest ever. But less than half of black and Latino householders own the home in which they live. Bush has a goal of 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Bob, looks to me that this 'social engineering experiment' started at the top. The emphasis on the post is mine, which supports my premise that those who did not have sufficient income because of a loss of a job would cause a widespread problem that we now see.

From what I can see from the articles that I have read, it looks like the Bush administration 'assumed' that everything else in the economy was running OK and that they had more lattitude than they really did, as referenced in this article from CNN. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-26/politics/bush.homes_1_president-bush-home-ownership-years-of-job-losses?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

I am sure we will discuss this situation further.

Ok - Last one.

Fact - Bush tried to reform Freddie and Fannie in 1995. It failed - Repubs 55 to Libs 45.

Fact - Obama despite 15 years since Bush's failed attempt and the collapse of the housing market with resulting economic crisis, has yet to EVEN TRY TO ADDRESS FREDDIE AND FANNIE.

You are skilled at blogal origami. Take it and spend a decade folding and shaping it however you want. America is moving on.

Thanks Pietro.

Blogal origami? That's a new one.

Well, with all of the research that I have done on this issue, it looks like Fannie and Freddie were just doing as they were told, following a directive from President Bush's Administration.

And all of this time you thought the Democrats were the cause of Fannie and Freddie.

Thanks, Bob, for shedding light on the truth.

Why when Obama called out AIG for having big bonuses (he signed a law saying they could have big bonuses) didn't he shut off Freddie and Fannie's bonuses? He didn't send people to their houses to shout obscene things at them or make them give back their big bonuses. He keeps giving them large salaries and big bonuses for losing billions year after year. Why would he do that?

I won't be happy until Washington finally calls the "Bush Tax Cuts" what they really are...

The Bush Tax Shift.

Low- or high-gear, Da Noid? :p

But....but....but AMY!

Teleprompter! Birth Certificate! Commie! Blue Dress!

Ha Ha Ha- do I sound like one of 'em? can I join their secret club??

ED- I think Da Noid may have been thinking "over drive".

Amy, .

hey, my bad, I forgot.....It was Bush's fault we were attacked by Muslem terrorist and then many prominent dems ( hillary, gore, kerry, etc.) agreed with President Bush that Saddam should be removed from power....Yep, my bad.

Hey, off subject, why don't you put down the kool-aid and pay attention to the world around you. You might learn something.

Oh yeah, why don't you put your tea down first?

Amy,

We should be thankful to PR for proving what Clinton said as being true! lol

YES they are counting on people not thinking!

"It was Bush's fault we were attacked by Muslem terrorist and then many prominent dems ( hillary, gore, kerry, etc.) agreed with President Bush that Saddam should be removed from power...."

I never agreed we should invade Iraq, in fact I protested in the streets of Portland, lot of good it did. Howard Dean was the only voice of reason I heard on the radio during that time, and he was called all kinds of names by Republicans. Sure, I wish the Dems in Congress had opposed Bush's actions, but, from what I understand Dick Cheney had them convinced there was evidence that was too sensitive to release, that showed Saddam had WMD. I think it's a riot how Republicans blame Democrats for "letting them " make their mistakes. So childish.

Amy B. Portland, ME

the democratic policies that put us in this hole"
Wow, first out of the gate with a big fat lie. How stupid do you think your fellow Americans are? George Bush took a surplus and made it a deficit with two wars, an unfunded prescription drug bill, and reckless tax cutting for the wealthiest in America.

Amy, they don't care what former president Bush did, to them he was there hero. All they do is defend his policys, but at the same time having no memory of those policies that has us in deep S**T!!!!

Amy, they know we had a operating surplus when Bush Took office. they also know that the wars, the creation of the Home land security,Medicaid part D and tax cuts are why we have the deficits, but them don't care.

what makes some of us so mad is because of comments like proud republicans, its typical of what they are doing when they are faced with hard questions or GOOD talking points that the policy's of the republicans have doomed us, they change the subjets and make personal attacked to that person, in order to change the conversation.

example #1-

Monica's boyfriend is kinda forgetting the dems have had control of congress for 4 years. It was also the democratic policies that put us in this hole......but whatever.....spin...spin...spin

see with them Amy its change the subject, and please don't ask for details. with them detail will come after they are in office,by then its too late. I'm sitting here and i just can't wait till they do retake the congress and there agenda is found to be the same that has us Pissing up a Rope and worse off.

I just can't wait.

Amy,

Hillary made probably made the most compelling speech/argument for supporting the action against Irag in her speech. She pointedly stated that her position was not based on the Bush/Cheney argument, but on her own sources and experiences/knowledge from Big Bill's years/experiences in the White House. Pretty much the same with most other Dems, they were not going to be Bush patsy's, but when public opinion went south they all blamed Bush and Darth Cheney.

The honest reason for the Irag mess (and the problem in getting out of Afghanistan) was intelligence. The intelligence community was a disaster. HUMINT was none existent and SIGINT/etc were clueless as to what they were doing/should be doing, what they had, how to understand what they had and what to do with it.

Bush didn't build the wall between the FBI/CIA. All the years of dysfunction and lack of necessary direction/coordination didn't happen in the 9 months before Sept.11.

Talk about childish?

At least Bush has never said - well we prevented a 2nd Great Depression, I mean a Third World War.

What everyone is failing to remember.... Dems agreed to war in Iraq based on FALSE intel. Bush had good intel, but chose to ignore it so he could get his war.

Have we forgot Hans Blix??????????????????

pr,

Your right it is your bad.

hey, my bad, I forgot.....It was Bush's fault we were attacked by Muslem terrorist and then many prominent dems ( hillary, gore, kerry, etc.) agreed with President Bush that Saddam should be removed from power....Yep, my bad.

Maybe if the Senate and the House listened to Senator Byrd's Words of wisdom.

The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said, "All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind and improvident."

"Blind and improvident," Mr. President. "Blind and improvident." Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.

The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate, all the moresobecause it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems. (NY Times 9/20/2002)

Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress – Democrats and Republicans alike – must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President to invadea neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?

In a September 18 report, the Congressional Research Service had this to say about the preemptive use of military force:

The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a "preemptive" military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence.

The Congressional Research Service also noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 "represents a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today – but it was resolved without a "preemptive" military attack by the United States."

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the President has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat. And yet, the resolution before the Senate avers that the President "has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Miliary Force" following the September 11 terrorist attack. What a cynical twisting of words! The reality is that Congress, exercising the authority granted to it under the Constitution, granted the President specific and limited authority to use force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Nowhere was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the Constitution to "deter and prevent" future acts of terrorism.

Think for a moment of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?

Perhaps a case can be made that Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with the threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20^th century horror that the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.

As James Madison wrote in 1793, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man...."

Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaedaterrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaedaand with the Taliban government that sheltered it – we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biologicaland chemicalweapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would precludethe Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.

The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public's desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act.

As to separation of powers, Justice Louis Brandeis observed: "the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power." (Myers v. United States, 1926)

No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium.

I am also concerned about the consequences of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to imagine that Saddam Hussein, who has been ruthless in gaining and staying in power, would give up without a fight. He is a man who has not shirked from using chemical weapons against his own people. I fear that he would use everything in his arsenal against an invasion force, or against an occupation force, up to and including whatever chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he might still have. Iraq is not Afghanistan, impoverished by decades of war, internal strife, and stifling religious oppression. Though its military forces are much diminished, Iraq has a strong central command and much greater governmental control over its forces and its people. It is a large country that has spent years on a wartime footing, and it still has some wealth.

Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces. There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmentaloverthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government. There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor. The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces. In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.

A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation. The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south. Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside. This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.

To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces – forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense – for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction. So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.

The Congressional Budget Office has already madesome estimations regarding the cost of a possible war with Iraq. In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incrementalcosts – the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted for routine operations – would be between $9 billion to $13 billion a month, depending on the actualforce size deployed. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no total battle estimate. After hostilities end, the cost to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion, according to CBO. And the incrementalcost of an occupation following combat operations varies from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month. This estimate does not include any cost of rebuilding or humanitarian assistance. That is a steep price to pay in dollars, but dollars are only a part of the equation.

There are many formulas to calculate cost in the form of dollars, but it is much more difficult to calculate cost in the form of deaths. Iraq may be a weaker nation militarily than it was during the Persian Gulf war, but its leader is no less determined and his weapons are no less lethal. During the Persian Gulf War, the United States was able to convince Saddam Hussein that the use of weapons of mass destruction would result in his being toppled from power. This time around, the object of an invasion of Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein, so he has no reason to exercise restraint.

The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many and serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping use of force resolution. We don't need more rhetoric. We don't need more campaign slogans or fund raising letters. We need – the American people need – information and informed debate.

Before we rush into war, we should focus on those things that pose the most direct threat to us – those facilities and weapons that form the body of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. The United Nations is the proper forum to deal with the inspection of these facilities, and the destruction of any weapons discovered. If United Nations inspectors can enter the country, inspect those facilities and mark for destruction the ones that truly belong to a weapons program, then Iraq can be declawedwithout unnecessary risk or loss of life. That would be the best answer for Iraq, for the United States, and for the world. But if Iraq again chooses to interfere withsuch an ongoing and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then and only then should the United States, with the support of the world, take stronger measures.

This is what Congress did in 1991, before the Persian Gulf War. The United States at that time gave the United Nations the lead in demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. The U.S. took the time to build a coalition of partners. When Iraq failed to heed the UN, then and only then did Congress authorize the use of force. That is the order in which the steps to war should be taken.

Everyone wants to protect our nation and our people. To do that in the most effective way possible, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to minimize the number of troops we put at risk. Seeking once again to allow the United Nations inspection regime to peacefully seek and destroy the facilities and equipment employed in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program would be the least costly and most effective way of reducing the risk to our nation, provided that it is backed up by a credible threat of force if Iraq once again attempts to thwart the inspections. We can take a measured, stepped approach that would still leave open the possibility of a ground invasion if that should become necessary, but there is no need to take that step now.

I urge restraint. President Bush gave the United Nations the opening to deal effectively with the threat posed by Iraq. The UN embraced his exhortation and is working to develop a new, tougher inspection regime with firm deadlines and swift and sure accountability. Let us be convinced that a reinvigorated inspection regime cannot work before we move to any next step, and let us if we must employ force, employ the most precise and limited use of force necessary to get the job done.

Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident.

Yes, they all rushed to follow the fool GW and his court off to his preemptive war. You know with the warning that about we can't wait the next strike could be a mushroom cloud nonsense.

That's right gpotts... it's all one giant conspiracy isn't it...

Just like everything else in the world... like big business and all...

one GIANT conspiracy!

Hey wakeup... do you mean Senator Byrd the KKK guy? That guy?

How is a tax cut unfunded? If the government never receive a citizens money to start with, then it can never count what it does not own.

As far as a surplus. It was money on PAPER only. It was not like a stack of money put in a lockbox. BTW it was PROJECTED. The projection was meant to pay down the debt but Bush sent checks to EVERYONE. Did anyone of you in here RETURN that check to the government because you were too dignified to accept it?

case closed

soldier1

"How is a tax cut unfunded?"

Guess what, Mr. Republican, if the government doesn't collect taxes, soldiers don't get paychecks, housing, healthcare or pensions.

Not to mention, police don't get paid, roads don't get fixed, teachers are laid off, etc. Yeah, TAXES. Nobody likes to pay 'em, but then again, the places where they aren't collected are hell holes. George W. Bush cut taxes below the rate paid during the Reagan era. We CURRENTLY pay the lowest rate we've seen in 60 years.

Instead of spouting talking points, please explain the Clinton surplus. How can you pass on a surplus when you add to the deficit? Come on all you parrots put your money where your mouth is.

Oh yea, you can only spout what you have been told by your handlers.

FYI, Bush started during a recession, the Clinton recession. Remember that?

FYI, Bush started during a recession, the Clinton recession. Remember that?

Don't forget Richard Clark also BEGGED for the Bush Admin to take Al Queda seriously.

Da Noid, I think you mean Tax Shaft!

Yawwnnnnnn.....I mean, .....BBrrrrrappppppppp!.

Yawn.

yawn.

yawn again.............should be reported as a useless post.

Tad:

I can't really disagree with the characterization of the Dems as a "train wreck of a party."

However, there's no question that the alternatives include a great deal of unhinged, science denying, Bible thumping, gay hating "conservatives" who are ready to take power by force if necessary:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102210dnmetbroden.1b2338185.html

The "train wreck" is preferable to crazy. I know...that's damning with faint praise. But as PJ O'Rourke put in on Bill Maher's "Real Time," "conservatives believe government is bad, and we've got the candidates to prove it."

bilweeler,

Yea...and everyone thought Crazy Ray and the guy dressed in Indian chief costume at Dallas/Washington games were real Cowboys and Redskins.

good one.

Tad --how old are you that you would think the policies and obstruction and deregulation of 2 decades can be fixed in less than 2 years..?

Childish!

@Reagan, I'm old enough to be your grandpa. I know when I see a false prophet and narcissist who believes he can open oceans and raise mountains.

He and his clowns had two years to make things worse than they were before and are doing a fine job of it. Another groupw of worthless politician full of elephant brownies and camel bladder water.

so you would believe that in the private sector to take on a company that has been grossly mismanaged for 8 years you would projuect a 2 year turn around? it takes a start up with no debt longer than that to show a profit.

mind you this company was thrust into two wars as well. as a disabled vet i find it hard to not mention the many lives destroyed by these wars. civilian casualties on both sides of these wars by the thousands whose losses cannot be calculated in dollars. the elder bush started this chain of events with his propoganda war leading up to desert storm. talk about special interest............does haliburton ring a bell? maybe general dynamics...bell helicopter and all of the defense contractors that love a good war. the bush machine has killed our economy and the literal beings of hundreds of thousands and the worst you can pin on Obama is that he spent money to start rebuilding our shabby infrastructure. spent money on health care reform. if you put a war on credit, the bill some day comes in. time to pay up and the bill is huge.

most of you pseudorepublicans do not donate enough to be on your own parties radar. you live in the same neighborhoods as we libs and most of you have a pretty GOP bumper sticker on a crappy car. i own a couple of nice homes in nice bedroom communities and graduated magna cum laude while most tea bagging GOP supporters don't have teeth let alone health coverage, and still you don't support reform. the only people reform hurts is those that can afford cosmetic surgery and other electives like veneers and boob jobs.

average joe had no healthcare but let his party convince him he did not need it if he could not afford it. well both me and my wife have careers (not jobs) with excellent coverage and many plans to choose from so if they do nothing we would have been okay, but what of you poor unfortunate impoverished GOP members living in trailer parks with your crappy lives and staunch support of a party that will take your votes but not your agenda or circumstance into consideration?

Get jobs and quit blaming Obama. Heck I am black and you don't hear me whining about it either way. No matter who was in office last or who will be next, i am winning because i work for a living and manage and invest my earnings wisely and can still aford 20 inch rims on my drop top sports car.

love to blow the horn when i see someone in their POS with the mccain/palin bummer sticker. i smile at them and wave. like dr. phil says.....how'd that work out for ya? ouch it sucks to love the foster parents that dont even know you exist.......thats the GOP to its following. you are groupies, not party members. they care about you as much as they do steele, thomas, gonedolisa.

Tad- if you are old enough to be a grandpa then you know the goverment is by the people, of the people. you have elected enough goofballs then to be considered a part of the problem yourself. or you have failed to run for office since you can do so much better than those with the moxy to run. the elections are open for anyone with no past history of child molestation gramps with candy in his pocket tad. you should know the requirements of public office yet rather than toss your hat into the ring, you toss the salad of the republicans with guts to run or the dems in office doing a job of cleanng up a mess of an economy we the people create. we buy houses we cannot afford, do drugs which creates a drug war we cannot win, drive cars like my sports car that only gets about 14 miles per gallon with the top down and me hitting 145. or the suv in the driveway. now i own two homes and rent one out that paid for and only 14 years old. i am living the dream and could care less who is in office. i will never be rich enough or poor enough to matter.i am the upper midle class and will die as such. my kids will inherit my homes, fat trusts, and kowledge of how to stay above the middle and off the radar. i served my country for a decade and did okay after my time. i have no fear of who is in office.

Quit whining and blaming. look at your coke head friends if you want to know who causes the drug war, not some cartel. i dont blame mcdonalds for fat people, or the bar for the dwi some slacker gets. time for Americans to take account for what we do to ourselves.

Kevin S.

Quit patting your obnoxious self on the back as you are just as much to blame for what you said as anyone else. Show me an honest poitician and I'll show a fat lipped liar.

Get off your high chair and open your eyes, we're all being manipulated by those in power regardless of who you vote for. You can only be responsible for a limited amount of choices, when it comes to politicians, it's choosing the lesser of the evils.

BTW, get some help for your self imposed anger.

It's wonderful how the stimulus has helped get people back to work.

Some tailgater's drunk, or just plain not watching the game.

Bless your heart, but please, stick with the Pats, Pat.

Hey Pat, whatcha got to say about Governor's who were forced to take stimulus funds or they were threatened with impeachment?? Case in point, Sanford of South Carolina... Or how about the Senators that got all those cushy backroom deals from Harry and his gal pal Pelosi??

If the repercussions weren't so serious it would be funny how the opposition has spun successes as failures.

1) Those Democrats and their evil Bank Bailout! TARP was a Bush/Paulson initiative with bi-partisan support (Boehner was in tears begging for support). Also, it was one of the most successful initiatives in history and will end generating profit for the taxpayers. Why aren't Republicans taking much deserved credit for this success?

2) The stimulus was a failure! Plainly false. It created $3M jobs. If anything the argument should be that it wasn't robust enough to generate strong job growth after offsetting the job losses created by the underlying bad economy.

3) HCR is evil that was crammed down our throats! There was a huge mandate for heath care reform. Its is far from perfect but resolved most of the concerns people voiced in the 2008 campaign season. Granted the sausage making was ugly, but it wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Bottom line is this is exactly what Clinton is talking about. People aren't thinking about these things. They're just clinging to sound bites and letting their gut dictate their actions. The Dems could not produce a miracle and instantly turn around the second worse economic melt down in history.

Pat - you make no point except the fact that stimulus has created no jobs at all - all it did is increase working hours and wages for currently employed construction workes. No new jobs or saving old jobs that would be lost.

GM bailout saved 1,000,000 jobs, and is 70% paid back hmmmmmmm

1/3 of stimulus was tax cuts and incentives hmmmmmmmmmm

People today do not care about this stuff because it is easier to blame others for their sad lives. The black, non american, muslim took my job and gave it to mexicans!!! IDIOTS

Potts, How many jobs "saved" were union? And do you feel the slightest twinge on pain for the people who lost all of their investments in the "GM Bailout"?

Ellie Mae

Just to put things in proper context: our "illustrious" governor Sanford still had presidential aspirations when he threatened to not take the stimulus money and was shot down by the legislature. It was later that we learned that he thinks the Appalachian Trail goes all the way to Argentina. The stimulus money has been used to repair roads that were beginning to look like a 3rd world country in this state, just a few of the over 15,000 transportation projects funded by the stimulus nationwide. Do a little research, girl!

I do, but with many political things (war in Afganistan) you hold your nose and do it.

MKM, nice try... Now why don't you explain the real reasons for not wanting to take stimulus funds.. Let me jog your memory, it started with wanting to pay off SC debt... But hey, you keep blaming it on his Argentian Latin Lover.

The congressman's son was making $10.00/hr pouring concrete, but is upset because the gov. has a pay structure for $28.00/hr.? Who lives on $10/hr.? Isn't the problem that too many businesses no longer see the need to pay a fair wage? And if there was a problem with the stimulus, it was at the local levels, because states were already in such poor shape they had given up on the idea of doing any capital projects. It was the states that failed the stimulus, not the other way around. There hasn't been one GOP congressman or candidate that can point to even one dollar that was thrown down a hole.

Wm, you didn't read the article yesterday about the wind farms???

Ellie Mae:

Potts, How many jobs "saved" were union? And do you feel the slightest twinge on pain for the people who lost all of their investments in the "GM Bailout"?

1. Is there something inherently wrong with saving union jobs? If so, what would that be?

2. The investors would have lost a great deal more if we allowed GM and Chrysler to declare bankruptcy, correct?

1. Is there something inherently wrong with saving union jobs? If so, what would that be?

No there is nothing wrong with saving union jobs, as long as you are saving non-union jobs as well. And that is not what is happening. How much more do you think the unions need? They have been given special attention in the HCR bill.. I wasn't. I wasn't given any consideration, only the promise that nothing will change for me.

The investors would have lost a great deal more if we allowed GM and Chrysler to declare bankruptcy, correct?

It is my belief that both companies should have been allowed to file bankruptcy and bring themselves back from the brink on their own. This would have been a good bargaining tool for getting concessions from the unions. And perhaps their investors would have come out better than they did as well. Plus the fact that our government intervened and outright fired their CEO really turned me off.

GM stock holders lost their investment. If you remember, the republicans were calling for bankruptcy for all. In bankruptcy the share holders are wiped out. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if investors and employees lost it all. Not sure about the private equity firm that owned Chrysler.

Ellie Mae:

No there is nothing wrong with saving union jobs, as long as you are saving non-union jobs as well. And that is not what is happening. How much more do you think the unions need?

Actually, it was Bush who initiated the auto bailouts:

President George W. Bush stepped in Friday to keep America's auto industry afloat, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring that the firms radically restructure and show they can become profitable soon.

"If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush said at the White House, in remarks carried live by the national broadcast networks. "In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed."

Bush said that "bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies."

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html

So, let's give credit/blame where it's due. The auto bailouts came directly from the GWB administration. Obama inherited the auto bailouts, along with a lot of other crises. If you think the auto bailouts favored unions, well, read the link above. You can then respond to me with your condemnation of Bush's economics. I doubt very much that GWB was trying to protect the unions when he bailed out GM and Chrysler.

It is my belief that both companies should have been allowed to file bankruptcy and bring themselves back from the brink on their own. This would have been a good bargaining tool for getting concessions from the unions. And perhaps their investors would have come out better than they did as well.

Your "belief" that it would have been better to have Chrysler and GM go through bankruptcy was not the way GWB saw it. Whether you are right, or whether GWB was right, seems like an academic question now. He made a decision. We have to live with it.

Plus the fact that our government intervened and outright fired their CEO really turned me off.

Your endorsement of the prior CEO is stunning. Under his leadership, the company was on the precipice of bankruptcy. Would you prefer he continue to lead the enterprise given that his track record was dismal?

ellimae -you say "whatcha got to say about Governor's who were forced to take stimulus funds or they were threatened with impeachment?? Case in point, Sanford of South Carolina..."

In Sanford's case, a student sued the State of SC and won to have some of the stimulus funds used to repair the schools before using the stimulus funds to pay down the SC Dept. Sanford's impeachment was threatened due to his misrepresentation of use of public funds.

I assume you are aware of the objective for stimulus funds. It's to stimulate spending to create jobs to curtail the impact of the recession. With jobs, the people of SC would have income to buy goods and services for the local economy to more effectively reduce the impact of the recession. Just paying down the debt would be less stimulative.

All said and done - Sanford lost his credibility as a viable candidate for public service.

No, you should try thinking..... Obama did not water it down.. Congressional Repubs watered it down OR filibustered it with blindly voting NO

such narrow vision

gpotts... you fool!

If Obama was true to those Gull-I-Bulls that put him in office he would have VETO'ed that POS HCR bill instead of signing it into law. He bailed on the libs and all that they expected when they put his inexperienced A$$ in office.

Serves them right! :-P

STUPID It was his bill... WHY would he VETO it??? Go back to video games

For starters Potts, because it didn't have what he promised the American people in it.

gpotts you show you true lack of understanding... (and total idiocy)

He should have VETO'ed the bill because it had morphed into something that he did not intend... (That is if he had Any integrity!)

Instead, he was dropping in popularity due to his total inability to accomplish ANYTHING and he needed what he perceived to be a WIN!

SO.... he signed a bill... but it was certainly NOT HIS bill. (dumba$$)

Half a loaf of bread is better than no bread. Sometimes you take what you can get. Not something some people understand, since they want it all. Wish I could always get what I wanted. Guess if you have enough money then there is no problem with always getting what you want.

"Also, Hispanics and African Americans need to ask one question before voting - what have you the Democratic party done for us"

Democrats put a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and nominated the man who became the first African American President of the United States, (when the pundits said that was taking a big risk.) Of course, we didn't do it "for" those minorities, we did it for US, because these are two well qualified people.

hahahahahah!

SickOfTheBickering

hahahahahah!

You can laugh all you want; but it's just gonna backife on you the ame way Sharon Angle's ad did. You can't turn the majority of Blacks and Latnos against the President.

Don't forget many Hispanics are also Black-Latinos. Latinos are are now officially the largest ethnic group in the United States. The next largest group is Black who were the most politically-visible minority.

The President is fighting that Neo-Nazi "Papers Please" in Arizona for Hispanics. Hispanics speak two languages but are not two faced like the hateful GOPTP. Republicans are trying to suppress Hispanics and Black votes with a BS ad asking them not to vote. Please, GMAB!

The President has done more for these two groups than any Republican ever could and we understand that. What did Bush do for the Blacks in Katrina?

Hey, get real. You hateful ( not all)righties fight the President due to use color; but it hasn't stopped US or him. We know this country has problems. We live it everyday there is a bigoted right winger around lying about thier actions and aversion.

Don't give me that BUllsh!t it's not his color it's his policies. We are tired of your cowardly lies and so is the rest of country.

FyI: the same laws the president signed benifits Hispanics and Black just like al other people.

Wow Bev! Nice Rant! But as usual I am pretty much ignoring it because I just can't get past all your anger and racism.

Your boy has two years and then he's OUT! To go back to the hole he crawled out of ;-)

I tell you what the Democrat party has done for the black community.

1. Kept their foot on their necks for the past 40 yrs. with aiding in the dependency on Government aid (welfare, AFDC, housing projects, etc.)

I see generation after generation of recipients and the cycle just continues. Democrats say Republicans will take all of that away from you forcing you to work. etc.

We have a democrat in our district that has been in D.C. for over 20 yrs and I see no change in the hood. The only reason she keeps getting elected is because the district is mostly black. When they re-district and those whites keep buying up the surrounding property her butt will be sent back to Houston.

Amy, PLEASE dont tell me you would have hired Obama based on his job application. He has never run a damn thing except his mouth. Think about hiring a company president and here comes a community organizer, with a past that has been shut to the public, never had a REAL job. All we knew is he was a lawyer for Acorn and a guy that voted " Present" more often than not. If that is qualified, I am missing some thing.

soldier1

I tell you what the Democrat party has done for the black community.

1. Kept their foot on their necks for the past 40 yrs. with aiding in the dependency on Government aid (welfare, AFDC, housing projects, etc.)

Soldier are you saying the Black community is the only one that utilizes these efforts? There are a lot of people that aren't Black that have some dependency on these programs. There are some people that absolutely need assistance from some of these programs whether you agree with or not.

J B-980125

Amy, PLEASE dont tell me you would have hired Obama based on his job application. He has never run a damn thing except his mouth. Think about hiring a company president and here comes a community organizer, with a past that has been shut to the public, never had a REAL job. All we knew is he was a lawyer for Acorn and a guy that voted " Present" more often than not. If that is qualified, I am missing some thing

So tell me when was the last time you hired a CEO or Voted for a COO? Most americans know less about CEO, then they do their favorite politician.

Amy, PLEASE dont tell me you would have hired Obama based on his job application. He has never run a damn thing except his mouth. Think about hiring a company president and here comes a community organizer, with a past that has been shut to the public, never had a REAL job. All we knew is he was a lawyer for Acorn and a guy that voted " Present" more often than not. If that is qualified, I am missing some thing.

JB-980125 - We already tried it your way with a person who ran a business. Remember President George Bush? He ran two business into the ground, one of which was an OIL business and the other was a Baseball team.

How do you run an OIL business into the ground given the family contacts he had?

So your meme of having someone who has 'run a business' is pretty much debunked, isn't it?

The problem I see is that all of you pro-business folks have discounted what a 'community organiser' can do. it is pretty obvious that the 'community organiser' you denigrade is kicking your butts legislatively. He kicked your butts during the campaign it with fundraising too. That 'community organiser' was able to rains MILLIONS with an e-mail... something that Den. McCain could not compete with.

He has already outsmarted you. He is out thinking you too.

Instead of denigrading and ridiculing the 'community organiser'. maybe you should study what he is doing. It is prety obvious it is successful.

Not to mention the Texas Rangers, but they finally overcame that legacy.

Good responce AMY, NOT. Does wind fall profit tax ring a bell....DUH. And I believe he signed a washed up player named THE RYAN EXPRESS, remember that AMY. Sold the stadium out EVERY time he took the mound. I am glad you mentioned all the untraceable money cards he recieved from overseas, that's soemthing to be proud of....since it did not come form the COC, I guess that is ok too, AMY. Pardoning the New Black Panthers was something he was smart to do, I will give you that one, AMY. Maybe you are proud of all the under handed stuff this orgasmiser has done, but I will disagree on this one, AMY. It is funny you guys vote for your own comment, too!

JB - so what you are saying is that you got NOTHIN'.

Thought so.

SickoftheBickering - you say "

"Your boy has two years and then he's OUT! To go back to the hole he crawled out of ;-)" with a smile.

That's 2 more years of Mr. President. Be aftraid! Be very afraid! as your smile implies. He's only just begun.

I'm extremely proud of Pres. Obama's achievements in his firs 2 years and support him to continue the agenda he's set for the country.

I can only expect that you and the republicans will attempt to take some credit for it (although not earned as yet). So, I'll look for your gratitude in a future comment.

Did I forget to mention the TARP bailout? That was republicans too.

I also forgot the republicans saying NO to everything and blaming the democrats for holding things up. What about all the things in the senate that are being held up because of their stupid one vote can hold up anything rule? And why don't they make the republicans filibuster? Make them talk for days on end until they give up like Mr. Smith did?

Don't worry when I think of something else I'll be back.

Now that's what I'm talking about.. Yahoo for Cindy, sticking to that mentality that anyone who doesn't agree with the Democrats is just plain "STUPID"... I know you've won over my vote (rolling eyes). Clinton accuses us of not thinking and Cindy thinks we're all stupid...

No my darling, I don't think you are stupid, the republicans do. Show me where I'm wrong on any one of my points and I don't mean by Fox News talking points.

How freaking stupid are Americans to think the republicans can do better

nough said, honey!!!

Exactly

K Mac in Okla

I have no confidence at all in the republican/tp doing anything for the AA community nor the Hispanics. I will take my chances with the Democrats, thank you.

As a black man i would never trust these republicans ever, there not like republicans in the 70s where you could at least depend on them to not starve the middle in favor of the rich.

Jeff:

Are you starving? You can afford the internet. I guess if Republicans are voted in you will automatically go broke.

Did you become a millionaire when the Dems were voted in? Are they paying your bills?

What exactly have they done for you PERSONALLY?

Are you saying there are no bigots and racist in the Democrat party?

SickOfTheBickering

Wow Bev! Nice Rant! But as usual I am pretty much ignoring it because I just can't get past all your anger and racism.

Whatever, Liar!!!!! Your cowardly a** read it. You Tea Baggers are the ones who publicly say --- what's that--OH yea, " I'm MAD as Hell and ain't gonna take it any more". If you think I'm gonna let you attack me with all kinds of preposterous talk about my President, minorities, and me and ignore it; you're crazy. you asked for it race baiter and you got it.

Your boy has two years and then he's OUT! To go back to the hole he crawled out of ;-)

If that were to happen (and it won't) that would be fair because that'll give you and the rest of your unrepentant bigots opportunities to go back under your slimy rocks where you came from under.

This President is going down as one of the best 2 term Presidents in history. He has accomplished more in 2 yrs that Regan the Bushes. Btw He is #5 now

WHAT?

Oh yeah I get it....

ANGER ANGER ANGER HATE HATE HATE!

Thanks again, Bev and have a nice weekend! ;-)

If you take it personally, then there may be some truth to the accusation. Just like the tea party hates to be called racist.

bev says obama will go down as one of the best 2 term presidents........................hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.......hehehehehehehehheheheheheheheheheheheheheh

heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohoho

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

....whew......hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah

...He is a very good orator...

That's funny, I thought it was the other way around...

I thought he was an oral taker.

You mean those same ole corporations that donated millions of dollars to get Obama elected? Let's look at one of those corporations, Caterpillar.. This corporation is doing so well riding the building boom in China that they have to expand the manufacturing in countries such as Brazil.

Ellie Mae Clampett

You mean those same ole corporations that donated millions of dollars to get Obama elected? Let's look at one of those corporations, Caterpillar.. This corporation is doing so well riding the building boom in China that they have to expand the manufacturing in countries such as Brazil

Did you see them lying on FOX Noise about them not being able to pay for their insurance for their employees?

You don't think they thought the President was serious about "CHANGE" when they gave their donation; do you?

BTW: you found donations; betcha can't find the donations from the Chamber of Commerce running ads against Democrats.

Nope and I won't even start a search for those company's either. Ya know why? Because I'm a firm believer that "what's good enough for the goose (Democrats) is good enough for the gander (Republicans)". You poor little Democrats.. I guess you don't think "turnabout is fair play".

Now how about you trace all those donors who gave all those pre-paid credit cards to the Obama campaign...

Ooooo.... once again it's those evil corporations and that huge conspiracy they are running!

Sick. Get a grip, I did not say anything about corporations being evil. What I am saying is that they are doing whatever they can to minimize the amount of tax they pay and have the middle class make up the difference. And obviously the money they spend works on people like you.

Sorry Patrick... my snide remark was not to your comment but instead to Beverly's.

But you are correct.... the corporations ARE trying to minimize the amount of tax they pay (but not necessarily to have the middle class make up the difference).

You see, It is the responsibility of EVERY (for profit) corporation to maximize their shareholders wealth. Cutting costs is one way of doing that and taxes are an expense. So long as they are not dodging taxes illegally they have a responsibility to their shareholders to pay as little as they can.

You may not like it but that is capitalism.

Sick. It is not a question of good and evil, it is how we share the pie. You want to elect people who will help corporations maximize profits at the expense of the middle class. I want to elect people who will fight for fairness and balance.

What pie?

Go out and earn your pie!

Corporations (that play by the rules) pay what they are obligated to pay according to the law. Don't vilify them for making money. And I say that they are NOT doing it at the expense of the middle class.

If the middle class does not like the corporation don't purchase their product/services. Force them out of business... or at least reduce their revenues.... and perhaps their profitability... but wait... that will allow them to pay less taxes too! (RATS!)

Again... its capitalism. (I just dont get this whole piece of the pie thing.)

Since the Civil war all laborers have become share croppers. I would say more , but I owe my soul to the company store.

SickoftheBickering - you say "If the middle class does not like the corporation don't purchase their product/services. Force them out of business... or at least reduce their revenues.... and perhaps their profitability..."

I agree. I'd also suggest that we the people stop subsidizing the corporations that out-source for lower labor costs by the tax-loopholes used to minimize their taxes paid to the US, if any. That would also still be capitalism. Tax revenues is the "pie" you conveniently want to ignore.

Oh that's great.... So far I've been accused of not thinking, being stupid and now I'm ignorant... Holy moly I've seen the light now and I'm still voting "NO" to any Democrats.

Ellie Mae Clampett

Oh that's great.... So far I've been accused of not thinking, being stupid and now I'm ignorant... Holy moly I've seen the light now and I'm still voting "NO" to any Democrats.

It must be a dim light. Voting "NO" to Democrats means you just haven't seen the truth (facts). But, you will if the Republicans take control. They're gonna waste money (taxes) investigating, repealing, and trying to impeach the President. See how far that gridlock and wasted tax dollars will get you.That does not take into account accommodating what the citizenry wants; for instance jobs, insurance, education, and other infrastructure .

Look again. Unless you consider yourself some people that would mean you're ignorant. I did not call you ignorant.

Get yourself a bright light; honey.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There you have it... Angry Beverly has said it all...

"Voting 'NO' to Democrats means that you just haven't seen the truth..."

In other words... It's My Way or the Highway!

Thanks Bev!

Ain't it funny how ignorant some people can be?

Ain't it funny how some people just conveniently forget things?

BTW; you are a very angry person aren't you? Typing all in bold makes me think you have some issues. Perhaps you should get out in the sunshine more often.

Ignorance (Unawareness) is by choice. Stupidity is due to a mishap in genetics.

75% of the people who voted for him didn't even KNOW the Dem/Obama/Biden platform.

That's news to me. Can you please send a link to to back that up?

If you cannot produce a link, you might want to think about the fact that making up fake statistics (lying) to try to say that most people voted for the president based on his race alone, is in itself a racist act.

The way you capitalize "they" and "racists" in your statement "...THEY are the RACISTS..." makes me think that you have yourself been called a racist. Maybe if you're sick of being called a racist you can try not saying racist things.

My figures come from exit polls and post-election interviews with random voters.. I'll look up the links for you.

As for Obama voters being racist, and/or racailly motivated - the evidence is everywhere..

Even the vaunted Colin Powell, who calls himself a Republican, and said the GOP should run "moderates" who would work with Dems - which is the definition of John McCain - voted for Obama. Culd there have been ANY other reason?

Again, exit polling, especially among the 18 - 25 age group showed voting for Obama because of the "historic" nature of electing a Black President.

If voting for a white candidate becaue he/she is white is racist, then voting for a Black candidate because he's Black is ALSO racist.

Deal with it!

If voting for a white candidate becaue he/she is white is racist, then voting for a Black candidate because he's Black is ALSO racist.

I completely agree and I'm sure that there are some people who did just that. But saying...

75% of the people who voted for him didn't even KNOW the Dem/Obama/Biden platform....They voted for him because ... THEY .... had to vote for a black man"

...is a lie with the intent of delegitimatizing the President based on his race, which is a racist act.

Send me the link and prove me wrong. I'm waiting...

Here's one link.. It doesn't take Sherlock Homes to read between the lines on racial voting...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Obama & McCain split whites 46/54, but minorities went 85/15 for Obama...

If the results were reversed, and McCain got whites 85/15, everyone would be screaming RACE! and discrediting the election as bigoted.. So, why is the reverse not true?

I'll post the "interview link when I find it, so you can see - in people's own words, that they were politically clueless, and voted for the "historic" black man..

Give me e few minutes...

Maybe I shouldn't "read between the lines" and conclude that you are a racist based on your false statements. Your link in no way proves your statement....

75% of the people who voted for him didn't even KNOW the Dem/Obama/Biden platform....They voted for him because ... THEY .... had to vote for a black man"

The interview link you describe sounds link anecdotal evidence that shows that some people voted for him because he is black but you still have not shown me anything that says 75% of people voted for him because he is black.

If you had said some instead of 75% in your original comment I would have no problem with your statement; however, it would not do much to prove your premise that "He wasn't elected on his platform".

Charles:

Well played. Calling these guys out with facts tends to make them disappear into the ether. They make them up....they don't link to them.

Peter B:

Charles OWNS you. Deal with it.

PeterB-2428291

You Liberal nutjobs can post any vile, hateful, stupid, wrong, lies and misrepresentations...

It doesn't matter...

In less than two weeks, YOU'RE GONE!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about you and the rest of the unrepentant bigots putting a moratorium on all these racial slurs. It's not advancing the conversation at all. I prefer to discuss the issues rather than make racial slurs. That's why I didn't participate in the Michelle Obama hate fest. You people are impossible. Do one can penetrate your hate and bigotry.

Guess what? Everything thing must change; even rocks. That is just the law of the universe. When you stop acting like an inanimate rock I'll chat with you.

Until then

bye bye

PeterB-2428291

No one can penetrate your hate and bigotry.

Again, like I said when you succumb to the changes of nature, I'll engage you.

I just hope it won't be an ICE AGE.

She has certainly proven herself to not be the brightest crayon in the box!

There you are feisty.. Where were you yesterday on the article that exposed the Obama administration paying stimulus to already built wind farms? I was looking for you. Especially when Rob told everyone how all the parts for the turbines are manufactured in China. I really wanted you to join in the fun because I know how important it is to you and your friends to boycott all things made in China. At least that's the understanding I got from your posts on another article Wednesday.

Ya'll need to start writing down your DNC talking points. But alas, I see that calling me names is really your talking points. Good luck with that..

Wow, more lies from Peter.

advocating Government control of ... banking

TARP was a Bush/Paulson initiative approved by a bi-partisan majority in congress.

advocating ...overtaxation...

Obama has lowered taxes.

Obama has LOWERED taxes?????

There was a one-time $250 rebate for his selected peeps, but watch when the Obamacare taxes, fees, penalties, etc., etc., etc., hit on January 1...

Add a 3.8% tax on the sale of a home (new or resale)

Add a 35% tax on health insurance premiums

Add 20% to the marginal, across-the-board tax rates

Add 2.9% sales tax on anything considered “medical devices” – including hearing aids, heart valves, artificial joints, breast pumps, tampons…

Add 20% excise tax on prescription drugs

Add 20% excise tax on imported drugs (bye-bye cheap Canadian & European drugs)

Add up to $7,000 fines for people without “approved” healthcare policies

Add $2,500 to the non-tax-deductible health care exemption (from $7,500 to $10,000 non-deductible)

Add 5% tax on tanning beds and “elective medical procedures” (like plastic surgery, botox, etc).

These are all a part of OBAMACARE, taking effect January 1, 2011…

Okay. That's fair, you've convinced me. I'm still right on my first point about TARP, but you win the tax argument.

I was watching the news last night. NY times had an article about a tax cut 95% of Americans received. Its 400 for single and 800 for families. But it wasn't a check it was in your payroll. So that you wouldn't notice and would go out and spend.

USMC you are right. I think it proves that the President is thinking innovatively and it was said that they did it to help the economy as well as families.

I did not forget about it, that is why I get so frustrated with everyone talking about taxes being raised when they are being cut for those who really need the cuts.

PeterB-2428291

Obama has LOWERED taxes?????

You must have received that bogus chain e-mail. It was meant to scare and it obviously worked with you.

There are several fact check type web sites out there. Go to a couple of them, verify what they say and show you about those tax increases and then come back and say with complete honesty that those tax increases will happen as you state.

And 75% of the deficit spending has been created by Republican Presidents

I use to be eligible for VA medical, but under bush the law was changed so that you had to serve in combat. I served stateside in the Vietnam error and when I was discharged I had the option for VA medical, but since I was a good citizen and got and paid for medical where I worked, I was denied the benefits when I really needed them. If I had taken the benefit in the 70’s I would still have it.

So are you blaming the democrats for the sandwich?