Barack Obama

[carmella1]

Finally america has a good president.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I am amazed we have hard core Republicans on this site. If my memory serves me well, Senior Bush stated that Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Atheists should be denied the right to vote!
Anyway, I suppose Republicans will continue to worship Rush Limbaugh as the Germans worshiped Hitler. It is a mean spirited intolerant destructive view of the world which will perpetuate the misery we are in.

As an atheist, shemale lover, and sometimes a transvestite, I certainly don't agree with much of the Republican agenda. But... I agree whole heartedly with their fiscal conservatism and anti-welfare stance (well at least for real republicans, there's been too many RINOs lately), and most of their foreign policy.

As for Rush and Hitler, please explain your comparison.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The meltdown? The consensus is that Greenspan was the key player. The conservative fundamentalist philosophy of Milton Friedman that the Republicans and Greenspan worshiped is what led to this debacle.

I've given my rundown on the conservative viewpoint of how the meltdown happened here:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

ACORN does more than just voter fraud. Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which encouraged lenders to make loans to poor minorities. Banks pretty much ignored the CRA because it made no financial sense. So ACORN harrassed banks until they would start making the questionable loans. They would hold sit ins at the banks to drive away costomers. They would also show that banks weren't complying with CRA at public hearings and thus preventing bank mergers which the banks wanted.

So the banks started making some bad loans to the poor. This still wasn't enough for ACORN. The banks told ACORN that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae wouldn't buy the loans from them so that's all they could do.

So ACORN lobbied congress and Clinton to enforce the CRA and force Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae to buy the bad loans. Now that there was actually a market for bad loans banks started making loans to the poor. Clinton further enforced it by creating a CRA index for banks that the banks would use to compete. So they would actually compete to see who could make the most loans to the poor.

The obvious result of this madness is that people started defaulting on their loans in such great numbers that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae couldn't insure all the bad loans, and the govt had to step in to help Freddie and Fannie last summer.

The real problem was that since there were so many defaulted loans, no one was really sure how much the loans were worth anymore and so the flow of money siezed up and banks began to go under. Thus the financial melt down.

Where was Obama in all this? He was head of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge where he and his buddie Bill Ayers helped raise millions for ACORN. Obama was also a layer for several of ACORN's court cases and gave them leadership training. Then he moven on to the senate where he continued to support ACORN and Freddie & Fannie. This is why after being in the senate for only 2-3 years Obama was the 2nd highest receiver os campaign funds from these organizations.

This is what happens when these idealistic policies make it into the real world.

If Obama is president, do you think he'll blame ACORN and all these bad policies for the financial mess? No. He'll put the blame on Bush who had been warning congress 17 times since 2001 that this would happen. So the problem will go unfixed and you can get ready to pay even more in taxes as the govt spends trillions more on future bailout packages.

Looks like I already have an answer to what Obama will do concerning ACORN, and there's that near $1 trillion dollar bail-out package. ACORN is eligible for $4 billion of Obama's spending package. Gee... it's almost like I'm psychic

Care to add more meat to your theory?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

lol, a republican supporter mentioning the economy! Hey, I got an idea, lets have less regulation, that will solve the crisis caused by unregulated markets!!

and I love the idea of republicans of fiscal conservatives. I didn't realise that mountains of debt and a banking system in collapse was fiscal conservatism.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

As an atheist, shemale lover, and sometimes a transvestite, I certainly don't agree with much of the Republican agenda. But... I agree whole heartedly with their fiscal conservatism and anti-welfare stance (well at least for real republicans, there's been too many RINOs lately), and most of their foreign policy.

As for Rush and Hitler, please explain your comparison.

One example; Rush has demonized "liberals" as if they were a dire threat to the country.
Hitler demonized "Jews" as if they were a dire threat to the country.

I grew up as a Republican and I still believe in fiscal conservatism(aka, Eisenhower).
However, the Republican party has become corrupted by religious fundamentalism and the military/industrial complex.
Actually, the Democrats are pretty well corrupted and not far behind.
Obama?? Hope

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by new believer

What distresses me (as an American Libertarian) is that at minimal 30% of votes that are in the democractic favor are fraudulent. i.e. multiple ,dead, non citizens and 'made up' voters. Yet they get away with it because of apathy,stupidity and fear of onslaught by the very anti Republican media.

This TOTALLY pisses me off. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons why I DO support the concept of a 21st century, modern times and current with today's technology "National ID card" to verify EXACTLY "who" you are and IF you are in fact a legal citizen and all that. Hell, in this day and age, think of it -- you could walk around with ONE card in your wallet that is your Driver's license, your ID card (for voting), it could be programmed and activated as your Mastercard and Visa too, it could hold your medical information in digital form if you were in an accident and suddenly taken to a hospital, it could have your insurance information -- for crying out loud, it could serve as your friggin' library card to boot! With today's technology, it could literally be all sorts of things in one.

Yet why don't we do that? Because those on the ultra Left always bitch that something like a national ID card would be an "invasion of privacy"...it's having "too much information" available...and yet we all go through life with ALL of those things I just mentioned ANYWAY. In fact, if you DON'T have those things, life in the 21st century is essentially tougher on you as well. So even using the base argument of "quality of life" it makes sense to upgrade systems across the board for proper identification of everyone.

Bottom line: you're right, New Believer. Regardless of WHICH political party you belong to...and let the record show that I totally respect the right of everyone to pick a side based on their own personal beliefs....but when you start having numbers that are off at a staggering 30% rate OR -- like we just had in the Obama election where Ohio was an outright joke over voter registrations and irregularities, which the Ohio Election Board REFUSED to even investigate -- then democracy is in the toilet when you can't even stage a fair and honest vote count.

Or new case in point: the still undecided Minnesota Senate race where Norm Coleman had beaten crock of a candidate Al Franken until magically an entire box of uncounted ballots just HAPPENED to be discovered -- after the fact -- in the trunk of someone's car, thus throwing everything into pandemonium. Not to mention, you KNOW the Franken election is for utter shit when even now ALL... yes, ALL... Minnesota polls show that the people there DON'T want Franken in office by a wide and sizable margin. So with such a wide poll margin going in one direction, just who the hell voted for him to supposedly make him the winner, hmm?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

I am amazed we have hard core Republicans on this site. If my memory serves me well, Senior Bush stated that Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Atheists should be denied the right to vote!

No offense, Randolph, but your memory doesn't seem to be serving you well since I tried Googling this in various ways and could NOT find a single instance of Bush Sr. ever saying that. On the other hand, since you're so interested in personal rights, you CAN easily Google "same sex marriage" and immediately discover that Obama is against that even as we speak.

But, hey, when talking about social rights and politics, why talk about the guy currently in the Oval Office when it's far easier to blur the argument by pointing backwards 17 YEARS in time to mention someone no longer in power?

Originally Posted by randolph

Anyway, I suppose Republicans will continue to worship Rush Limbaugh as the Germans worshiped Hitler. It is a mean spirited intolerant destructive view of the world which will perpetuate the misery we are in.

Ah, the ol' Rush finger pointing tactic as well. You mean Republicans listening to him as opposed to those on the Left worshipping at the media altar of Keith Olbermann and his ego and anger fueled rants...or worshipping a hate-fueled web site like the Daily Kos...which likewise are sooooo helpful to raising the country out of its misery?

[randolph]

Creative Mind
No offense, Randolph, but your memory doesn't seem to be serving you well since I tried Googling this in various ways and could NOT find a single instance of Bush Sr. ever saying that.

This popped up with search (bush atheist)
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Obama is interested in saving this country from the irresponsibility of past administrations. We need to FLUSH RUSH!

[randolph]

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

So Creativemind, is Bush is your good buddy???

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

lol, a republican supporter mentioning the economy! Hey, I got an idea, lets have less regulation, that will solve the crisis caused by unregulated markets!!

and I love the idea of republicans of fiscal conservatives. I didn't realise that mountains of debt and a banking system in collapse was fiscal conservatism.

Did you read the part I wrote in parenthesis? Here, let me reprint it for you.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

But... I agree whole heartedly with their fiscal conservatism and anti-welfare stance (well at least for real republicans, there's been too many RINOs lately), and most of their foreign policy.

Perhaps you don't know what RINO means. Republican In Name Only. As for your crack about regulation, the markets HAVE been regulated. It was government intervention that I was referring to above that forced banks to make loans to unqualified recipients. So much for that idea.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Did you read the part I wrote in parenthesis? Here, let me reprint it for you.


Perhaps you don't know what RINO means. Republican In Name Only. As for your crack about regulation, the markets HAVE been regulated. It was government intervention that I was referring to above that forced banks to make loans to unqualified recipients. So much for that idea.

You are partially right. Both Republican and Democrats supported easy loans to low income people. Unfortunately, crucial oversite regulations essential to keep the system from spinning out of control were ignored or removed. Greenspan and the rest of the free marketers had the naive view that markets would automatically regulate themselves. They didn't realize that a "free" market opens things up for the Madoff types.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

One example; Rush has demonized "liberals" as if they were a dire threat to the country.
Hitler demonized "Jews" as if they were a dire threat to the country.

Perhaps he didn't like what Carter did to the country with those double digit inflation rates, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, and long gas lines and gas rationing. Yes, these things really did happen. Please tell me how this is not a threat to the country? Please (after reading what I wrote above about ACORN and the CRA), tell me how the CRA is good for the country?

But on to your analogy. You're saying Rush has done to liberals what Hitler has done to the Jews? Rush forces liberals into concentration camps under gunpoint? Rush puts liberals into labor camps and to the gas chamber and runs experiments on them? How many liberals has Rush's men killed? 6 million? 6 hundred? Even 6? Any??? Has he even shot a spit ball at one?

Originally Posted by randolph

However, the Republican party has become corrupted by religious fundamentalism

Originally Posted by randolph

Actually, the Democrats are pretty well corrupted and not far behind.

On this we agree

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

[Lac79]

meh, Government is always fail, no matter who is in charge. I wish I had my own Island with Areeya and Sheila Ferraz... yes... oh yes... ok, gotta go take care of something now :D

[McLuvinladyboys]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Such bullshit. I'm not a neocon. What I said I said out of a sense of patriotism. Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid. That's the borderless world concept. What if Americans made the decisions for Brits? Frenchies? Canadians? How'd they like it if they didn't have say so over who becomes their leaders and government officials? Or couldn't have any say over things like taxes and property rights?

If you're going to reply to me with such a jackassed comment and insult don't bother. Anyone of any nation with half a mind would agree with me. You don't let foreigners elect your officials.

they might have been able to save us from 8 years of bush jr? just a thought there, i mean we wouldnt have HAD to listen, but someone could have warned us..oh wait they sort of did. never mind

[McLuvinladyboys]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You tell'em Ogryn. I'd really like to hear hanghaveock explain why the US leaders should be chosen by other countries? Is that the way it's done in Indonesia?

maybe hank has already answered this, but i am an american and i have an answer as to why people from other countries might doubt the average americans ability to choose thier own leaders.
1. the average american cant find washington dc on a map. go ahead and try it. ask people on the street, you will be SHOCKED
2. most of us are fat lazy and too busy voting on the latest american idol and whether or not sanjaya is hot or funny looking to worry about whether or not we should be going to war
3 speaking of war a shit load of americans STILL BELIEVE THAT IRAQ OR SADDAM BOMBED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. those same americans cant find iraq on a map(i will bring the map up a few more times i am sure)
4. the "average" american is lucky to have his GED or be able to read. sad but true. most americans are uneducated and our education system is pretty fucked up so even if you did finish high school if you didnt go to a decent college you didnt really learn anything anyway
5 we voted for BUSH JR TWICE!!!
and that last one i think is the one that should be the clincher. if we had another republican as president i think we would have deserved to have europe come over here and take the reins for a little while.

of course i do wonder a few things about this post period
1 why are we discussing obama here in a forum dedicated to ladyboys and populated by(as it seems) very few americans? it just seems out of place thats all
2 what would non americans know about the situation here if they have not lived here? look i wouldnt presume to know anything about english prime ministers, and someone said something about america taking a big inevitable step and voting in a non white as president. other than disraeli who was jewish and i think still technically white, has england had a black prime minister? a woman yeah and that isnt too surprising from a country that has had (has) a queen. so females in high places..not so much a big leap so why is it such a big deal that we have? so what i have news for you, the colour of the mans skin, not such a big issue as you might think(i wouldnt stand next to him if we were down south though)

[McLuvinladyboys]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

But on to your analogy. You're saying Rush has done to liberals what Hitler has done to the Jews? Rush forces liberals into concentration camps under gunpoint? Rush puts liberals into labor camps and to the gas chamber and runs experiments on them? How many liberals has Rush's men killed? 6 million? 6 hundred? Even 6? Any??? Has he even shot a spit ball at one?




:

yeah however you and i know that if he could he fucking would rush is a total douche bag he and that other fat fuck micheal moore are two sides of the same disgusting coin. both of them have thier own agendas and are just stirring up trouble

i think however that randolph was obviously not saying that rush is putting people in concentration camps and its rather foolish of you to take it there.
what he IS saying, is that rush, like those who worked for the nazis is attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who he disagrees with.
he tells blantant lies and blames all the countries woes on the dems. sounds like hitler blaming germanys woes on the jews.

[McLuvinladyboys]

one last reason i thought of as to why others might think americans cant pick leaders for themselves.
we get caught up in what i like to refer to as "non issues" things like abortion, gay marriage. non issues. first its stuff that either states can decie for themselves(like legalizing pot) or things that people can govern for themselves. its really easy. let gay people get married and let people have abortions. it wont cause the end of the world AND if you are gay and choose to get married, or you are preggo and want an abortion then you get one. if you dont want the abortion dont get one and if you dont want gay people to get married, well get over it, it really doesnt effect you anyway.

so these types of snowblinding bullshit issues get thrown around. do you really think the average american understands why our economy is failed, and why we are in the economic troubles we are having.
with that being the case how can we be expected to vote on the complex issues that surround such things, how do we know who is going to properly represent us if we dont know what the proper issues are

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by McLuvinladyboys

i am an american and i have an answer as to why people from other countries might doubt the average americans ability to choose thier own leaders.

Since november I too have had these doubts.

Originally Posted by McLuvinladyboys

1. the average american cant find washington dc on a map. go ahead and try it. ask people on the street, you will be SHOCKED
2. most of us are fat lazy and too busy voting on the latest american idol and whether or not sanjaya is hot or funny looking to worry about whether or not we should be going to war
3 speaking of war a shit load of americans STILL BELIEVE THAT IRAQ OR SADDAM BOMBED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. those same americans cant find iraq on a map(i will bring the map up a few more times i am sure)
4. the "average" american is lucky to have his GED or be able to read. sad but true. most americans are uneducated and our education system is pretty fucked up so even if you did finish high school if you didnt go to a decent college you didnt really learn anything anyway
5 we voted for BUSH JR TWICE!!!
and that last one i think is the one that should be the clincher. if we had another republican as president i think we would have deserved to have europe come over here and take the reins for a little while.

Hell... the average american probably couldn't even:
1. State Newton's 3 laws
2. Identify the prominent mineral on the moon's surface
3. Write a lagrangian equation for a basic pendulum
4. Derive Maxwell's equations in tensor form

or even:
5. Say why Bush Jr attacked Iraq
6. Know that al Qaeda planned to use nerve gas to kill 80,000 people in Jordan, or that the nerve gas came from Iraq before the Iraq war.
7. Knew that Clinton and several democrats in congress had been whining about Iraqi WMD throughout Clinton's terms and right on through till 2003.
8. Know what Obama promised other than 'Change'.
9. Suck their tits while stroking their cock.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by McLuvinladyboys

yeah however you and i know that if he could he fucking would rush is a total douche bag he and that other fat fuck micheal moore are two sides of the same disgusting coin. both of them have thier own agendas and are just stirring up trouble

If you honestly think that Rush would like to have all liberals gassed, I think you have paranoia issues and a weak grasp of reality. Besides... liberals make up a significant percentage of his audience. He's gotta keep those ratings up.

Originally Posted by McLuvinladyboys

i think however that randolph was obviously not saying that rush is putting people in concentration camps and its rather foolish of you to take it there.
what he IS saying, is that rush, like those who worked for the nazis is attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who he disagrees with.
he tells blantant lies and blames all the countries woes on the dems. sounds like hitler blaming germanys woes on the jews.

I think that libs too easily compare republicans they don't like with Hitler (probably because they're attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who they disagree with). To make such comparisons demonstrates a real lack of understanding of one, what the republicans agenda is, and especially two, what Hitler did. Randolph didn't make a comparison between Rush and say, McCarthy, or any of a number of people who would want to lock up their philosophical enemies (even that comparison would be a stretch). Randolf compared Rush to Hitler. I can only assume to say he thought Rush was actually as bad as Hitler.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

So Creativemind, is Bush is your good buddy???

Actually, this will probably shock you, Randolph (or probably not), but - yes - he is still my "good buddy" because the Constitution IS just a goddamned piece of paper. Well, I take that back since on the surface that sounds rather harsh. Truth be told, I actually consider it to be a blessed piece of paper since I'm religious at heart and I do feel America is God's gift to the world. But all the same, it's still just a piece of paper. Look, here's my personal viewpoint, which is the same basic POINT that Bush was essentially trying to make in his outburst, which you're now trying to demonize or radicalize by taking it out of context...

The Constitution is a legal document, but our Founding Fathers DESIGNED and MEANT for it to be flexible. They DESIGNED and MEANT for it to be altered and amended over time, recognizing that time and history would march on. And even more important, they realized events would change the world around America...they would change the country both without and from within...and thus there would naturally have to be revisions or even all-new interpretations of the Constitution over time. Off the cuff examples: the eventual abolishment of slavery, voting rights for women, etc. The bottom line: the Constitution was NEVER meant to be a document that was SO written in stone that you could NEVER change it or even debate aspects of it.

That's why your anecdote has no weight once you put it into THAT proper context. Because the simple point remains that Bush -- as the sitting President and in the aftermath of 9/11 -- felt that the Patriot Act and it's various tangents needed to be enacted for the security of the country. That was his personal belief and conviction as President, who IS the one person sworn and charged to protect the nation at all costs. As a result, he wasn't going to be swayed from doing what he felt was necessary, which basically makes him the same as all Presidents before him...and, yes, all Presidents yet to come...who will likewise feel that way once they are actually sitting in the Oval Office and feeling the weight and responsibility of protecting the nation upon their shoulders.

Now me -- personally -- that's how I see it. Which is why I agree with Bush's outburst. In fact, again not to shock you, IF I were ever elected President... and IF I were sitting in the Oval Office and there was something that I believed in SO strongly and personally... and IF there was something I felt we absolutely, positively needed to do to ensure the nation's security or prosperity or continuation of particular ideals that I held true to my heart... AND THEN some staffer came up to me and said, "Gee, Mr. President, I'm not sure the Constitution allows for that", I have news for you: I'D SAY THE EXACT SAME THING.

In short, I'd turn to my Chief of Staff and say "Fuck this shit. I'm not listening to this guy. It's a piece of paper that someone is interpreting one way. So, go find me Constitutional scholars and lawyers who see it MY way and let's fight this out in the court until I get my way. Because by all that's holy, I INTEND TO GET MY WAY ON THIS."

Of course, this leads to the far broader discussion that BEING President allows you to pick and appoint Federal Judges...right up to stacking the Supreme Court, if history times itself right while you're the one sitting in the Oval Office...who will see and interpret things "your way" and thus legally allow you to do what you want. But, hey, that's a whole other topic for debate!

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think that libs too easily compare republicans they don't like with Hitler (probably because they're attempting to create an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and hatred for those who they disagree with).

To make such comparisons demonstrates a real lack of understanding of one, what the republicans agenda is, and especially two, what Hitler did.

Randolph didn't make a comparison between Rush and say McCarthy, or any of a number of people who would want to lock up their philosophical enemies (even that comparison would be a stretch). Randolf compared Rush to Hitler. I can only assume to say he thought Rush was actually as bad as Hitler.

Bravo, Tracy. Good for you. That's totally correct and is exactly WHY I hate to ever see the lame-ass "(insert name) is just like Hitler" analogy that the Left loves to fling at the Right so much, in particular because it has NO proper historical context and because, in the end, it actually minimizes the very real horrors that Hitler actually did.

Not to mention it pisses me off as a person and is an analogy that is especially prickly to me -- when it's tossed about and treated lightly -- since I actually DID lose family to that fuck in WWII, who thankfully is now burning in the hottest pits of Hell.

[randolph]

Wow, politics seems to be more exciting than sex on the forum these days. Obviously the allusion to Hitler was extreme. It was simply to make a point that extreme rhetoric from anybody (Hitler, Mussolini, Almadajid(sic), Bin Ladin, etc.) is bad. It stirs up the baser instincts and encourages violent acts. Obviously Rush doesn't come close to being a true agitator, he doesn't have the brains or the charisma. He is a bombastic egocentric opportunist that uses pseudo conservative rhetoric to capture a naive audience.

[randolph]

This is from Washington Monthly
While the Country in in free fall we have Republican politics.
A STRUGGLING STIMULUS.... President Obama probably thought this would be easier. He won a sweeping victory in November, and entered office with a huge approval rating. His party enjoys big majorities in both the House and Senate. In the midst of a global economic crisis, the president presented an ambitious stimulus package, which enjoyed support from economists, the business community, state officials, and the public. For a while, the most common criticism of the proposal was that it wasn't big enough, and wasn't prepared to spend enough money.

That was before the White House lost control of the debate.

Watching the reaction from Republicans and most news outlets, I keep thinking of an analogy. There's a nine-alarm fire, and Obama's the fire chief. He wants to send the cavalry, hoping to save lives and contain the fire from spreading out of control, while simultaneously taking fire-prevention steps for the future. Soon, Republicans start wondering if 2% of the tools on the fire-engines are entirely necessary for fighting the fire. Democrats think nine trucks is an excessive number, and maybe if Obama sent seven, it'll make Republicans happier. (Said Sen. Ben Nelson, "I don't know, hundreds of gallons of water sounds like an awful lot.")

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Joe Scarborough try to convince the community that Obama is making a big mistake trying to put out a fire with water, which is just socialism in disguise.

Conservatives want to know why Obama won't just give people a tax cut, so the public can buy fire-extinguishers, axes, and Dalmatians of their own. The Washington Post runs four op-eds from Amity Shlaes, arguing that Fire Chief Roosevelt overreacted during the last nine-alarm fire, and it would have gone out on its own if he'd just left it alone.

And while the fire keeps burning, the Senate wants to figure out how to address the fire in a way that costs less and satisfies the concerns of "centrists."

Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support, they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy. [...]

Moderate Republicans are trying to trim the bill by as much as $200 billion, although Democrats working with those GOP senators have not agreed to a specific figure.

It's unclear whether the Senate lacks the votes to pass the stimulus plan, or whether the Senate lacks the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster of the plan. I think it's the latter.
-Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

[TracyCoxx]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the US government didn't actually have $900 billion to spend. But then I didn't think they had $850 billion to spend a couple of months ago, so I must be missing something.

[randolph]

I am concerned that Ila will pull this thread unless we get some sex in here, so here goes.

As Melissa noted earlier in PEEK, from a CBS story: "Rush Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after authorities said they found a bottle of Viagra in his possession without a prescription."

He was reportedly returning from the Dominican Republic at the time which, as Terrance Heath notes, leaves a big, gaping hole in the story.

What was Rush doing in the Dominican Republic? Why was he returning from a country known for its thriving sex trade, with a bottle of Viagra that didn't have his name on it?

From a 2001 Wired.com article:

the Dominican Republic is one of the biggest sex tourism destinations in the world, thanks in part to Internet sites that extol the country as a "single man's paradise."

...

Among banner ads for Viagra, members can shuffle through pictures of dull-eyed prostitutes engaged in flagrante delicto with the members/amateur pornographers.

Is it fair to go after Limbaugh for his woes? Of course, just as it's fair game to out gay politicians who support bigoted policy toward gays.

Limbaugh inveighs against medical marijuana users regularly, making him a WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITE.

But I like Terrance's alliterative aspersions:

These are not nice questions, which is why most people won't ask them. But Rush is not a nice guy. And when a pundit whose party pokes its noses into people's private affairs as a matter of policy is caught pocketing pills to pump up his penis, on his way back from a country plenteous with prostitutes...

Well pardon me if I'm compelled to prod and ponder why this public personality required a prescription for his penis in that place, and where he put it while he was there.

Humm, I doubt he could shut up long enough to get the Viagra to work.

[TracyCoxx]

LOL that is a good one

Sure it's ok to drudge this stuff up on him. We're all human, and that's just funny anyway.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the US government didn't actually have $900 billion to spend. But then I didn't think they had $850 billion to spend a couple of months ago, so I must be missing something.

Some people conveniently forget positions from past administrations that spent trillions on bogus foreign wars all the while cutting taxes for the upper 1% of populace. America has not only outsourced many of its jobs overseas, but has now outsourced (over MANY years) our future economic prosperity to too much leverage-- a position which sunk the current economy to begin with, only in the hands of banks/businesses/consumers as opposed to government.

That said, I AM being critical of W's administration, but as an independent, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the scale of the current government spending. I've been sick at home for a few days, and I don't know what it says for my state of mind/boredom, but I've been watching C-Span many hours a day. And I must say, my personal opinions have been largely resonating with Republican politicians who are skeptical and opposed to such tremendous amounts of government spending.

[randolph]

That said, I AM being critical of W's administration, but as an independent, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the scale of the current government spending. I've been sick at home for a few days, and I don't know what it says for my state of mind/boredom, but I've been watching C-Span many hours a day. And I must say, my personal opinions have been largely resonating with Republican politicians who are skeptical and opposed to such tremendous amounts of government spending.

It remains to be seen whether we can spend our way out of this debacle. Since the government can create (print) money, this might reduce the future tax load on our children. However, printing money often results in inflation. Oh Oh My, Obama has his work cut out for him and the Republicans will make it even more difficult.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

It remains to be seen whether we can spend our way out of this debacle. Since the government can create (print) money, this might reduce the future tax load on our children. However, printing money often results in inflation. Oh Oh My, Obama has his work cut out for him and the Republicans will make it even more difficult.

Huh?? Between this package and the bail out package as well as our usual budget overruns, we will be borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars this coming year. You can't just magically print it. Maybe that's why democrats are falling for this BS. They think Obama will just pull the money out of his ass. He'll probably lower taxes on the lower income. Maybe even mid-income. But he'll be raising taxes on the rich for sure. You know... the ol tax the people who actually make this economy work, and let the rest leech off it ploy. But everyone who needs a loan (and their children, and their children's children) will be facing tougher times ahead when interest rates go up to pay off this gargantuan debt.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Huh?? Between this package and the bail out package as well as our usual budget overruns, we will be borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars this coming year. You can't just magically print it. Maybe that's why democrats are falling for this BS. They think Obama will just pull the money out of his ass. He'll probably lower taxes on the lower income. Maybe even mid-income. But he'll be raising taxes on the rich for sure. You know... the ol tax the people who actually make this economy work, and let the rest leech off it ploy. But everyone who needs a loan (and their children, and their children's children) will be facing tougher times ahead when interest rates go up to pay off this gargantuan debt.

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.

We didn't get to $4 trillion until '92 during the first Gulf War. And at no time has the debt ever gone down. See this chart here. You might be thinking of the budget surplus that Clinton managed by the end of his term.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

We didn't get to $4 trillion until '92 during the first Gulf War. And at no time has the debt ever gone down. See this chart here. You might be thinking of the budget surplus that Clinton managed by the end of his term.

Yes your right. Thanks for the graph.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.

Well, first of all, Tracy already corrected you on the history of debt size.
So, good job there, Tracy!

As for the rest of what you wrote, I just have to say -- no offense -- that this is ALSO the crock of party ideologies and sort of demonstrates (perhaps accidentally and unintentionally) how too many people can get caught up in their party and NOT looking at the ACTUAL problem and how to resolve it best. Case in point, look at what you just said. You wrote (quote): "We also managed to get over the huge Reagan debt while Clinton was President." So, on the surface, you seem to be sneering a bit at Reagan (Republican), blaming him for a huge debt which thankfully Clinton (Democrat) saved us from. Well, Clinton actually didn't, but that's a whole other topic!

Yet all the same, think about this.
WHY did Reagan get elected?

Answer: because all of America hated...I mean just HATED...Jimmy Carter. I mean, seriously, is there anyone here old enough to actually remember the Carter years? Who suffered through them? We had an energy crisis and the price of gas was through the roof -- and that's when you could even find gas, since we also had rationing and gas lines that wrapped around city blocks. In fact, the ties between energy production and tense relations with the Middle East got SO bad that Carter (yes, Jimmy boy) actually had to go on national TV and give a speech declaring that the Persian Gulf was now considered SO vital to the national security of the United States that any attempts by a Middle East country or political faction to try and interfere with the flow of oil to the U.S. would be considered an act of war. To this day I still I remember watching Carter's speech in college with friends, and all of us looking at each other and only half-jokingly saying "So when we all get drafted, which branch do you want to end up in?" Carter's Middle East policies were a disaster --capped off by the historic Iranian hostage situation and the botched rescue mission which was such a clusterfuck that it only further proved how incompetent Carter was.

And then there was the Carter economy, of which there is NO historic dispute: namely, it SUCKED. There was double-digit unemployment AND double-digit inflation. Let me say that again: it was DOUBLE DIGIT which means it was actually WORSE than what we're facing now. To put it mildly, the economy under Carter was in the complete shitter. So with all of that going on, the American people viewed Carter as a total peanut-farmer fuck-up, a simple southern boy that the presidency was above, who simply had to go. So he was booted out of office, leaving the U.S. in some serious economic and foreign woes. Gee, sound familiar? Of course, it gets even better, because here's your lesson in history repeating itself...

When Reagan came to office the first thing he said was we needed to do was cut taxes AND increase government spending. We needed to jump-start the U.S. economy BIG TIME. And he did since here's NO debating what Reagan ultimately did. The Reagan years and his fiscal policies led to one of the GREATEST economic expansions in ALL of American history and the recovery he oversaw -- reversing the dismal Carter era -- was nothing less than startling and miraculous.

Which is why I find it hysterical whenever the Left talks about the "Reagan debt" and sneers about it (as well as usually adding a side note how Clinton saved us all) or goes on about the money Reagan spent to get us out of the Carter recession...

...Yet this is the SAME Left that now is out championing at the top of their lungs savior Obama (oops, I meant President Transparency) and HIS plan to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS doing exactly what Reagan did, only Obama wants to do it on a FAR more mammoth scale.

So, the way I see it, given the Obama stimulus plan, the Left has now officially and 100% lost ALL rights to ever bitch about Reagan or any debt he ran up, since he (or his proportionate debt load) will now not even be in the same league as the toilet Obama is now going to flush us down. Frankly, I think the Obama plan is just overflowing with bullshit political pork, not to mention it's a colossally bad joke that's only going to bite us in the ass and tank the economy more. Case in point, I loved that the other day when Timothy Geitner, the so-called "financial genius" (and tax cheat, which I guess makes him a financial genius) that Obama declared we HAD to have as Treasury Secretary (because he was the ONLY person who could handle this crisis) FINALLY unveiled his ideas for what should be done...

...At which point the stock market tanked another 500 points.

Good job! Can't wait to see what's next!

[randolph]

Poking fun at Republicans can be quite entertaining, they are so wedded to the fantasies of dear old Uncle Miltie. In his old age he admitted he was wrong on a lot of his monetary theories. Why? because he didn't factor the criminal element. So lets see now, how many Republicans were arrested during the Bush administration?

[randolph]

It looks like the Reflublicans are willing to take down the country with their failed party.

Paul Krugman noted today that congressional Republicans, instead of acting "chastened" after electoral and governmental failure, remain committed to "deep voodoo," and arguments that have "bordered on the deranged."

Given all of this, Andrew Sullivan argues that the Republican Party has "declared war" on the president.

Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are.

Tough stuff, to be sure. The question, I suppose, is what the White House -- and a president who's repeatedly committed to trying to find common ground with the failed minority party -- is going to do about it. If Sullivan is right, and the Republican Party is driven by a combination of partisan schemes and a desire to see Obama fail, how will the administration respond?

Joe Klein argues, persuasively, that the president "should have no illusions about the good faith of his opponents."

Obama should now understand that the Republicans are not reliable partners -- at least, not for the moment. Most are stuck in the contentious past, rutted in Reaganism, intent on taking a Hooverist course on the economy (although there remains cause for optimism on foreign policy). The President's default position, after the stimulus fight and the Gregg fiasco, should be to appoint Democrats to significant domestic policy positions -- the notion of making a public show of bipartisanship, by reaching across the aisle to someone like Senator Gregg, gives the opposition too much credibility and leverage.

[TracyCoxx]

You could have slightly reworded this to talk about the democrats and the Bush administration.

It looks like the Democrats are willing to take down the country with their failed party.

Congressional Democrats, instead of acting "chastened" after electoral and governmental failure, remain committed to conspiracy theories and arguments that have "bordered on the deranged."

Given all of this, the Democrat Party has "declared war" on the president.

Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the administration (and the economy and war to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even in times as steeply dangerous as this. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are.

Tough stuff, to be sure. The question, I suppose, is what the White House -- and a president who's repeatedly committed to trying to find common ground with the failed minority party -- is going to do about it. If the Democratic Party is driven by a combination of partisan schemes and a desire to see Bush fail, how will the administration respond?

The president "should have no illusions about the good faith of his opponents."

Bush should now understand that the Democrats are not reliable partners -- and never have been. Most are stuck in the contentious past, rutted in Kennedyism, intent on taking a Carterist course on the economy.

This could have been written in 2004 and would have been very accurate. It's amazing how the democrats have such amnesia over how they have treated Bush over his presidency. And now they expect to govern as if nothing has happened. The democrats have blamed EVERYTHING on Bush - from Clinton's CIA intelligence screwups to the Carter & Clinton financial mess to steering Hurricane Katrina to the poor areas of New Orleans with some classified weather machine. So drop the act. The BS has been so prevalent that you have to have really been paying attention while things happened, or do some serious research to cut through it.

Now you guys want to pass this spendulus package with all the obvious pork it contains. When we're deep into a recession, how can you POSSIBLY justify overspending by $2.5 TRILLION???! Seriously... tell me what a good idea that is.

[randolph]

Today my wife and I had lunch at a local restaurant. My wife went to the restroom and overheard two lesbians badmouthing Obama. As we left the restaurant, they drove off in a new Mercedes sports car. I guess I have more to learn about capitalism.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You could have slightly reworded this to talk about the democrats and the Bush administration.



This could have been written in 2004 and would have been very accurate. It's amazing how the democrats have such amnesia over how they have treated Bush over his presidency. And now they expect to govern as if nothing has happened. The democrats have blamed EVERYTHING on Bush - from Clinton's CIA intelligence screwups to the Carter & Clinton financial mess to steering Hurricane Katrina to the poor areas of New Orleans with some classified weather machine. So drop the act. The BS has been so prevalent that you have to have really been paying attention while things happened, or do some serious research to cut through it.

Now you guys want to pass this spendulus package with all the obvious pork it contains. When we're deep into a recession, how can you POSSIBLY justify overspending by $2.5 TRILLION???! Seriously... tell me what a good idea that is.

You sit there, with cock out and everything and you and your kind have had eight horrible years to screw up the entire world... which you did! Luckily you're GONE! One can only hope that the reactionary front will for ever be gone.

You and that regime that you voted for has created SO much havoc in this little world, and you still are fucking cocky enough to plead your case? Shame on you, shame on you.

Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

But you're beyond reach - a true believer, I guess.

Good riddance.

H

[randolph]

Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

Hey Hank, Thanks for the support. It's sadly apparent that Reflublicans will never change. They will be on the street living out of their cars along with the rest of us and they will still blame somebody else. They are incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions. Fuck em!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

Hey Hank, Thanks for the support. It's sadly apparent that Reflublicans will never change. They will be on the street living out of their cars along with the rest of us and they will still blame somebody else. They are incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions. Fuck em!

So you can't say it's a good idea. I don't blame you. Well Republicans can't either so that's why they're not voting for it.

[randolph]

Tracy
Now you guys want to pass this spendulus package with all the obvious pork it contains. When we're deep into a recession, how can you POSSIBLY justify overspending by $2.5 TRILLION???! Seriously... tell me what a good idea that is.

Well it's not a good idea when we are already deep in debt. So what should we do, give the remaining rich a tax break? Or, here is a novel idea, lets start a war! Wars have got us out of depressions in the past. Oops, I forgot, we are already in a war that has cost trillions thanks to the Bush/Cheny con job. So maybe it will work to help people keep their jobs, borrow money and get the economy flowing again by pouring money into the system. For the sake of all of us including the skeptics, it better WORK!

[randolph]

For any one interested in politics, democracy and capitalism, I am reading and recommend the "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, a bestseller. She helps clarify what Milton Friedman and Reaganomics is all about.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well it's not a good idea when we are already deep in debt. So what should we do, give the remaining rich a tax break?

No one is saying give the rich a tax break. They're already paying 35% to taxes. What percentage are you paying?

Originally Posted by randolph

Or, here is a novel idea, lets start a war! Wars have got us out of depressions in the past. Oops, I forgot, we are already in a war that has cost trillions thanks to the Bush/Cheny con job.

Whatever was spent on the Iraq war over the last 5+ years was matched this WEEK ALONE on the spendulous package. I thought the republicans were overspending, but DAYYYUM!

Originally Posted by randolph

So maybe it will work to help people keep their jobs, borrow money and get the economy flowing again by pouring money into the system. For the sake of all of us including the skeptics, it better WORK!

I'm sure there are at least a few things in there to actually create jobs and stimulate the economy. But a very large percentage does not stimulate the economy. Let's not forget something. Every penny of this spendulus package comes from foreign money that we will have to pay back. How will we pay it back?

In order of really obvious to debatable is:
First, all the pork that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy (and there is a LOT), should be cut out of the stimulus package. This is one of those No Shit things and should be obvious to anyone outside of Washington, regardless of your party.

Second, cut out everything that provides for illegal aliens. Providing services to illegal aliens encourages more of them to come into the country and consume resources tax free. This does not stimulate the economy - it does the opposite.

Third, all the billions in thanks-for-getting-Obama-elected money for groups like ACORN, Hollywood, etc should be cut out. That has no business in a stimulus package, and there's no reason my kids and their kids should incur debt for that.

Fourth (here's where it starts getting trickier for democrats), there's a whole class of services the bill wants to provide that parents are perfectly able to provide. Give the people tax breaks, or make it easier for corporations to hire more people and people will be able to provide these things for their selves and their own children. It's more efficient and it gives people pride to be able to support themselves and their families.

Fifth (even more tricky for democrats), the government should not be in the business of buying homes for people. That is insane.

Sixth (democrats wet dream), no national health care for the general population. This is way too costly.

Cutting all these things should be seriously considered when you consider for a moment that we don't have the money to do this. If you don't agree, tell me why these things are important enough to add another $800 billion to our national debt. Again, how will we pay it back? The US govt is going to have to start spending less than it receives in taxes. Will we be able to do this? The spendulus package will create jobs at government expense. To spend less than the govt receives, those jobs will eventually have to be axed. Unless we're going to tack on another several hundred billion dollars to our budget every year for the foreseeable future. Extra points if you can tell me what the effect of a rapidly growing debt does to the economy.

Before you go on a rant again about the republicans, I will whole heartedly agree that they have spent too much as well. I will not agree that they caused the financial mess over the last 8 years though when Bush has been warning congress throughout his two terms about it, and the roots of the financial problems started 30 years ago. But yes, they have spent too much.

So Obama says

Originally Posted by Obama

First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now.

Now Obama is revising history himself, but aside from that, he spent half of his speech saying how the policies of the last 8 years wrecked the economy, then says they doubled the debt. So his solution is to increase the debt another 25% in his first 2 months of office?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

You sit there, with cock out and everything and you and your kind have had eight horrible years to screw up the entire world... which you did! Luckily you're GONE! One can only hope that the reactionary front will for ever be gone. You and that regime that you voted for has created SO much havoc in this little world, and you still are fucking cocky enough to plead your case? Shame on you, shame on you.

Geo Bush and Dick Cheney were the most incompetent (and most likely corrupt) socalled leadership this world has ever witnessed... and you still salute them? How can you? It's simply beyond me.

But you're beyond reach - a true believer, I guess. Good riddance.

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Hank, Thanks for the support. It's sadly apparent that Reflublicans will never change. They will be on the street living out of their cars along with the rest of us and they will still blame somebody else. They are incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions. Fuck em!

And yet ironically for both Hank and Randolph, new polls out this weekend show that for opposing Obama's spending plan, Republicans have actually GAINED significant Congressional approval ratings and -- wait for it -- now trail the Democrats by only one mere point. In fact, other polls show that with the Obama plan now out there, if the midterm elections were held right now...this very day...the Republicans would likely gain back seats in Congress, thus thwarting the Obama dynasty even more. Which just goes to show you have fast political fortunes are won and lost.

And with that in mind, it's no wonder that the far Left is getting vocally disgruntled and angry at Obama themselves, since they too realize the clock is ticking down on them...that Middle America and the more moderate, middle of the road Clinton democrats don't like what they're seeing...and thus they realize if they don't ram through their ultra Left programs now, come midterms it really will be over.

So for Hank -- when you're out bitching about the "last 8 years", DO try to remember that it was the Democrats and NOT the Republicans who completely controlled Congress for the last 2 of those years, which (gee, what a shock) is ALSO when the economy started to go into the toilet...

And for Randolph -- when you're out on the street pushing your car, likewise try to remember those two lesbians you mentioned before, who are now ALSO bitching about Obama because that paints a FAR more telling picture.

Overall, Obama is starting to show the classic signs of a politician who needs to get his act together. And since he's only been in office a short bit, he needs to do it fast or else he will become Jimmy Carter Part 2. Right now people are still willing to give him -- as the new guy on the job -- the benefit of the doubt for a little bit longer him...but only for a LITTLE BIT longer. That's why Obama's PERSONAL approval rating is still up around 65-70% right now, and yet support among the American people for his stimulus plan is only at 30-odd percent. In short, people like the GUY, but they don't like his PLAN, nor are they buying the typical bullshit that the Left is trying to ram down everyone's throats right now (which actually brings us back to a basic political notion that, on the whole, America is still "center right". In short, people don't mind SOME change, but they don't want DRASTIC change.)

The bottom line is this: in every single poll out there, the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are worried more than ever before. The BAD news for Obama right now is that polls show the vast majority of Americans STILL feel his stimulus plan is all wrong, no matter how many speeches he gives... they STILL doubt it will work at all, and they STILL feel it's filled with more pork than actual job creation... and worst of all (and what truly scares the utter shit out of them) people also overwhelmingly feel that Obama and the Democrats are planning to come knocking on their door YET AGAIN to collect and spend even MORE money.

So, you guys can rant about "the last 8 years" and do your usual tirades about Bush all you want. But he's gone, Obama is in charge, and the American people are NOT the type to ever look back -- the truth is they're looking Obama square in the eyes and saying "This crisis hit the fan BEFORE election day. You TOLD us that IF we elected you, YOU would have all the answers. So shut up about Bush and PROVE you really did deserve this job. Otherwise you're history in 4 years." And as I noted before, it's certainy bad news for Obama and the Democrats that approval ratings for their economic choices are tanking... that they're decisions have caused Wall Street to slide even further into a dark hole... and most amazingly of all, for all the bitching that people like Hank might do as an overseas citizen, it must amaze him to know that here in America Republican approval ratings are actually back UP now and only 1 point behind Obama and the Dems.

[randolph]

The bottom line is this: in every single poll out there, the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are worried more than ever before. Creativemind

Well duh! we are descending into a depression! Can Obama's program save us, I sure hope so. The consequences of failure are dire indeed. As Naomi Kline points out in her new book, the capitalists will further erode our democracy and we will end up with plutocracy with no say in government, no civil rights and no freedom of speech. I am afraid the Reflublicans in their delight in wishing Obama's failure are inviting what they fear most, the loss of our democracy.

[randolph]

by David Glenn Cox
Excerpt from "Let the Sky Fall"

Let us wipe the stars from our eyes. These Republicans are not going to cooperate, not now, not ever. They will use every tool at their disposal to subvert, obstruct, divert, and defame because, in the words of their hero, they want to see Obama fail. If you or a few million other Americans suffer, well, they just don't care. Why should they? They never cared before; they're the party of self, self-righteous and self-aggrandizing. They accept their wealth as a God-given prerogative to rule over the unwashed multitudes. Even now they preach if we don't do anything the economy will fix itself in a year or two. We just have to take our medicine, but what they mean is you have to take their medicine and that's just too bad for you.

They have proven by their behavior that they are not a party of democratic principles but a party of semi-compassionate fascism. They will cede no ground because of an election, or a wave of public sentiment. They will do whatever they deem necessary to bring down this administration, even let the sky fall.

So, let the sky fall, let the sun crash and commence with the days of iron rain. Let the blood of the guilty and the tears of the innocent mix and intermingle in the sewers of greed. They seek the truth through gold, eternal life through eternal wealth, and the gospel of freedom through the cleansing of the iron rain. They see men as tools and tools as men; Heaven and Hell being all in one place, at their discretion alone. The war has begun, the blood will flow into the crop circles of the damned, and in the puddles of the iron rain.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The bottom line is this: in every single poll out there, the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are worried more than ever before. Creativemind

Well duh! we are descending into a depression!

Source?

What makes you think we're descending into a depression? The liberal news media? Obama's rhetoric? Despite their criticisms of the Republicans using scare tactics to stir up support for the war, the democrats (and their press secretaries... I mean the media) are using scare tactics to convince people that this is the end of times, and therefore drastic measures need to be taken, like putting us much further into debt.

We're at 7.5% unemployment now, which sucks, but it's nowhere near the 25% during the great depression. What numbers are you looking at?

Originally Posted by randolph

Can Obama's program save us, I sure hope so. The consequences of failure are dire indeed.

Better go buy 1000 cans of pork & beans, get a shotgun, and hide in a bomb shelter with all your cash.

Originally Posted by randolph

Even now they preach if we don't do anything the economy will fix itself in a year or two.

Who says it'll fix itself in a year or two? Probably more like 5-10 years. But at least after that we won't have a larger debt or expensive social programs to deal with. I think it's better if we cut spending. Isn't that what you'd do if you were over spending and had lots of debt? The govt should also free up cash flow for businesses. Those businesses ARE the economy. Not the government.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Source?

The govt should also free up cash flow for businesses. Those businesses ARE the economy. Not the government.

Agreed, I thought that's what Obama is trying to do, provide cash to get businesses going again.

Oh, by the way, I LIKE your new avatar!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Agreed, I thought that's what Obama is trying to do, provide cash to get businesses going again.

Only 3% of the stimulus package is for general businesses. Although if you're in the business of "green energy", you'll do better.

Originally Posted by randolph

Oh, by the way, I LIKE your new avatar!

Thanks