Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

The latest Barack blunders....
The swine flue pandemic is here and BO still does not have anyone confirmed to head the Health & Human Services or the Center for Disease Control. But then again, that might be a good thing considering who he put in charge of Homeland Security.

Then he pulls another stunt in New York City. They had Airforce One flanked by two fighter jets buzzing the location where the World Trade Center stood. The FAA knew about it, but were told not to tell anyone. People were frightened and evacuated buildings by the thousands. Dumbass!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The latest Barack blunders....
The swine flue pandemic is here and BO still does not have anyone confirmed to head the Health & Human Services or the Center for Disease Control. But then again, that might be a good thing considering who he put in charge of Homeland Security.

Then he pulls another stunt in New York City. They had Airforce One flanked by two fighter jets buzzing the location where the World Trade Center stood. The FAA knew about it, but were told not to tell anyone. People were frightened and evacuated buildings by the thousands. Dumbass!

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion and the plane stunt was not his doing someone thought they needed new photo's of airforce 1 and yes it was stupid but not his doing

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion

I will say that the GOP are obsessed with abortion. It could be the head of Nasa they're confirming and they'll ask what his stance on abortion is.

[randolph]

Finally a wised up Republican, Arlen Specter

from Yahoo News
Deep red. But keeping the government in deficit is exactly what Reagan did. Despite his years of lip service to balancing the budget, total discretionary spending had climbed almost 16 percent by the time he left office, dwarfing the Carter budgets he had once criticized. Revenues, limited by Reagan's tax cuts, were never able to keep pace. The result was a spiraling national debt that nearly tripled during his two terms, hitting $2.7 trillion.

Some of Reagan's aides, including William Niskanen, the former chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisers, believe there is a simple explanation for these growing deficits: Reagan's tax cuts simply did not do what supply-side economists said they would do. Because the cuts didn't substantively increase tax revenues, they didn't allow Reagan to shrink the deficit. They also didn't decrease the size of government by choking off spending. "The 'starving the beast' hypothesis is understandably popular among politicians--that you can have tax cuts without a deficit increase--but it's just empirically wrong," says Niskanen, now chairman emeritus of the Cato Institute. "That idea has destroyed for several decades the traditional Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility."

This, many historians believe, may be Reagan's real legacy. "The combination of military spending, tax cuts, and ultimately a failure to control most domestic spending led to a fiscal straitjacket by the end of the decade," says Zelizer. In 1991, Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, was forced to increase taxes to close huge gaps in the budget, but government debt still climbed past $4 trillion on his watch. When George W. Bush adopted a Reaganesque economic policy, with Dick Cheney, early in his first term, famously saying that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," more tax cuts and more spending led to even more debt. By the time Obama took office, the federal government was more than $11 trillion in the red.

The lesson of Reaganomics, in other words, may be a simple one. In times of economic crisis, all roads seem to lead to the same place: deficits. The real test of a president and his economic policy, historians say, is what happens to those deficits when the economy recovers. For all of his many successes--and for all the support his ideas still enjoy on Capitol Hill--that is a test Reagan seems to have failed.

[Vanillas]

The Republican Party is fast marginalizing itself into oblivion. Unless they begin to broaden their base -and fast- they will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs. And, despite the fact that my personal politics are left of center, I do NOT wish for this. American politics are dialectical and work best when the opposing parties are competitive. If I was a Republican I would want Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber to take a house by the sea together. Rush Limbaugh I would encourage to take an early retirement and a vow of silence. Then I would encourage the moderates (and there actually are some) to begin finding their voice, a voice that acknowledges both Science and the fact that Ronald Reagan does NOT belong on Mt. Rushmore. They are in the desert now largely because for eight years they blindly followed the bidding of a near idiot. But they don't have to stay there.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Vanillas

The Republican Party is fast marginalizing itself into oblivion. Unless they begin to broaden their base -and fast- they will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs. And, despite the fact that my personal politics are left of center, I do NOT wish for this. American politics are dialectical and work best when the opposing parties are competitive. If I was a Republican I would want Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber to take a house by the sea together. Rush Limbaugh I would encourage to take an early retirement and a vow of silence. Then I would encourage the moderates (and there actually are some) to begin finding their voice, a voice that acknowledges both Science and the fact that Ronald Reagan does NOT belong on Mt. Rushmore. They are in the desert now largely because for eight years they blindly followed the bidding of a near idiot. But they don't have to stay there.

I agree, a viable two party system is essential for our democratic system. The Republicans from Regan on have tried to destroy the two party system (aka Carl Rove). Compromise and reconciliation kept this country going since its inception. If the GOP can't free itself from Limbaugh (et all) then another party needs to be created to replace it. The Grand Old Party has become a white elephant. How about the LBR party (lets be reasonable).

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well the nomminee is on hold do to a few GOP who don't like her stand on abortion

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I will say that the GOP are obsessed with abortion. It could be the head of Nasa they're confirming and they'll ask what his stance on abortion is.

Well, to be a bit fair to the GOP, a big backbone to their support are pro-life religious groups and the GOP has definitely staked out the ground as being the anti-abortion party. That said, the so-called nominee on hold -- Kathleen Sebelius, who as of yesterday has been approved -- was someone who has repeatedly stated she's pro-life, a devout Catholic and personally against abortion...and yet her record as Governor of Kansas shows the direct opposite and that she's pretty much every pro-life person's worst nightmare legislatively speaking. Not to mention, she has likewise taken campaign contributions from a rather repugnant abortion doctor well-known and well-documented for performing exceedingly late term abortions, even if they skirted the law -- and she lied about the size of the contributions.

Then again, she ALSO didn't pay her taxes properly.
But hey, that's almost a REQUIREMENT now to be on Team Obama...

[transjen]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, to be a bit fair to the GOP, a big backbone to their support are pro-life religious groups and the GOP has definitely staked out the ground as being the anti-abortion party. That said, the so-called nominee on hold -- Kathleen Sebelius, who as of yesterday has been approved -- was someone who has repeatedly stated she's pro-life, a devout Catholic and personally against abortion...and yet her record as Governor of Kansas shows the direct opposite and that she's pretty much every pro-life person's worst nightmare legislatively speaking. Not to mention, she has likewise taken campaign contributions from a rather repugnant abortion doctor well-known and well-documented for performing exceedingly late term abortions, even if they skirted the law -- and she lied about the size of the contributions.

Then again, she ALSO didn't pay her taxes properly.
But hey, that's almost a REQUIREMENT now to be on Team Obama...

The GOP being the pro life party is the biggest sham ever pulled second only to they don't want tax money. Just think if the GOP ever really baned it then they'll lose there biggest get the troops to the poles and they would loose the biggest non issue to talk about you had the sawed off runt W you had the senate and the house and you have the unsupreme court 5/4 and yet W didn't ban it for Rev Farrwell that alone tells me the GOP is playing the pro lifers as chumps

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly

STEELE TAKES GOP TALKING POINTS OFF THE TABLE.... One of the more common concerns voiced by conservatives, especially at the recent "Tea Parties," relates to bailouts. Republicans on the Hill have tried to pick up on this, and distance the party from the practice.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele decided to step on his party's message quite a bit this morning.

Michael Steele says the GOP would be "disingenuous" if it blamed Democrats for poor economic performance, since Republicans started the bailout process in the first place.

"Look, we can't go back out and start pointing fingers at Democrats and saying, 'Look how bad they're performing, look at what they're doing with the economy,' when we jumpstarted this thing," Steele said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "We were the ones that put the $700 billion on the table and said, 'All right, let's start nationalizing the banking system.'"

Added Steele, "So now, for us to stand back and go, 'Oh, that's a bad thing to do' is disingenuous."

I suppose this is intended to be candor. To hear Steele tell it, Republicans are owning up to the moments where its actions were inconsistent with its principles. Perhaps there's some value in that.

But the Republican goal of late is to connect the majority to the unpopular bailouts, and blame Democrats for poor management of the economy. The RNC chairman just went on national television to say those criticisms against Democrats just aren't fair and aren't even accurate.

Maybe Steele is a DNC plant?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Michael Steele says the GOP would be "disingenuous" if it blamed Democrats for poor economic performance, since Republicans started the bailout process in the first place.

Not all republicans were for the bailout. They could have changed the accounting system to one that makes more sense, and that would have instantly erased a lot of the money problems.

There was also pork in those bills but not like the obama stimulus packages. That supported every pet democrat project ever thought up plus gave a reward to everyone who supported BO.

Originally Posted by transjen

I always find it funny that the GOP claims they are the party of freedom and they believe that goverment should have no say in peoples lives yet they want to ban same sex marrige and ban abortion isn't that goverment saying how to live your life? Where's the freedom to marry who you love? And where's the womans choice to have or not have a baby?

I agree with you there. If the GOP favors small government, then they shouldn't be trying to dictate social issues like that and religion. I don't think they have a consistent philosophy driving all their policies.

[randolph]

From Greg Laden
According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, only 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. That is getting dangerously close to the percentage of Americans who believe they have seen UFOs or alien craft or have been abducted by aliens. I think they may be the same individuals.

Gee, could Fox news and Rush losing their devotees?
Or, is just plain reality setting in.

My grand parents were republicans, my parents were republicans and I voted for Eisenhower. Since then the grand old party has lost its true conservatism. Then conservatism meant fiscal and social responsibility. Now it means cut taxes and spend more money (irresponsible Reaganomics), pander to right wing extremists and sell out to corporate interests. Obama extended a hand to the republicans and they refused it now they are marginalized. The democrats are free to trillionize the budget. Oops, did I say budget? There ain't no budget! All we can do is hang on to the handle bars because the brakes are gone and there are blind curves ahead. We might as well enjoy the ride because we cant turn around and we cant get off. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

...that alone tells me the GOP is playing the pro lifers as chumps

Well, keep in mind that the pro-lifers have nowhere else to go. I mean, they CERTAINLY can't go to the Democratic party -- after all, part of the Democratic platform that gets ratified at each and every convention is a formal legal statement that the party will absolutely, positively stand behind pro-choice stances, including even expanding abortion rights.

So, the pro-choicers are sort of between a rock and a hard place. To them, abortion is an issue nearest and dearest to their heart, but unfortunately they're swimming against a strong tide. The problem they have is that while every poll shows that most Americans are actually AGAINST abortion -- that is, the larger number of Americans would obviously like to see the number of abortions that get performed each year drastically reduced -- all the same, most people ALSO tend to think it should still be a personal decision that gets left up to a person/couple.

I mean, it's just one of those classic political quandaries. Do you like Obama? Right now, the polls show that a majority of people DO. Do you like Obama's policies and the direction of the country? The same polls show that people DON'T. At which point you're left scratching your head and saying, "Huh? How can you have both?" Abortion is the same -- ask people if they are against abortion, the majority say "Yes." Ask them if you think it should therefore be outlawed to support that viewpoint, then they suddenly say "No."

[transjen]

I always find it funny that the GOP claims they are the party of freedom and they believe that goverment should have no say in peoples lives yet they want to ban same sex marrige and ban abortion isn't that goverment saying how to live your life? Where's the freedom to marry who you love? And where's the womans choice to have or not have a baby? FYI i'm not in favor of abortion and i not in favor of an out right ban mainly because every case is differnt and sadly at times it's the best for those involved talking about medical reasons Jennifer