PDA

View Full Version : Dirty Little Secrets the Republicans Don't Want You to Know



Stlrs4Life
07-14-2010, 10:09 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/dirty-little-secrets-the_b_645404.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=912913,b=facebook

How true



The Republicans have a set of dirty little (actually not so little) secrets they don't what you to know -- and certainly don't want you to think about when you go to the polls in November.
And the fact is that some of those secrets could provide Democrats with silver bullets this fall. But first let's recall the context.
Over the course of eight short years -- between 2000 and 2008 -- the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public. They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs. They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America's good name throughout the world.
Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush's administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.
This was not a disaster that could be remedied overnight. By taking bold action at the beginning of his administration, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress prevented the financial crisis from morphing into a Great Depression -- but the Republicans, some Democrats, and the powerful special interests have done everything they can to throw sand into the gears of change. Most importantly, they have stood in the way of providing enough economic stimulus to launch a robust, widespread economic recovery.
But notwithstanding Republican opposition, Obama, the Democrats and their progressive allies have -- after a century of trying -- finally passed health care reform allowing America to end its status as the only industrialized nation that did not provide health care as a right. They are on the brink of reining in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. And they have set the stage for massive long-term investments in economic growth and clean energy.
But it has been hard to pull the car out of the deep economic ditch and Americans are angry at the slow pace of economic recovery -- and also at the special interests that profited from their economic pain.
So the Republicans now have the audacity to argue that President Obama and the Democrats are somehow responsible for the hardships that they themselves created. In effect they want the election to be a referendum on whether the Democrats have mopped and swept fast enough cleaning up the mess that they created.
They will do everything they can to prevent America from focusing on the real choice before them in the fall elections -- a choice between going backward to the failed policies of the past that caused this catastrophe and a new direction that will create sustainable, long-term, bottom-up, widely shared economic growth. The real question before the country is whether it is willing to hand over the keys to the economy once again to the same gang that just caused the most serious economic pile up in 60 years.
That's where the dirty little secrets come in. It turns out that the leaders of the Republican Party have learned nothing from the reckless escapade that caused so much economic pain, and came perilously close to inflicting mortal wounds on the American economy.
They still actually believe -- despite what we have all just experienced -- that by "freeing" big oil, the insurance companies and Wall Street banks of the "burdens" of government accountability, that the plutocrats and the "invisible hand" of the market will lead American into the promised land of economic prosperity.
Some of the things they believe are not only dangerous to the economy, luckily they are also politically radioactive. And quite remarkably, many key Republicans are actually willing to say them out loud. Here are a few:



Meet Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. If the Republicans once again take control of the House, he will be the Chair of the Budget Committee. Ryan believes -- and says out loud -- that Medicare, one of the most popular Federal programs in history, should be abolished and replaced with vouchers for private insurance. Let's recall that one of the ways Republicans stirred up opposition to health insurance reform was by falsely accusing Democrats of wanting to cut Medicare. They convinced some unwitting seniors that "Government" should keep its hands off Medicare -- which is, of course, a "Government" program. Democrats need to make it crystal clear in this campaign that Republicans -- who opposed Medicare from its inception -- actually want to abolish the program and hand over control of health care for America's seniors to the same private insurance companies responsible for driving up rates three times faster than wages while their profits have exploded.




Congressman John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, has endorsed another Ryan proposal to raise the retirement age of Social Security to 70 years old -- a proposal that might go over fine with a guy like Boehner who makes speeches for a living. But it won't be very popular at all with someone who has laid bricks, or run an earth mover, or waited tables for forty-five years.




The whole Republican crew wants to resurrect the failed Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security. The defeat of Bush's privatization plan was the turning point in the Bush Presidency. It was all downhill from there. Yet -- whether it's to pad the investment accounts of their friends on Wall Street or because they are "private markets uber alles true believers" -- the Republicans want to try it again. Only this time retirees won't have to work very hard to imagine what it would have been like if their Social Security checks had plummeted in value the way their 401K's did when the market collapsed just two years ago.




The Republicans want to weaken and repeal the new law to rein in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. Most Republicans and Democrats voted to bail out the big banks to prevent a 1930's style market collapse. The difference is that Democrats supported legislation to rein in their recklessness -- that had cost 8 million Americans their jobs -- and assure that a bailout was never allowed to happen again. But with very few exceptions, the Republicans voted to a person against holding Wall Street accountable. Given a chance, they plan to team up with their pals on Wall Street to free them to return to their reckless ways at will. In fact, they told the titans of Wall Street as much in fundraising meetings, where those "masters of the Universe" were asked to ante up. Republicans claim to oppose more Wall Street bailouts, but they refuse to support legislation that would prevent one in the future and hold Wall Street accountable. That -- coupled with those big contributions from Wall Street -- is a position that is very difficult for average voters to swallow. In fact, the polling says it's down right toxic.




Republicans have consistently voted against extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off because of Bush-era policies and the recklessness of Wall Street. Remember, people who get unemployment benefits -- by definition -- are looking for jobs that the economy doesn't provide. In addition, many Republicans actually believe that the best way to spur employment is to lower the minimum wage.




Finally, meet Congressman Joe Barton. If the Republicans win back control of Congress, he would once again most likely serve as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the Committee that oversees the oil industry. Congressman Barton has never met an oil company he doesn't like. In fact, he's the guy who actually apologized to BP when they were forced by the Obama Administration to take economic responsibility for the disastrous Gulf oil spill. As a political matter, that's like apologizing to Jack the Ripper.

Stlrs4Life
07-14-2010, 10:10 PM
Part 2:

These are politically radioactive positions that do, in fact, define the core of Republican policy if they were once again to control the gavel in either House of Congress.
We hear a lot about how Democrats have to "localize" the elections to have a chance of victory in November. And it is true that people vote for people in elections -- and the quality of Democratic candidates will give them a major edge in many races. So while it is a good idea to "personalize" the races for Congress, the last thing Democrats should do is to "localize" them, because the party that nationalizes a midterm -- and dominates the national dialogue -- almost always comes out ahead.
Instead, Democrats need to take the offensive and dominate the national conversation by talking about what the Republicans actually believe and what they would do if they win in November. Voters must be offered a stark choice between Democratic and Republican policies in the fall. If they are, "Conventional Wisdom" that keeps predicting a Democratic disaster will be proven wrong, the same way it was when it predicted that America would never elect a tall, skinny African American guy named Barack Obama.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979585295/?tag=adaptiveblue-20).

Wallace108
07-14-2010, 10:28 PM
There's so much to dispute here, but let me start with this:


the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy.

Under Bush's tax cuts, EVERYONE got rebates, even people who didn't pay taxes. Me and my wife, who combined make less than $60,000 a year, got an $1,800 check. Did people who are wealthy get more money back? Yes ... because they pay more in taxes. But I was quite happy with the money I got back.

Obama keeps bragging about giving a tax cut to 95% of the American people. Rather than a lump sum, it was spread out. So I got about an extra $7 a week. It wasn't even noticeable!!!

Liberals can keep saying that Bush's tax cuts were only for the wealthy, but I sure enjoyed my $1,800 check. I guess I was rich and didn't even know it.

Stlrs4Life
07-14-2010, 10:35 PM
Those rebates were passed out as stimulus checks. The Bush Tax cuts that you speak of are a totally different issue. Wonder why you republicans never bitched about that stimulus money? And how it raised the nat'l debt?

Wallace108
07-14-2010, 10:40 PM
Those rebates were passed out as stimulus checks. The Bush Tax cuts that you speak of are a totally different issue. Wonder why you republicans never bitched about that stimulus money? And how it raised the nat'l debt?

We never bitched about that stimulus money because WE got it, as opposed to banks, Wall Street, and the auto industry.

Vincent
07-14-2010, 10:41 PM
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979585295/?tag=adaptiveblue-20).

Is this by any chance the Robert Creamer that was busted for tax ecasion, bank fraud, writing rubber checks and swindling nine financial institutions of at least $2.3 million while he ran a "public interest group" (read: socialist mob) in the 90s? That Robert Creamer? The Robert Creamer that's married to Jan Schakowsky? The Jan Schakowsky that calls tax protests "‘despicable" and "shameful" while her husband is being convicted for tax evasion?

And these people have what to say to us on any subject?

Stlrs4Life
07-14-2010, 10:44 PM
We never bitched about that stimulus money because WE got it, as opposed to banks, Wall Street, and the auto industry.


Well, by helping them, it turned around and helped us also. I'm glad I rreceived those checks also, but Bushs stimulus didn't help or create any jobs. Obamas stimulus is working.

X-Terminator
07-14-2010, 10:46 PM
The big problem during Bush's term was that while taxes were cut, spending was not reined in, and therefore we ended up with huge deficits and ended up being a big reason for the resulting economic downturn.

I don't have a problem with giving out vouchers for Medicare recipients to purchase private insurance. It's not exactly "ending" the program because the government would still provide the benefit and would be funded with taxpayer dollars.

I don't support raising the retirement age to 70. I know it's an effort to delay payment of SS benefits so that it doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years, but I'd rather fix the problem rather than make people work longer. And no, I do not support full privatization of SS and didn't when Bush first proposed it. Limited privatization...yeah, maybe I could go for that, provided it's in a "safe" investment and wouldn't be severely crippled by a stock market downturn. I know that asking people to pay more in taxes is not the answer. We pay enough already.

The problems with Wall Street did not begin with the Bush Administration. It goes back much longer than that. So I would be a little careful before pinning all of that on him. I'm also not sure I want more government control over the economy. They have their tentacles into too many areas as it is. I'd rather give people more freedom to do what they need to do to make the economy grow again, and that means the government getting out of the way and making America a favorable place for business again. We can start by reducing our unacceptably high corporate tax rate so that we can attract more of them here rather than driving them off. More businesses means more available jobs, which means more people working, which means more taxpayers, which means more tax revenue coming into the states and the feds.

I'm kind of thumbs in the middle when it comes to extending unemployment benefits. Yes, people need help while looking for work, but those who abuse the system and have no intention of working should have their benefits reduced or cut immediately. I do not want to go to work in order to pay for someone to sit on their ass all day.

As for BP, they should get absolutely no breaks whatsoever and should be made to pay for all the damage they've done. The things they did - all of the safety violations they had - were unconscionable. Anyone who apologizes to BP for how harshly they've been treated should be kicked out on their asses. That said, the government's response hasn't exactly been the model of efficiency. Lots of red tape and too much inaction. Ask someone on the Gulf Coast if they're real happy with the way the government has responded to this crisis. And I'm sorry, but that lays right at the feet of the President, just as the Dems did to Bush for Katrina.

Wallace108
07-14-2010, 10:47 PM
Here's another fun one:


They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs.

Let's flashback to 2003, when the Bush administration proposed altering the regulation of entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Bush administration saw a problem coming, but Democrats disagreed. Here's what Democratic leader Barney Frank had to say:

"I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.

I must say we have an interesting example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is that the Federal Government is obligated to bail out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as I said, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy by some people.

So let me make it clear, I am a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing, but nobody who invests in them should come looking to me for a nickel--nor anybody else in the Federal Government. And if investors take some comfort and want to lend them a little money and less interest rates, because they like this set of affiliations, good, because housing will benefit. But there is no guarantee, there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest, and you are on your own.

Now, we have got a system that I think has worked very well to help housing. The high cost of housing is one of the great social bombs of this country. I would rank it second to the inadequacy of our health delivery system as a problem that afflicts many, many Americans. We have gotten recent reports about the difficulty here.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, both in general through leveraging the mortgage market, and in particular, they have a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing, and that is what I am concerned about here. I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals. I worry frankly that there is a tension here.

The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

X-Terminator
07-14-2010, 10:55 PM
Obamas stimulus is working.

It is? Well, that's news to me because we still have a 10% unemployment rate. This after Obama promised it wouldn't go above 8% when pushing to get that stimulus package passed. Are you going to criticize him for that, or just blame the Republicans again?

Wallace108
07-14-2010, 10:56 PM
Well, by helping them, it turned around and helped us also. I'm glad I rreceived those checks also, but Bushs stimulus didn't help or create any jobs. Obamas stimulus is working.

I'll agree with you that Bush's stimulus didn't create any jobs. But the reason for that goes far beyond a failed Bush policy. But how has Obama's stimulus helped us? How is it working? All I keep hearing is the number of jobs he's "saved" and how things would be worse without his stimulus ... neither of which you can accurately measure.

Vincent
07-14-2010, 11:04 PM
Obamas stimulus is working.


It is? Well, that's news to me because...

Depends on what "working" means, and for whom. bho has said to anybody that will listen that he's on a mission to "change" this country. He's bankrupting this country. He delivered a $1.4T deficit in his first year and has already run up another trillion in the first half of this year alone. I believe that he is serious about "change". The catch though is the definition of the word. To him it is the destruction of the Republic and capitalism by crippling our economy and vital institutions. So yes, "its working". And Creamer and Schakowsky are among his shills.

Vincent
07-14-2010, 11:20 PM
Ah, the irony that Stlrs4Life would have that av. Probably doesn't know that Lambert used to have a bumper sticker on his truck that read: "Warning, I don't break for liberals".

:rofl2: :toofunny: :chuckle: :rofl:

tony hipchest
07-14-2010, 11:23 PM
He's bankrupting this country.this country has been going bankrupt for years.

a crack addict with $2000 in their pocket really has no money at all. its just a matter of time (that is too big for any elected official to change).

just think of sharon stone (ginger) in CASINO.

it was fun while it lasted.

Wallace108
07-14-2010, 11:28 PM
this country has been going bankrupt for years.

I agree, tony. And I don't blame Obama. The problem is that everyone, including Obama, wants to blame Bush. The mess we're in started long before Bush was president.

Vincent
07-14-2010, 11:34 PM
just think of sharon stone (ginger) in CASINO.

All I'm getting is De Niro's red suit.

http://www.scorsesefilms.com/gifs/casino8.jpg

tony hipchest
07-15-2010, 12:03 AM
I agree, tony. And I don't blame Obama. The problem is that everyone, including Obama, wants to blame Bush. The mess we're in started long before Bush was president.well... bush is one of the baby boomers who escaped extermination so he is most certainly part of the problem.


All I'm getting is De Niro's red suit.

http://www.scorsesefilms.com/gifs/casino8.jpgthat was a pimpin suit (as was the baby blue one).

its suits like that, that should give baby boomers like him a reprieve from extermination. the "golden jew" was pretty fly (for a white guy).

damn.... i love pop culture (along with a loose board that isnt hypersensitive to mildly offensive racial or cultural slights against anyone besides myself)

*removes toe from water*

7SteelGal43
07-15-2010, 10:45 AM
Well, by helping them, it turned around and helped us also. I'm glad I rreceived those checks also, but Bushs stimulus didn't help or create any jobs. Obamas stimulus is working.

:toofunny: .... just :toofunny:

zulater
07-15-2010, 11:00 AM
Well, by helping them, it turned around and helped us also. I'm glad I rreceived those checks also, but Bushs stimulus didn't help or create any jobs. Obamas stimulus is working.

:lol: Thanks I needed a good laugh.

BnG_Hevn
07-15-2010, 12:07 PM
The "rebates" were supposed to be paid based on what you PAID in taxes, meaning you don't "get free money", you simply "don't pay as much money".

Liberal whackjobs think that tax cuts = handing out money instead of what it actually is, not TAKING AS MUCH MONEY.

steeldawg
07-15-2010, 04:10 PM
10% unemployment and a deficit 4 times what bushs deficit was. And done in just under 2 yrs, very impressive mr. prez.

SteelerEmpire
07-15-2010, 04:25 PM
Obamas stimulus is working.

I think the stimulus and bail outs did work in that it kept things from getting a lot worse. If those banks would have went under, and a few more other things that were out of control, the people in Somalia would be sending us aid packages. But as far as the stimulus "creating" jobs... no. However, we may see unemployment down to 8% by the 2012 elections if it improves at its current rate.

HometownGal
07-15-2010, 04:57 PM
:toofunny: .... just :toofunny:

Ditto. :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Don't waste your font folks. The Obaaaaaama sheeple will never - EVER - acknowledge that their guy is as phony as a three dollar bill, and not qualified to hold the office of POTUS. He bullshits better than a used car salesman. Instead, they try to hide behind the bu, bu, bu Bush and GOP merry-go-round. :rolleyes2:

ONE AND DONE. Hallelujah!

7SteelGal43
07-15-2010, 05:18 PM
ONE AND DONE. Hallelujah!

http://www.kaboodle.com/hi/img/a/0/0/5/e/AAAACstJyMYAAAAAAAXmsQ.jpg

The Patriot
07-15-2010, 05:23 PM
The economy was in free fall when Obama took office... I guess that was when Bush was about to make his move...

HometownGal
07-15-2010, 05:27 PM
The economy was in free fall when Obama took office... I guess that was when Bush was about to make his move...

Bu, bu, bu Bush. Rinse, lather, repeat. :yawn:

Shea
07-15-2010, 05:39 PM
Bu, bu, bu Bush. Rinse, lather, repeat. :yawn:

Regardless of what you think about Obama, surely you can recognize the nightmare he was handed when he took office, right?

And that nightmare, was and should be acknowledged as being on Bush's shoulders.

I'm not against criticizing Obama, but let's not let anyone else off the hook here when it comes to blame, which isn't contained to one man and one man only.

Wake up you Reps, Georgie W had his many faults, and screwed up more than you are willing to acknowledge now that a Dem is residing in the White House.

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

I hate politics.

It's blinding, polarizing, and seems to make people's minds go to mush, along with bringing out their hatred.

It's an ugly enterprise.

tony hipchest
07-15-2010, 06:06 PM
speaking of lather, rinse, and repeat.... the republicans have been beating the "ONE AND DONE" drum lately about as loudly as they banged the "HE WILL NEVER GET ELECTED" bongos.

how'd that work out for them? :toofunny:

they better start inventing a viable candidate here pretty quickly. time is running out! (another dirty little secret they dont want anyone to know is that they dont got one).

"dum ditty, dum ditty, dum dum dum"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Unyxx9yMoGg/St2sysraj9I/AAAAAAAAAUs/qoXhrNYJPjc/s320/Preschool+Week5_Mon+070.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0679890483.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

even michelle obama can read THAT writing on the wall. :chuckle:

HometownGal
07-15-2010, 07:20 PM
Regardless of what you think about Obama, surely you can recognize the nightmare he was handed when he took office, right?

And that nightmare, was and should be acknowledged as being on Bush's shoulders.

I'm not against criticizing Obama, but let's not let anyone else off the hook here when it comes to blame, which isn't contained to one man and one man only.

Wake up you Reps, Georgie W had his many faults, and screwed up more than you are willing to acknowledge now that a Dem is residing in the White House.

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

I hate politics.

It's blinding, polarizing, and seems to make people's minds go to mush, along with bringing out their hatred.

It's an ugly enterprise.

While I realize GWB was not the perfect Prez (who really was?), Obaaaaaama, in his short time in office thus far, has made things worse instead of better as he promised. He simply is not qualified to hold the highest office in the land and can bullshit even better than tony hipcheese. :heh: I can say with 100% honesty that my feelings about Obaaaaama have absolutely NOTHING to do with his political party, but everything to do with him being totally clueless and unqualified to be the President of the United States. As I said, GWB didn't have a perfect track record but he did do some good things while in office. What positives has BO accomplished in his first 18 months? Zip, zilch, nada.

Speaking of Obaaaaaaama's voice on this BB - hey Tony - see Obaaaaama's approval rating lately? By the time the elections roll around, he'll be rated even lower than GWB. :lol: Even members of his own party are turning on him. :lol:

NJarhead
07-15-2010, 07:28 PM
I'd just like to add that Elmo could win an election over Obama.

Quote from the Czech Republic:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

tony hipchest
07-15-2010, 07:48 PM
"millions of fingers, millions of thumbs, millions of monkeys drumming on drums!"

Dum Ditty Dum ditty dum dum dum


I'd just like to add that Elmo could win an election over Obama.

...yet john mccain couldnt.:doh2:

so what does that tell you about the GOP?

:sofunny:

NJarhead
07-15-2010, 08:12 PM
...yet john mccain couldnt.:doh2:

so what does that tell you about the GOP?

:sofunny:

That was before our original suspicions were actually confirmed.

If not Elmo, then maybe this rock:

http://geology.com/rocks/pictures/slate.jpg

May not be as good a public speaker, but then again look what that got us.
:chuckle:

7SteelGal43
07-15-2010, 08:30 PM
...yet john mccain couldnt.:doh2:

so what does that tell you about the GOP?

:sofunny:


That the GOP chose a candidate that wasn't really different than Obama ?!

Vincent
07-15-2010, 09:15 PM
I'd just like to add that Elmo could win an election over Obama.

Quote from the Czech Republic:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Brilliant assessment of the American predicament. A stupid electorate. Null and void of common sense. Dumb as a box of rocks. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we would let this happen.

I used to say it about clinton all the time - that a turd like that is President says more about us than about him. And this one is far worse.

Thank you for a great post WarDen!!

tony hipchest
07-15-2010, 09:23 PM
get a room.
http://www.steeluniverse.net/forums/image.php?u=141&dateline=1275533214 (http://www.steeluniverse.net/forums/member.php?141-tony-hipchest)
http://www.steeluniverse.net/image.php?u=141&dateline=1275533214 (http://www.steeluniverse.net/member.php?141-tony-hipchest)

Stlrs4Life
07-15-2010, 09:40 PM
It is? Well, that's news to me because we still have a 10% unemployment rate. This after Obama promised it wouldn't go above 8% when pushing to get that stimulus package passed. Are you going to criticize him for that, or just blame the Republicans again?

Was referring to and comparing it to Bushs stimulus. And there definately needs to be more jobs. He does need to work on that.

Stlrs4Life
07-15-2010, 09:44 PM
Depends on what "working" means, and for whom. bho has said to anybody that will listen that he's on a mission to "change" this country. He's bankrupting this country. He delivered a $1.4T deficit in his first year and has already run up another trillion in the first half of this year alone. I believe that he is serious about "change". The catch though is the definition of the word. To him it is the destruction of the Republic and capitalism by crippling our economy and vital institutions. So yes, "its working". And Creamer and Schakowsky are among his shills.


Well, how come nobody complained when Bush spent all that money on 2 different wars, and other countries, (And I know it takes money to be in a war, and agree with spending money on it.) but when Obama spends money on our own country and it's people yas complain?

Stlrs4Life
07-15-2010, 09:45 PM
Ah, the irony that Stlrs4Life would have that av. Probably doesn't know that Lambert used to have a bumper sticker on his truck that read: "Warning, I don't break for liberals".

:rofl2: :toofunny: :chuckle: :rofl:


Guess I can like him as a football player.

Stlrs4Life
07-15-2010, 09:48 PM
Ditto. :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Don't waste your font folks. The Obaaaaaama sheeple will never - EVER - acknowledge that their guy is as phony as a three dollar bill, and not qualified to hold the office of POTUS. He bullshits better than a used car salesman. Instead, they try to hide behind the bu, bu, bu Bush and GOP merry-go-round. :rolleyes2:

ONE AND DONE. Hallelujah!



Ahhhh. the Hypocrsy! Proves my point why they should change the Republican Party to The Hypocrite Party.

Stlrs4Life
07-15-2010, 09:52 PM
Bu, bu, bu Bush. Rinse, lather, repeat. :yawn:


What's wrong? Facts kill you don't they?


Regardless of what you think about Obama, surely you can recognize the nightmare he was handed when he took office, right?

And that nightmare, was and should be acknowledged as being on Bush's shoulders.

I'm not against criticizing Obama, but let's not let anyone else off the hook here when it comes to blame, which isn't contained to one man and one man only.

Wake up you Reps, Georgie W had his many faults, and screwed up more than you are willing to acknowledge now that a Dem is residing in the White House.

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

I hate politics.

It's blinding, polarizing, and seems to make people's minds go to mush, along with bringing out their hatred.

It's an ugly enterprise.


Excellent Post. Exactly why I stated that they shall now be known as the Hypocrite Party.


speaking of lather, rinse, and repeat.... the republicans have been beating the "ONE AND DONE" drum lately about as loudly as they banged the "HE WILL NEVER GET ELECTED" bongos.

how'd that work out for them? :toofunny:

they better start inventing a viable candidate here pretty quickly. time is running out! (another dirty little secret they dont want anyone to know is that they dont got one).

"dum ditty, dum ditty, dum dum dum"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Unyxx9yMoGg/St2sysraj9I/AAAAAAAAAUs/qoXhrNYJPjc/s320/Preschool+Week5_Mon+070.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0679890483.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

even michelle obama can read THAT writing on the wall. :chuckle:


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

NJarhead
07-15-2010, 09:53 PM
Ahhhh. the Hypocrsy! Proves my point why they should change the Republican Party to The Hypocrite Party.
Sure, just as soon as you guys own up to the title of Socialists.

:coffee:

NJarhead
07-15-2010, 09:54 PM
Excellent Post. Exactly why I stated that they shall now be known as the Hypocrite Party.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Get a room?

X-Terminator
07-15-2010, 09:55 PM
Well, how come nobody complained when Bush spent all that money on 2 different wars, and other countries, (And I know it takes money to be in a war, and agree with spending money on it.) but when Obama spends money on our own country and it's people yas complain?

It's not necessarily that it's spending it on our country, it's how MUCH he's spending and the horrible timing of all of this spending given our current financial crisis. The country cannot sustain the kind of spending Obama is proposing and implementing, at least not without massive tax increases, which you know is where we are ultimately headed. Good luck trying to convince someone who is struggling to make ends meet or a business owner trying like hell to stay in business that he or she has to pay more in taxes to pay for Obama's enormous spending bills.


Guess I can like him as a football player.

So if a person is not a liberal, you don't like him? Wow.


Ahhhh. the Hypocrsy! Proves my point why they should change the Republican Party to The Hypocrite Party.

What the hell are you talking about here? What did she say that was hypocritical? If you are implying that she's never bashed Bush but will bash Obama, you are both wrong AND haven't paid one iota of attention to anything she's ever posted.

Oh, and BTW, while you are throwing out the "hypocrite" label, you certainly have no problem at all bashing Bush...but yet you will defend Obama and any other Democrat to the teeth, even when they are clearly in the wrong. You know what they say about glass houses...

Stlrs4Life
07-15-2010, 09:56 PM
Brilliant assessment of the American predicament. A stupid electorate. Null and void of common sense. Dumb as a box of rocks. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we would let this happen.

I used to say it about clinton all the time - that a turd like that is President says more about us than about him. And this one is far worse.

Thank you for a great post WarDen!!


Wow, I thought the very same about Reagan and Dumbya. And of all the dumb voters that voted the Dumbest president in twice.

Stlrs4Life
07-15-2010, 10:00 PM
It's not necessarily that it's spending it on our country, it's how MUCH he's spending and the horrible timing of all of this spending given our current financial crisis. The country cannot sustain the kind of spending Obama is proposing and implementing, at least not without massive tax increases, which you know is where we are ultimately headed. Good luck trying to convince someone who is struggling to make ends meet or a business owner trying like hell to stay in business that he or she has to pay more in taxes to pay for Obama's enormous spending bills.



So if a person is not a liberal, you don't like him? Wow.



What the hell are you talking about here? What did she say that was hypocritical? If you are implying that she's never bashed Bush but will bash Obama, you are both wrong AND haven't paid one iota of attention to anything she's ever posted.


No I still like him as a person, just his political views, Wow!


Please, she hardly ever said anything bad about Dumbya or the Republicans in general.

X-Terminator
07-15-2010, 10:06 PM
Please, she hardly ever said anything bad about Dumbya or the Republicans in general.

Right. I guess that's why she's planning on supporting and voting for Dan Onorato, who is a DEMOCRAT, for Governor of PA. She also does not like Rush, Hannity or any of their clones, has criticized Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility and is not a really big fan of Newt Gingrich or any of HIS clones.

Try educating yourself first before you throw out accusations like that.

tony hipchest
07-15-2010, 11:31 PM
While I realize GWB was not the perfect Prez (who really was?), Obaaaaaama, in his short time in office thus far, has made things worse instead of better as he promised.

i guess that is all relative, now isnt it? i read so many say how there lives are in turmoil and how the world is going to end, but never really read any specifics. all i can say is my life certainly isnt worse. i could go into all the specifics, but wont at this time.

wasnt obama supposed to come and take all my guns, money, job, freedoms and liberties by now?


What positives has BO accomplished in his first 18 months? Zip, zilch, nada.
well for one, there arent 3000+ dead in the middle of NYC. obama has kept me and my family safe from terrorist attack. supposedly bush did the same but there are 3000+ families who would beg to differ. i feel just as safe now, as i did then.

wasnt we supposed to have a flood of terrorist attacks if bush and the fellow republicans werent on that wall protecting us?


hey Tony - see Obaaaaama's approval rating lately? By the time the elections roll around....

Dum Ditty Dum ditty dum dum dum

Vincent
07-16-2010, 09:26 AM
Ahhhh. the Hypocrsy! Proves my point why they should change the Republican Party to The Hypocrite Party.

I think the reason Republicans call themselves "Republicans" is because historically their core beliefs revolve around the concept of our republic. Their history is consistent with that “label”.

You do realize that we are a republic?

On that basis, I don’t see the “hypocrisy” you speak of. But please, illuminate our paths.

Vincent
07-16-2010, 09:28 AM
wasnt obama supposed to come and take all my guns, money, job, freedoms and liberties by now?

He's been golfing. Be patient Tony. He'll get to you.

Stlrs4Life
07-16-2010, 11:24 AM
Yeah, it's not working:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/15/joe-biden/joe-biden-lauds-obamas-job-creation-record/


"We went from losing 3 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration," adding almost 600,000 private sector jobs in the first six months of the year.

Joe Biden (http://politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/) on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 in a news conference

Joe Biden lauds Obama's job creation record

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-mostlytrue.gif Share this story:


retweet (http://button.topsy.com/retweet?nick=politifact&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Fstatements%2F2010%2Fjul%2F15%2Fjoe-biden%2Fjoe-biden-lauds-obamas-job-creation-record%2F&title=Biden%20pretty%20close%20in%20description%20 of%20Bush%20job%20losses%2C%20Obama%20job%20gains) 16 (http://topsy.com/www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/15/joe-biden/joe-biden-lauds-obamas-job-creation-record/?utm_source=button)




On July 14, 2010, Vice President Joe Biden and Christina Romer, who chairs the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, held a news conference to discuss the latest quarterly report on the impact of the economic stimulus bill enacted in February 2009.

At one point, Biden said, "We went from losing 3 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration and 3.6 million, or 3.7 million in the first six months we took office -- inheriting the policy we could not possibly turn around before we could pass anything -- to the first six months of this year, actually adding almost 600,000 private sector jobs."

With Republicans simultaneously putting a less favorable spin on the administration's record of job creation, we thought it would be worth checking each side's facts. (We also analyze a statement by House Minority Leader John Boehner.)

We'll take the claims in order.

• Did the economy shed 3 million jobs during the last six months of President George W. Bush's administration? Actually, that understates the losses.

In July 2008, the general employment level was 137,075,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By January 2009, it was 133,549,000 -- a decline of about 3.5 million jobs.

• Did the economy shed 3.6 million or 3.7 million jobs in the first six months under Obama? That modestly overstates the losses.

In January 2009, the general employment level was 133,549,000. In July 2009, it was 130,294,000. That's a decline of 3.26 million jobs.

• Did the economy add almost 600,000 private sector jobs during the first six months of this year? Very, very close.

In December 2009, the number of private-sector jobs stood at 107,107,000. By June 2010, the number was 107,700,000. That's a difference of 593,000 jobs -- "almost 600,000" in our book.

In all, Biden's numbers understated the losses under Bush and overstated the losses under Obama, but both of these errors work against the administration's own interests. And in the third case, Biden's number easily qualifies as "almost 600,000." All in all, we rate Biden's statement Mostly True.

Stlrs4Life
07-16-2010, 11:28 AM
Right. I guess that's why she's planning on supporting and voting for Dan Onorato, who is a DEMOCRAT, for Governor of PA. She also does not like Rush, Hannity or any of their clones, has criticized Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility and is not a really big fan of Newt Gingrich or any of HIS clones.

Try educating yourself first before you throw out accusations like that.


Funny you would mention that. Though I like Onorato, I'm looking to vote for Corbett, a Republican. For some stupid reason Pa runs better with a Republican Governor. I can not stand Rendell. Just couldn't vote for Swann. Doesn't like Rush? Please, every one of yas sound just like him.

X-Terminator
07-16-2010, 11:32 AM
We still have big companies laying workers off (UPMC, WPAHS) that are going to add to the numbers of jobs being lost. And of those 593,000 jobs, how many of them will be permanent jobs? I'm willing to bet it won't be all that many. Construction jobs have a finite life span, and when those jobs are done, those people will be looking for work. It is also a drop in the bucket compared to the number of jobs that have been lost. So I wouldn't going around partying like it's 1999 because of that.

Stlrs4Life
07-16-2010, 11:37 AM
Either would I.

X-Terminator
07-16-2010, 11:38 AM
Funny you would mention that. Though I like Onorato, I'm looking to vote for Corbett, a Republican. For some stupid reason Pa runs better with a Republican Governor. I can not stand Rendell. Just couldn't vote for Swann. Doesn't like Rush? Please, every one of yas sound just like him.

So because there are some issues that we may agree on, that means we like him? Nice logic. It's also incorrect. Am I to assume then that you're a big Keith Olbermann fan because you share a lot of views with him? You don't have to like someone to agree with them. And besides, we don't agree with him on everything.

BTW, HTG also worked for the late Katherine Baker-Knoll, who was also a Democrat. She voted for Bill Clinton and didn't really like Bush the first time around. Hell, I didn't either, which is why I did not vote in the 2000 election because I also didn't like Gore. Again, education is crucial.

However, I'm honestly surprised that you are going to vote for a Republican and don't like Rendell, considering how much of a shill you appear to be for the Democratic party. Obviously I need to educate myself before making assumptions about you. With HTG, and myself - and apparently you as well - it has NEVER been about party when it comes to who we vote for. It has always been about the person running for office. You can choose to believe that...or not, I really don't care.

MasterOfPuppets
07-16-2010, 11:41 AM
It is also a drop in the bucket compared to the number of jobs that have been lost. So I wouldn't going around partying like it's 1999 because of that.

"if you didn't come to party, don't bother knockin at my door ..." :toofunny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnuijDieOvY

7SteelGal43
07-16-2010, 11:47 AM
What's wrong? Facts kill you don't they?


Here's some facts for you. The "Bush started it" defense doesn't cut it anymore. Unemployment, the debt, the deficit, unifying our country, public image of the U.S. in the eyes of the rest of the world (which I personally couldn't give a shit about). Not only has Obama not made any improvements in any of these areas, he's actually made the first four much worse. It's like continuing to fault the guy that took a screwdriver and poked a hole in the boat while defending the guy who hit it with a barrage of missile fire.

Vincent
07-16-2010, 01:45 PM
...And of all the dumb voters that voted the Dumbest president in twice.

There are several things about Dubya, Shrub, or whatever you want to call him that distinguish him from "the dumb".

First, he is able to speak. Second, he is able to speak without a teleprompter, a fact that he shares with all the previous presidents, and one that separates them all from the current occupant of the White House.

Third, our 43rd President had a long and successful business career prior to entering office, hardly the province of "the dumb". Personal accomplishment is another factor he shares with most previous Presidents, and another factor that separates them from the current occupant of the White House.

Fourth, our 43rd President is the first President to have earned an MBA, and from no less than the Harvard Business School. This is a distinction he shares with many of our corporate elite.

Say what you will about our 43rd President, many have. He will handle it with grace. That is what most impresses me about that man. I disagree with him on some things political, but I respect him as the man he is, and for the job he did while in office. I believe that he gave his best effort, yet another factor that separates him from the current occupant of the White House.

Stlrs4Life
07-16-2010, 03:18 PM
There are several things about Dubya, Shrub, or whatever you want to call him that distinguish him from "the dumb".

First, he is able to speak. Second, he is able to speak without a teleprompter, a fact that he shares with all the previous presidents, and one that separates them all from the current occupant of the White House.

Third, our 43rd President had a long and successful business career prior to entering office, hardly the province of "the dumb". Personal accomplishment is another factor he shares with most previous Presidents, and another factor that separates them from the current occupant of the White House.

Fourth, our 43rd President is the first President to have earned an MBA, and from no less than the Harvard Business School. This is a distinction he shares with many of our corporate elite.

Say what you will about our 43rd President, many have. He will handle it with grace. That is what most impresses me about that man. I disagree with him on some things political, but I respect him as the man he is, and for the job he did while in office. I believe that he gave his best effort, yet another factor that separates him from the current occupant of the White House.


Please, strategerie. Anyhow Obama is in the same situation, he's trying to do the same that you speak of in GW.


Who cares if he goes back to a teleprompter, your girlfriend Palin does the same. Who cares. Maybe he did put his best effort.

Stlrs4Life
07-16-2010, 03:23 PM
So because there are some issues that we may agree on, that means we like him? Nice logic. It's also incorrect. Am I to assume then that you're a big Keith Olbermann fan because you share a lot of views with him? You don't have to like someone to agree with them. And besides, we don't agree with him on everything.

BTW, HTG also worked for the late Katherine Baker-Knoll, who was also a Democrat. She voted for Bill Clinton and didn't really like Bush the first time around. Hell, I didn't either, which is why I did not vote in the 2000 election because I also didn't like Gore. Again, education is crucial.

However, I'm honestly surprised that you are going to vote for a Republican and don't like Rendell, considering how much of a shill you appear to be for the Democratic party. Obviously I need to educate myself before making assumptions about you. With HTG, and myself - and apparently you as well - it has NEVER been about party when it comes to who we vote for. It has always been about the person running for office. You can choose to believe that...or not, I really don't care.


Surprised? No, far as I'm concerned Rendell is an idiot. And wish Catherine Baker Knoll was our Governor. (May she RIP) His idea of tolling I-80, and the way the casinos were handled were rediculous. I still will study Dan Onorato, I don't know if he has enough cash or power to beat Corbett.

Vincent
07-16-2010, 04:03 PM
Please, strategerie. Anyhow Obama is in the same situation, he's trying to do the same that you speak of in GW.

"strategerie" has become one of my favorite business terms. "Obama is trying"??!! To what, improve his handicap?


Who cares if he goes back to a teleprompter, your girlfriend Palin does the same. Who cares. Maybe he did put his best effort.

Most pols use teleprompters. They can also speak "off the cuff". I seriously doubt that bho could @#$% without a teleprompter. He certainly can't speak.

You presume. I think Mrs Palin is an attractive and well spoken woman that is in no way qualified to be President. But at that, she is head and shoulders more qualified than the Kenyan interloper.

X-Terminator
07-16-2010, 04:22 PM
Surprised? No, far as I'm concerned Rendell is an idiot. And wish Catherine Baker Knoll was our Governor. (May she RIP) His idea of tolling I-80, and the way the casinos were handled were rediculous. I still will study Dan Onorato, I don't know if he has enough cash or power to beat Corbett.

Well, we agree that Rendell is an idiot. I'll give him partial credit for helping to save the Pens, but that's about it. Can't wait to send his fat, pompous ass back to Philly with the rest of the trash.

Right now, I don't know if Onorato has enough to beat Corbett - he does have a huge amount of support. But I still support Dan and will still vote for him. I think he'd do a good job for the state, certainly better than Fat Eddie.

Shea
07-16-2010, 04:29 PM
XT, why are you always stepping in to answer for HTG?

She's a highly intelligent person and can speak for herself, so let her.

X-Terminator
07-16-2010, 04:33 PM
XT, why are you always stepping in to answer for HTG?

She's a highly intelligent person and can speak for herself, so let her.

Because I want to. Because that's what friends do.

Problem?

SteelCityMan786
07-16-2010, 04:37 PM
Those rebates were passed out as stimulus checks. The Bush Tax cuts that you speak of are a totally different issue. Wonder why you republicans never bitched about that stimulus money? And how it raised the nat'l debt?

Maybe it's because we live in a world where everyone will go apeshit for free stuff? Democrats are no more innocent then Republicans with this one. Plus you had to figure some would eventually pocket the money for the time being


Here's another fun one:



Let's flashback to 2003, when the Bush administration proposed altering the regulation of entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Bush administration saw a problem coming, but Democrats disagreed. Here's what Democratic leader Barney Frank had to say:

"I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.

I must say we have an interesting example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is that the Federal Government is obligated to bail out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as I said, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy by some people.

So let me make it clear, I am a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing, but nobody who invests in them should come looking to me for a nickel--nor anybody else in the Federal Government. And if investors take some comfort and want to lend them a little money and less interest rates, because they like this set of affiliations, good, because housing will benefit. But there is no guarantee, there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest, and you are on your own.

Now, we have got a system that I think has worked very well to help housing. The high cost of housing is one of the great social bombs of this country. I would rank it second to the inadequacy of our health delivery system as a problem that afflicts many, many Americans. We have gotten recent reports about the difficulty here.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, both in general through leveraging the mortgage market, and in particular, they have a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing, and that is what I am concerned about here. I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals. I worry frankly that there is a tension here.

The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

Ladies and Gentlemen I present the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party Exposed in one article. They bitch at Republicans about doing nothing when they made an effort to do something about it. Hmmmmm, maybe because they saw something coming and Democrats didn't. Nice Job Democraps :upyours:


Well, by helping them, it turned around and helped us also. I'm glad I rreceived those checks also, but Bushs stimulus didn't help or create any jobs. Obamas stimulus is working.

Helped us? Tell that the 9.5% who are right now unemployed with the 4 million+ who have lost jobs


The "rebates" were supposed to be paid based on what you PAID in taxes, meaning you don't "get free money", you simply "don't pay as much money".

Liberal whackjobs think that tax cuts = handing out money instead of what it actually is, not TAKING AS MUCH MONEY.

Yeah and they act like it's no big deal when they do stuff like that. Honestly that party is blown up right now and needs a complete overhaul (And that includes the face of said party who was the most underqualified person to run for President in my young life.)


10% unemployment and a deficit 4 times what bushs deficit was. And done in just under 2 yrs, very impressive mr. prez.

They could learn a nice example from Virginia. Control spending, and what do you know? They're out of the Red.


Ditto. :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Don't waste your font folks. The Obaaaaaama sheeple will never - EVER - acknowledge that their guy is as phony as a three dollar bill, and not qualified to hold the office of POTUS. He bullshits better than a used car salesman. Instead, they try to hide behind the bu, bu, bu Bush and GOP merry-go-round. :rolleyes2:

ONE AND DONE. Hallelujah!

I never bought that arguement since it was used for the first time. Last I checked all Political offices are held by members of at least 2 national political parties in Washington. Hmmmmmm, maybe both of them could finally realize they have to work with each other which makes me hope for the sake of this country, we get a third party in congress that way they have no choice whatsoever.


The economy was in free fall when Obama took office... I guess that was when Bush was about to make his move...

Since Obama took office it has been a disaster. We have seen our 2nd worst unemployment rates in the history of the country. Worst being the Depression of course.


speaking of lather, rinse, and repeat.... the republicans have been beating the "ONE AND DONE" drum lately about as loudly as they banged the "HE WILL NEVER GET ELECTED" bongos.

how'd that work out for them? :toofunny:

they better start inventing a viable candidate here pretty quickly. time is running out! (another dirty little secret they dont want anyone to know is that they dont got one).

"dum ditty, dum ditty, dum dum dum"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Unyxx9yMoGg/St2sysraj9I/AAAAAAAAAUs/qoXhrNYJPjc/s320/Preschool+Week5_Mon+070.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0679890483.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

even michelle obama can read THAT writing on the wall. :chuckle:

Tim Pawlenty buddy. Hell I'll take Bob McDonell running. These guys have something that Obama didn't have before the election. That's called executive experience. I trust them more with the office of President more then I can trust Obama. and I can't even believe I said I could still sleep easy at night with Obama as President. I don't think I have been proven wrong about a politician in my life since Bush was president.


While I realize GWB was not the perfect Prez (who really was?), Obaaaaaama, in his short time in office thus far, has made things worse instead of better as he promised. He simply is not qualified to hold the highest office in the land and can bullshit even better than tony hipcheese. :heh: I can say with 100% honesty that my feelings about Obaaaaama have absolutely NOTHING to do with his political party, but everything to do with him being totally clueless and unqualified to be the President of the United States. As I said, GWB didn't have a perfect track record but he did do some good things while in office. What positives has BO accomplished in his first 18 months? Zip, zilch, nada.

Speaking of Obaaaaaaama's voice on this BB - hey Tony - see Obaaaaama's approval rating lately? By the time the elections roll around, he'll be rated even lower than GWB. :lol: Even members of his own party are turning on him. :lol:

No politician in DC ever has been. Some have come close.


"millions of fingers, millions of thumbs, millions of monkeys drumming on drums!"

Dum Ditty Dum ditty dum dum dum

...yet john mccain couldnt.:doh2:

so what does that tell you about the GOP?

:sofunny:

That people were only being fed up with the GOP because of the LIBERAL media.

Stay away from certain MSNBC folks kids (You know who I am talking about Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow)


Well, how come nobody complained when Bush spent all that money on 2 different wars, and other countries, (And I know it takes money to be in a war, and agree with spending money on it.) but when Obama spends money on our own country and it's people yas complain?

Afghanistan I have no trouble with because those nutjobs attacked us. Iraq not so much. Obama is learning a critical lesson in politics. You're not going to keep everyone happy. In fact, that's a fact of life.


Ahhhh. the Hypocrsy! Proves my point why they should change the Republican Party to The Hypocrite Party.

Democrats are no more innocent then Republicans are. In fact, they're MUCH MUCH MUCH worse.

SteelCityMan786
07-16-2010, 04:38 PM
Part 2 (Due to excessive Characters)



Yeah, it's not working:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/15/joe-biden/joe-biden-lauds-obamas-job-creation-record/


"We went from losing 3 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration," adding almost 600,000 private sector jobs in the first six months of the year.

Joe Biden (http://politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/) on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 in a news conference

Joe Biden lauds Obama's job creation record

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-mostlytrue.gif Share this story:


retweet (http://button.topsy.com/retweet?nick=politifact&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Fstatements%2F2010%2Fjul%2F15%2Fjoe-biden%2Fjoe-biden-lauds-obamas-job-creation-record%2F&title=Biden%20pretty%20close%20in%20description%20 of%20Bush%20job%20losses%2C%20Obama%20job%20gains) 16 (http://topsy.com/www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/15/joe-biden/joe-biden-lauds-obamas-job-creation-record/?utm_source=button)




On July 14, 2010, Vice President Joe Biden and Christina Romer, who chairs the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, held a news conference to discuss the latest quarterly report on the impact of the economic stimulus bill enacted in February 2009.

At one point, Biden said, "We went from losing 3 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration and 3.6 million, or 3.7 million in the first six months we took office -- inheriting the policy we could not possibly turn around before we could pass anything -- to the first six months of this year, actually adding almost 600,000 private sector jobs."

With Republicans simultaneously putting a less favorable spin on the administration's record of job creation, we thought it would be worth checking each side's facts. (We also analyze a statement by House Minority Leader John Boehner.)

We'll take the claims in order.

• Did the economy shed 3 million jobs during the last six months of President George W. Bush's administration? Actually, that understates the losses.

In July 2008, the general employment level was 137,075,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By January 2009, it was 133,549,000 -- a decline of about 3.5 million jobs.

• Did the economy shed 3.6 million or 3.7 million jobs in the first six months under Obama? That modestly overstates the losses.

In January 2009, the general employment level was 133,549,000. In July 2009, it was 130,294,000. That's a decline of 3.26 million jobs.

• Did the economy add almost 600,000 private sector jobs during the first six months of this year? Very, very close.

In December 2009, the number of private-sector jobs stood at 107,107,000. By June 2010, the number was 107,700,000. That's a difference of 593,000 jobs -- "almost 600,000" in our book.

In all, Biden's numbers understated the losses under Bush and overstated the losses under Obama, but both of these errors work against the administration's own interests. And in the third case, Biden's number easily qualifies as "almost 600,000." All in all, we rate Biden's statement Mostly True.

Let me know when a major organization confirms it. I don't buy it.


Funny you would mention that. Though I like Onorato, I'm looking to vote for Corbett, a Republican. For some stupid reason Pa runs better with a Republican Governor. I can not stand Rendell. Just couldn't vote for Swann. Doesn't like Rush? Please, every one of yas sound just like him.

Well Selected. :clap2:


So because there are some issues that we may agree on, that means we like him? Nice logic. It's also incorrect. Am I to assume then that you're a big Keith Olbermann fan because you share a lot of views with him? You don't have to like someone to agree with them. And besides, we don't agree with him on everything.

BTW, HTG also worked for the late Katherine Baker-Knoll, who was also a Democrat. She voted for Bill Clinton and didn't really like Bush the first time around. Hell, I didn't either, which is why I did not vote in the 2000 election because I also didn't like Gore. Again, education is crucial.

However, I'm honestly surprised that you are going to vote for a Republican and don't like Rendell, considering how much of a shill you appear to be for the Democratic party. Obviously I need to educate myself before making assumptions about you. With HTG, and myself - and apparently you as well - it has NEVER been about party when it comes to who we vote for. It has always been about the person running for office. You can choose to believe that...or not, I really don't care.

I could care less for a guy like Rush. Hannity is coming down to earth a little bit but I still have my want to puke with him. Bill O is probably one of the few I can put up with consistantly. Chris Matthews I can watch his show and not want to puke either.


We still have big companies laying workers off (UPMC, WPAHS) that are going to add to the numbers of jobs being lost. And of those 593,000 jobs, how many of them will be permanent jobs? I'm willing to bet it won't be all that many. Construction jobs have a finite life span, and when those jobs are done, those people will be looking for work. It is also a drop in the bucket compared to the number of jobs that have been lost. So I wouldn't going around partying like it's 1999 because of that.

Jobs come and go regardless of the industry. Just sucks that a lot of the ones I hear about now a days are said temporary jobs.


Here's some facts for you. The "Bush started it" defense doesn't cut it anymore. Unemployment, the debt, the deficit, unifying our country, public image of the U.S. in the eyes of the rest of the world (which I personally couldn't give a shit about). Not only has Obama not made any improvements in any of these areas, he's actually made the first four much worse. It's like continuing to fault the guy that took a screwdriver and poked a hole in the boat while defending the guy who hit it with a barrage of missile fire.

Never did cut it. Both Parties screwed up and both Parties must fix it. If a third party is need to fix the problem, then that's fine with me. Just make sure it's the right candidate.

Shea
07-16-2010, 04:55 PM
Because I want to. Because that's what friends do.

Problem?

Not normally, but I was catagorized as a whorshipping dolt when I agreed with certain people myself here, even though I'm not personal friends with them. Maybe it wouldn't have happened if I was "one of the guys".

Suck up I believe was what I was referred to, yet you and others do the exact same thing I was criticized for.

Like me, HTG has a brain of her own and can respond for herself.

X-Terminator
07-16-2010, 07:50 PM
Not normally, but I was catagorized as a whorshipping dolt when I agreed with certain people myself here, even though I'm not personal friends with them. Maybe it wouldn't have happened if I was "one of the guys".

Suck up I believe was what I was referred to, yet you and others do the exact same thing I was criticized for.

Like me, HTG has a brain of her own and can respond for herself.

Defending a personal friend online is not "sucking up," and you know it.

Of course HTG has a brain of her own and can respond for herself. But that does not mean I shouldn't be allowed to stick up for her whenever necessary. Like I said, that's what friends do. I'm also not "piling on" or deliberately baiting him in order to get a reaction.

I'm not going to get any further into this. You can think and believe whatever you want.

Shea
07-16-2010, 08:11 PM
Defending a personal friend online is not "sucking up," and you know it.

Of course HTG has a brain of her own and can respond for herself. But that does not mean I shouldn't be allowed to stick up for her whenever necessary. Like I said, that's what friends do. I'm also not "piling on" or deliberately baiting him in order to get a reaction.

I'm not going to get any further into this. You can think and believe whatever you want.

I also should be allowed to stick up for anyone I deem so, and post my point of view as well with people I agree with without being insulted, which looks like is still being done here.

I never "piled on" nor posted anything to deliberately bait someone in order to get a reaction. I expressed my opinion, and nothing else, and because of nobody else.

And you can think and believe whatever you want as well.

Wallace108
07-16-2010, 08:47 PM
Yeah, it's not working:

"We went from losing 3 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration," adding almost 600,000 private sector jobs in the first six months of the year.

I'm not an expert, but I think the reason layoffs have dropped off is not because the economy is recovering but because many companies have cut back as much as they can while still being able to operate. You can only cut back so much without going under.

As far as the Obama administration creating 600,000 private sector jobs, how many of those jobs are permanent? Once the roads and bridges are built, what happens to those jobs?

Godfather
07-16-2010, 09:02 PM
Fourth, our 43rd President is the first President to have earned an MBA, and from no less than the Harvard Business School. This is a distinction he shares with many of our corporate elite.


Big deal. Al Gore also has an Ivy League degree. They give those out like candy to blue-bloods. If you're rich and stupid, go Ivy. If you don't believe it, find a straight-C student and see if he gets into Harvard Business School. And comparing him to our corporate elite is hardly an endorsement. They're the ones who got us where we are now.

W's "successful" business background is basically running a few companies into the ground. He had two successes--one when he dumped all his stock in Harken Energy a few weeks before Saddam invaded Kuwait, leaving everyone else holding the bag. His other was buying the Rangers with daddy's money, increasing the franchise's value with a stadium (taxpayers' money), and selling a few years after that.

W was an incompetent buffoon just like his assclown Chicom-loving old man. And his incompetence is why we're stuck with Obama now.

SteelCityMan786
07-16-2010, 09:33 PM
Not normally, but I was catagorized as a whorshipping dolt when I agreed with certain people myself here, even though I'm not personal friends with them. Maybe it wouldn't have happened if I was "one of the guys".

Suck up I believe was what I was referred to, yet you and others do the exact same thing I was criticized for.

Like me, HTG has a brain of her own and can respond for herself.

Nothing wrong with standing up for anyone. That's something people don't get.


Defending a personal friend online is not "sucking up," and you know it.

Of course HTG has a brain of her own and can respond for herself. But that does not mean I shouldn't be allowed to stick up for her whenever necessary. Like I said, that's what friends do. I'm also not "piling on" or deliberately baiting him in order to get a reaction.

I'm not going to get any further into this. You can think and believe whatever you want.

BINGO. People have criticized me for standing up for one of my friends all last school year. Personally I see nothing wrong with standing up for someone. Especially when they need someone else to stand beside them during a tough time in their lives.

I love high school logic.........(End of sarcastic statement. The rest is serious)


I also should be allowed to stick up for anyone I deem so, and post my point of view as well with people I agree with without being insulted, which looks like is still being done here.

I never "piled on" nor posted anything to deliberately bait someone in order to get a reaction. I expressed my opinion, and nothing else, and because of nobody else.

And you can think and believe whatever you want as well.

You haven't given me any reason to believe you have done so either. I am just call it what it is high school level logic. Personally that annoys me about the maturity of some people these days.


I'm not an expert, but I think the reason layoffs have dropped off is not because the economy is recovering but because many companies have cut back as much as they can while still being able to operate. You can only cut back so much without going under.

As far as the Obama administration creating 600,000 private sector jobs, how many of those jobs are permanent? Once the roads and bridges are built, what happens to those jobs?

Exactly. If they cut back any further they would ultimately have no choice but to either make a massive amount of hirings or file for Chapter 7.

tony hipchest
07-16-2010, 09:40 PM
anyways... back on topic-
Big deal. Al Gore also has an Ivy League degree. They give those out like candy to blue-bloods. If you're rich and stupid, go Ivy. If you don't believe it, find a straight-C student and see if he gets into Harvard Business School. And comparing him to our corporate elite is hardly an endorsement. They're the ones who got us where we are now.

W's "successful" business background is basically running a few companies into the ground. He had two successes--one when he dumped all his stock in Harken Energy a few weeks before Saddam invaded Kuwait, leaving everyone else holding the bag. His other was buying the Rangers with daddy's money, increasing the franchise's value with a stadium (taxpayers' money), and selling a few years after that.

W was an incompetent buffoon just like his assclown Chicom-loving old man. And his incompetence is why we're stuck with Obama now.

:toofunny: its so funny because it is so true and a dirty little secret republicans dont want you to know.

Vincent
07-16-2010, 11:21 PM
W was an incompetent buffoon just like his assclown Chicom-loving old man. And his incompetence is why we're stuck with Obama now.

No argument.

I commented in the context of the author of the thread's comment that W and those that voted for him are dumb. I voted for him, and while I'm a lot of things, dumb isn't one of them. I am no fan of any Bush, but considering the alternatives, one holds one's nose.

N 'sides, Bugs wasn't running.

Wallace108
07-16-2010, 11:25 PM
anyways... back on topic-

:toofunny: its so funny because it is so true and a dirty little secret republicans dont want you to know.

What's funny and a dirty little secret that Democrats don't want you to know is that Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the good economy of the 90s. Everyone credits Clinton and the Democrats with the economy during that time period. But what else happened around that time? Hmmmm, maybe the computer and Internet revolution?

Think about the millions of jobs that were created during the 90s because of computers and the Internet ... none of which Clinton's policies had ANYTHING to do with (unless you want to give Al Gore credit for creating the Internet). Now let's talk about NAFTA, GAT, and other trade agreements that Clinton signed that allowed all of our manufacturing jobs to leave the country.

As much as people like to bash Bush, it was actually Clinton's policies that created the mess we're in. Who was the last Democrat that actually did anything beneficial for America?

Vincent
07-16-2010, 11:31 PM
Who was the last Democrat that actually did anything beneficial for America?

JFK cut taxes. Aside from that I can't think of a thing that democrats have done to benefit anybody but themselves. A lot of crosses were burned though.

Wallace108
07-16-2010, 11:38 PM
JFK cut taxes. Aside from that I can't think of a thing that democrats have done to benefit anybody but themselves. A lot of crosses were burned though.

I was thinking JFK as well. We have to go back more than 40 years ... :chuckle:
It must be Bush's fault. :lol:

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID25407/images/political-pictures-iowa-flooding-bush-fault.jpg

tony hipchest
07-16-2010, 11:49 PM
What's funny and a dirty little secret that Democrats don't want you to know is that Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the good economy of the 90s. Everyone credits Clinton and the Democrats with the economy during that time period. But what else happened around that time? Hmmmm, maybe the computer and Internet revolution?

uh yeah... and who invented the internet? clintons veep al gore. duh. get with the program, man. :doh2:

MasterOfPuppets
07-16-2010, 11:54 PM
What's funny and a dirty little secret that Democrats don't want you to know is that Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the good economy of the 90s. Everyone credits Clinton and the Democrats with the economy during that time period. But what else happened around that time? Hmmmm, maybe the computer and Internet revolution?

Think about the millions of jobs that were created during the 90s because of computers and the Internet ... none of which Clinton's policies had ANYTHING to do with (unless you want to give Al Gore credit for creating the Internet). Now let's talk about NAFTA, GAT, and other trade agreements that Clinton signed that allowed all of our manufacturing jobs to leave the country.

As much as people like to bash Bush, it was actually Clinton's policies that created the mess we're in. Who was the last Democrat that actually did anything beneficial for America?


What's funny and a dirty little secret that Democrats don't want you to know is that Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the good economy of the 90s. Everyone credits Clinton and the Democrats with the economy during that time period. But what else happened around that time? Hmmmm, maybe the computer and Internet revolution?

Think about the millions of jobs that were created during the 90s because of computers and the Internet ... none of which Clinton's policies had ANYTHING to do with (unless you want to give Al Gore credit for creating the Internet). Now let's talk about NAFTA, GAT, and other trade agreements that Clinton signed that allowed all of our manufacturing jobs to leave the country.

As much as people like to bash Bush, it was actually Clinton's policies that created the mess we're in. Who was the last Democrat that actually did anything beneficial for America?

here's some light reading for ya ....


NAFTA was a Clinton policy. That is absolute truth.
By Scott Tibbs, January 7, 2009

The North American Free Trade Agreement is a controversial policy. Supporters of NAFTA argue (among other things) that increased trade benefits American consumers though more competition and that free trade helps less wealthy countries improve their standard of living. Opponents of NAFTA argue (among other things) that NAFTA has encouraged the manufacturing sector to seek cheaper labor in Mexico, and has harmed American workers. I am a supporter of NAFTA and have been since Congress debated and passed it in 1993, but the point of this post is not to explore the public policy benefits of NAFTA, but to consider who gets credit for it.

Since it was passed, NAFTA has been linked to former President Clinton. This has drawn harsh criticism from some on the Left, including one person who recently stated in the comments section on HeraldTimesOnline.com that calling it "Clinton's NAFTA" will never be accurate by any stretch of the imagination..

It is true that NAFTA was initiated by a Republican President, and that more Republicans than Democrats supported the agreement when Congress voted on it. Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against NAFTA by a margin of 156 to 102, while Republicans supported NAFTA by a margin of 132 to 43. Clinton would have been dealt a significant legislative defeat in his first year in office had the Republicans in Congress not supported his position on NAFTA.

Nonetheless, it is an irrefutable, undeniable and universally accepted historical fact that President Clinton openly supported NAFTA, lobbied for NAFTA, and signed NAFTA into law. Quite simply, the statement that NAFTA was a Clinton policy is absolute truth. If someone wants to make the argument that NAFTA was a Republican policy, that would be a reasonable and historically accurate argument, one I obviously and very clearly agree with. After all, Clinton was opposed to the majority of his party. Nonetheless, NAFTA was also a Clinton policy, and the two facts are not mutually exclusive.

So why is it that NAFTA gets tied to Clinton more than Republicans in Congress. Some have argued that Republicans are attempting to "blame" Clinton for NAFTA for political reasons while ignoring the role Republicans played in getting it passed. In some cases, that is true. An honest historical account of NAFTA should include the fact that it would never have passed without the support of Republicans. However, is the fact that NAFTA is usually tied only to Clinton an example of dishonestly leaving out some of the facts? While that is true in some cases, that is not true in all cases.

One of the realities of American politics is that the blame/credit for policies implemented at the national level usually land on the President. Obviously, the President is the most visible and memorable figure in discussions of public policy at the national level. One person leads the executive branch while there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate, so it is natural for the President to be most prominently remembered as the primary advocate of public policy during his term.

While it is reasonable to characterize NAFTA as a Republican policy, it is highly dishonest to minimize the role that President Clinton played in supporting NAFTA. When it was stated as a fact that Clinton openly supported NAFTA, a poster on HeraldTimesOnline.com responses by saying (t)his is what we, in the reality based community, characterize as an "opinion."

Of course, that is not an opinion. It is a fact, and this individual knows it. That Clinton openly supported NAFTA is a fact documented by mountains of historical evidence. Claiming that a "fact" is actually an "opinion" is historical revisionism. In other words, it is a lie, and that means anyone who characterizes a fact as an "opinion" is a liar.

Wallace108
07-16-2010, 11:55 PM
uh yeah... and who invented the internet? clintons veep al gore. duh. get with the program, man. :doh2:

LOL ... way ahead of you tony. :chuckle:


Think about the millions of jobs that were created during the 90s because of computers and the Internet ... none of which Clinton's policies had ANYTHING to do with (unless you want to give Al Gore credit for creating the Internet).

Wallace108
07-17-2010, 12:12 AM
here's some light reading for ya ....

I assure you MOP, I blame the Republicans just as much as I blame the Democrats. I've argued for a long time that NEITHER party gives a rat's ass about us. But I get tired of hearing people blame Bush for everything. Our economic collapse has been in the works for a long time ... and both Democrats AND Republicans are guilty.

MasterOfPuppets
07-17-2010, 01:01 AM
I assure you MOP, I blame the Republicans just as much as I blame the Democrats. I've argued for a long time that NEITHER party gives a rat's ass about us. But I get tired of hearing people blame Bush for everything. Our economic collapse has been in the works for a long time ... and both Democrats AND Republicans are guilty.

hell bush wanted to expand NAFTA to other countries....


Bush defends free-trade policy
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — President Bush chastised lawmakers on Tuesday for letting international trade deals falter in Congress and criticized Democratic presidential contenders for wanting to scrap or amend the vast North American free-trade zone.

At the close of a two-day summit, Bush, along with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, stood solidly behind the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under NAFTA, trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico has swelled from roughly $290 billion in 1994 to an estimated $1 trillion by the end of this year.

"Now is not the time to renegotiate NAFTA or walk away from NAFTA," Bush said. "Now is the time to make it work better for all our people. And now is the time to reduce trade barriers worldwide."


Bush, NAFTA partners urge Colombia pact
NEW ORLEANS - President Bush used a summit meeting yesterday with the leaders of Mexico and Canada to push for congressional approval of a controversial free-trade pact with Colombia and to reiterate his belief that the struggling US economy is not experiencing a recession.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/23/bush_nafta_partners_urge_colombia_pact/

Wallace108
07-17-2010, 01:10 AM
hell bush wanted to expand NAFTA to other countries....

MOP, when it comes to Bush's policies on trade, border security, spending, and several other issues, I'll be at the front of the mob with my pitchfork. :yup:

My issue is when everyone wants to blame Bush for our economic crisis ...

MasterOfPuppets
07-17-2010, 01:19 AM
MOP, when it comes to Bush's policies on trade, border security, spending, and several other issues, I'll be at the front of the mob with my pitchfork. :yup:

My issue is when everyone wants to blame Bush for our economic crisis ...
if your not part of the solution, you're part of the problem...

here's the funny part ...clinton after 8 years, economy good , surplus .... reagan's doing
...............................bush after 8 years , economy sucks, big deficit .....not bush's fault , its obama's.
so which is it ? pass the buck forward , or backwards ?

Wallace108
07-17-2010, 01:29 AM
if your not part of the solution, you're part of the problem...

I agree ... Bush wasn't part of the solution, therefore he was part of the problem. But he wasn't THE problem.


here's the funny part ...clinton after 8 years, economy good , surplus .... reagan's doing
...............................bush after 8 years , economy sucks, big deficit .....not bush's fault , its obama's.
so which is it ? pass the buck forward , or backwards ?
The economy was good for most of Clinton's presidency, but as I've said, it was all about the computer and Internet revolution. It had nothing to do with Clinton OR Reagan. Presidents get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go poorly. As far as the "surplus" that Clinton left Bush, was there really a surplus? http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

As far as what's happening now, I don't blame Obama. But instead of improving the situation, I'm afraid he's making it worse.

tony hipchest
07-17-2010, 01:34 AM
MOP, when it comes to Bush's policies on trade, border security, spending, and several other issues, I'll be at the front of the mob with my pitchfork. :yup:

My issue is when everyone wants to blame Bush for our economic crisis ...nah... the real blame lies with his texapublican buddy "foreclosure" phil gramm.

you know, the guy who was mccains economic advisor and was rumored to be his treasurer if elected until his "dirty little secrets" were brought to the forefront-

http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil

file:///C:/Users/Andrea/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png http://motherjones.com/files/package-page-header/economy_JA08_620x60.jpg (http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2008/07/economy)














Foreclosure Phil


http://motherjones.com/files/imagecache/master-image/legacy/news/feature/2008/07/phil-gramm-320x240.jpg
Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown.



Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Advertisement
Advertise on MotherJones.com (http://motherjones.com/about/advertising/contact-form)

Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.
But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.
It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork—far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."


It didn't quite work out that way. For starters, the legislation contained a provision—lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm—that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)
But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security) will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.
In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important—and more lucrative—than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the cftc's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets."
These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown," says Greenberger. "I happen to think Gramm did not know what he was doing. I don't think a member in Congress had read the 262-page bill or had thought of the cataclysm it would cause.







see link for rest

tony hipchest
07-17-2010, 01:54 AM
classic occams razor.

[QUOTE] Subprime 1-2-3

Don't understand credit default swaps? Don't worry—neither does Congress. Herewith, a step-by-step outline of the subprime risk betting game. —Casey Miner
Subprime borrower: Has a few overdue credit card bills; goes to a storefront lender owned by major bank; takes out a $100,000 home-equity loan at 11 percent interest
Lending bank: Assuming housing prices will only go up, and that investors will want to buy mortgage loan packages, makes as many subprime loans as it can
Investment bank: Packages subprime mortgages into bundles called collateralized debt obligations, or cdos, then sells those cdos to eager investors. Goes to insurer to get protection for those investors, thus passing the default risk to the insurer through a "credit default swap."
Insurer: Thinking that default risk is low, agrees to cover more money than it can pay out, in exchange for a premium
Rating agency: On basis of original quality of loans and insurance policy they are "wrapped" in, issues a rating signaling certain slices of the cdo are low risk (aaa), medium risk (bbb), or high risk (ccc)
Investor: Borrows more money from investment bank to load up on cdo slices; makes money from interest payments made to the "pool" of loans. No one loses—as long as no one tries to cash in on the insurance

Wallace108
07-17-2010, 01:56 AM
nah... the real blame lies with his texapublican buddy "foreclosure" phil gramm.

you know, the guy who was mccains economic advisor and was rumored to be his treasurer if elected until his "dirty little secrets" were brought to the forefront-

tony, I have to admit ... I quit reading after this:

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

As a journalist, I know editorializing when I see it. :chuckle:
I didn't like McCain and I cringed when I heard the rumors about Gramm. But one thing that drives me nuts is when politicians and/or the media blame our economic meltdown on subprime lending or the "greedy fat cats" on Wall Street. The problem is that there aren't any middle-class jobs. And why is that?













see link for rest[/QUOTE]

tony hipchest
07-17-2010, 02:15 AM
i forgot...

republicans dont believe in "greed".

its just a myth and hyperbole made up by liberals.

Wallace108
07-17-2010, 02:45 AM
i forgot...

republicans dont believe in "greed".

its just a myth and hyperbole made up by liberals.

If we're talking about politicians, 8 out of the top 10 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats. The overwhelming majority of multi-millionaire actors, musicians (except for Country artists), and athletes tend to be Democrats.

While all those mentioned above want us to give more of OUR money, they feel quite justified in keeping all of THEIR millions.

So I guess Democrats don't believe in greed ...

HometownGal
07-17-2010, 07:31 AM
Look folks - I'm not going to get into a pissing match with anyone here. I have some issues I am dealing with in "real life" and don't need the added aggravation. However, I will state that I stand by the posts I've made in this thread 100% and no amount of heckling, baiting or ridicule is going to change how I feel about the subject.

AMEN. :drink:

Stlrs4Life
07-18-2010, 12:54 AM
"strategerie" has become one of my favorite business terms. "Obama is trying"??!! To what, improve his handicap?



[QUOTE=X-Terminator;25195]Well, we agree that Rendell is an idiot. I'll give him partial credit for helping to save the Pens, but that's about it. Can't wait to send his fat, pompous ass back to Philly with the rest of the trash.

Right now, I don't know if Onorato has enough to beat Corbett - he does have a huge amount of support. But I still support Dan and will still vote for him. I think he'd do a good job for the state, certainly better than Fat Eddie.

I don't even give him credit for saving the Pens, he's a huge Cryers fan. I wish Dan well, like I said, I will study him more, but he needs to do well on the Eastern side of the state.


Maybe it's because we live in a world where everyone will go apeshit for free stuff? Democrats are no more innocent then Republicans with this one. Plus you had to figure some would eventually pocket the money for the time being



Ladies and Gentlemen I present the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party Exposed in one article. They bitch at Republicans about doing nothing when they made an effort to do something about it. Hmmmmm, maybe because they saw something coming and Democrats didn't. Nice Job Democraps :upyours:

LOL, whatever.



Helped us? Tell that the 9.5% who are right now unemployed with the 4 million+ who have lost jobs

Read again was talking about Obamas Stimulus helped create more jobs than Bush's stimulus. :upyours:



Yeah and they act like it's no big deal when they do stuff like that. Honestly that party is blown up right now and needs a complete overhaul (And that includes the face of said party who was the most underqualified person to run for President in my young life.)

You just explained the Republicans! Like said, your young life. Dems have isuues, Reps have quite a few more.



They could learn a nice example from Virginia. Control spending, and what do you know? They're out of the Red.



I never bought that arguement since it was used for the first time. Last I checked all Political offices are held by members of at least 2 national political parties in Washington. Hmmmmmm, maybe both of them could finally realize they have to work with each other which makes me hope for the sake of this country, we get a third party in congress that way they have no choice whatsoever.


Can agree with that for sure.


Tim Pawlenty buddy. Hell I'll take Bob McDonell running. These guys have something that Obama didn't have before the election. That's called executive experience. I trust them more with the office of President more then I can trust Obama. and I can't even believe I said I could still sleep easy at night with Obama as President. I don't think I have been proven wrong about a politician in my life since Bush was president.



No politician in DC ever has been. Some have come close.



That people were only being fed up with the GOP because of the LIBERAL media.

Stay away from certain MSNBC folks kids (You know who I am talking about Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow)


LOL! Classic! Ever heared of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! Biggest mouths of the Republican Party!



Afghanistan I have no trouble with because those nutjobs attacked us. Iraq not so much. Obama is learning a critical lesson in politics. You're not going to keep everyone happy. In fact, that's a fact of life.

Very true.



Democrats are no more innocent then Republicans are. In fact, they're MUCH MUCH MUCH worse.

Keep drinkin the Kool Aid. Or Hater Ade.


Part 2 (Due to excessive Characters)




Let me know when a major organization confirms it. I don't buy it.


??? Politifact? Is pretty common, they even play both sides, pretty even if ya ask me. Don't belive it because it isn't from Rush or from Fox news?



Well Selected. :clap2:



I could care less for a guy like Rush. Hannity is coming down to earth a little bit but I still have my want to puke with him. Bill O is probably one of the few I can put up with consistantly. Chris Matthews I can watch his show and not want to puke either.



Whatever. Nice try though, yas sound just like them.



Jobs come and go regardless of the industry. Just sucks that a lot of the ones I hear about now a days are said temporary jobs.



Never did cut it. Both Parties screwed up and both Parties must fix it. If a third party is need to fix the problem, then that's fine with me. Just make sure it's the right candidate.

Stlrs4Life
07-18-2010, 01:05 AM
What's funny and a dirty little secret that Democrats don't want you to know is that Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the good economy of the 90s. Everyone credits Clinton and the Democrats with the economy during that time period. But what else happened around that time? Hmmmm, maybe the computer and Internet revolution?

Think about the millions of jobs that were created during the 90s because of computers and the Internet ... none of which Clinton's policies had ANYTHING to do with (unless you want to give Al Gore credit for creating the Internet). Now let's talk about NAFTA, GAT, and other trade agreements that Clinton signed that allowed all of our manufacturing jobs to leave the country.

As much as people like to bash Bush, it was actually Clinton's policies that created the mess we're in. Who was the last Democrat that actually did anything beneficial for America?



I agree, Clinton signed that Bill, and it was a huge mistake. And you have forgot that, Bush Sr. started NAFTA during the end of his term, and was passed by a Republican Congress. But, Clinton was Pres. he will get the blame. And W extended it with CAFTA. So say what you want.

Wallace108
07-18-2010, 01:21 AM
I agree, Clinton signed that Bill, and it was a huge mistake. And you have forgot that, Bush Sr. started NAFTA during the end of his term, and was passed by a Republican Congress. But, Clinton was Pres. he will get the blame. And W extended it with CAFTA. So say what you want.

Republicans didn't control Congress when NAFTA was passed. It was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president.