With the confirmation of the court jester yesterday, the Democratic Party now has 60 votes in the Senate. With that the Democratic Party now controls the White House, the House, and has a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. No longer can they use the excuse that the GOP is "being obstructionist". They don't need the GOP anymore so if they truly believe in cap and trade, socialized medicine, passing even more restrictive hate crime legislation, gun control legislation, windfall profit taxes on oil companies, immigration reform, then this is their chance to push that legislation on through. In addition there should be no stopping the recesinding of "Don't ask Don't tell", the defense of marriage act, no child left behind, heck they could quash the NAFTA treaty if they wished. And let's not forget judicial nominees. There shouldn't be any thing slowing down their nomination and confirmation. Virtually every bench vacancy should be filled in record time. There is nothing and no one that can put the brakes on, no procedural vote can stand in their way. So let's get to it Democrats. Put your money where your mouth is. You've been saying for years that these things are what the public really wants and only if the GOP would get out of the way you could turn this country into a modern day Nirvana. You don't have have that excuse to fall back on anymore. Time to get to work.

When was the last time the GOP was in the same situation? Has it ever happened?

Quoting DXing (Thread starter):

That is quite scary. Considering what's been going on in the Obama Administration, my trust in them and in the Democratic Party -- well, I trust them about as much as I trust a complete stranger with my social security and financial information...

Yes, I am registered a democrat, but I am really thinking of switching parties here with everything that's happening...

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 2): switching parties here with everything that's happening...

Switching parties to the party that allowed this this happen?

Besides, that bastion of impartiality and GOP favorite news source says that you have nothing to worry about:

"But that's on a really, really good day. For all intents and purposes, Democrats don't truly have 60 votes in the Senate. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...e-supermajority-strong-advertised/

[Edited 2009-07-01 10:46:31]

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 1): When was the last time the GOP was in the same situation?

Not in my lifetime (43 years).

The last time the Democrats had a fillibuster-proof majority was over 30 years ago (during the Carter Administration).

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 3): Switching parties to the party that allowed this this happen?

Right I forgot... Clinton was a Republican, and the republican party mandated the subprime lending in 1999, which then hit the fan 1 to 2 years ago...   

Don't believe me? Google it. You can find it just about anywhere.

I realize it's still too soon to tell what will become of the country under the Obama Administration. I guess it will take a year or two before we get a better idea. Yes, I am hearing and reading about signs that the recession may end as early as later this year, but I still have my doubts. Besides, when it ends, will it leave our country stronger? With Democrats in power, especially the far left (and it seems that the only ones in power are those who are extreme, which I guess is true with either party anymore), they are in favor of bigger government (i.e: government-funded healthcare), pro-union, and anti-big business and wealth. They think it is wrong for some people to make the millions that they make, for creating their businesses and expanding them by leaps and bounds and altimately stimulating the economy (creating jobs while expanding the comany(ies)). Don't get me wrong. There are some folks out there who are not at all worthy of their millions (greedy and fraudulent CEOs, etc), but for the most part, big business is what creates the jobs that can build and sustain an economy; not the federal government...

With that, I think we are heading towards socialism and away from capitalism. I think with bigger government, we're going to lose more and more of our rights... That's just my opinion, my point of view here.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 5): Right I forgot..

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 5): which then hit the fan 1 to 2 years ago... sarcastic

Did you forget that who was President for the last 8 years?

Did the last 8 years not happen?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 6): Did you forget that who was President for the last 8 years? Did the last 8 years not happen?

No no... They happened. My argument was that Bush was not the one who mandated all the crap that caused the economy to tank. That stuff happened before he took office, and the s**t hit the fan during his term in office, so naturally he was blamed for this mess. My argument is that it is not entirely his fault. It's partially his fault as his administration was riddled with mistakes left and right, especially the whole WMDs in Iraq crap. That one probably takes the cake in terms of his mistakes. But did the war cause the banks to fold and the housing market to tumble? I don't think so.

Again, go back to the subprime lending that was mandated 10 years ago. That is one big factor that triggered the ripple effect that lead to this recession. The banks handed out loans that could not be paid back (someone with a low income should not be living in a $500k home or driving a luxury car), they faced billion dollar deficits because of that, which set off the ripple effect through the housing market and credit industry. The crap with the big 3 is another can of worms I'd like to avoid...

Obama's Administration is also steering this country in another direction in regards to its relations with Israel, and I will NOT go there either...

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 7): But did the war cause the banks to fold and the housing market to tumble

How was the Iraq war paid for? How was the schools, road, infrastructure that is being left for the Iraqis paid for? Money from the trees?

See... here's the thing righties don't understand about Democrats: Dems don't always vote party line. Dems don't always vote in one block. The Republicans that don't vote party line are ostricized and called nasty names and told they are RINOs and so forth. So, they have a conscience. Big deal. So, before anything has happened, they have been set to the "high" standard the Republicans set for the first six years of the reign of Bush II and have been bashed for it. From a leftie hater. Get over it. Dems will do what Dems will do as individuals, not as a block. That is a given. It has already been proven. Hate all you want. It is better than voting party line just to stay in the good graces of the party leaders!

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): They don't need the GOP anymore so if they truly believe in cap and trade, socialized medicine, passing even more restrictive hate crime legislation, gun control legislation, windfall profit taxes on oil companies, immigration reform, then this is their chance to push that legislation on through. In addition there should be no stopping the recesinding of "Don't ask Don't tell", the defense of marriage act, no child left behind, heck they could quash the NAFTA treaty if they wished. And let's not forget judicial nominees. There shouldn't be any thing slowing down their nomination and confirmation.

The problem isn't the 60 seats because the democrats can get one or two moderate republicans on to side with them on certain issues. The problem is other democrats who are obstructing the legislation from happening. They should take a lesson from the GOP and chastise the ones who block stuff and force them to explain why they did so and then it is up to the voters of their districts deal with them in the voting booth.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 2): Yes, I am registered a democrat, but I am really thinking of switching parties here with everything that's happening...

Don't tie yourself to either like that, whats the point?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 1): When was the last time the GOP was in the same situation? Has it ever happened?

Not that I can ever remember.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 3): "But that's on a really, really good day. For all intents and purposes, Democrats don't truly have 60 votes in the Senate. "

Not the point. The fact is that they do have 60 seats and they have made a point over the past several years of saying that if it wasn't for GOP obstruction in the Senate, which when they were in the minority they called being the loyal opposition, they could get all this legislation passed that the public has been yearning for for a long time and that only the evil GOP has prevented.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 4): The last time the Democrats had a fillibuster-proof majority was over 30 years ago (during the Carter Administration).

Ah the good ole days. Remember them well.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 9): Hate all you want.

Only took nine replies for the hate card to be played. No matter how much it gets played it should not be a factor, 60 votes is 60 votes. Time for the Democratic Party majority to put their votes where their mouthes are. But already, as we have seen in a couple of posts here, they are coming up with excuses. They'd like to pass these things into law but they won't do it without at least a few GOP members crossing over since when the music stops they don't want to be the ones left without a chair.

Quoting DXing (Reply 12): Only took nine replies for the hate card to be played.

The 'hate card'? Really? Tell us more about this hate card.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 5): Right I forgot... Clinton was a Republican, and the republican party mandated the subprime lending in 1999, which then hit the fan 1 to 2 years ago... sarcastic

First off, you don't your facts straight. There was no "mandate" to do subprime leading, there was a mandate for if you were going to serve an area you had to serve all the people in an area. what you did and how did it was your business. And if you review the banks that specialized in lending to people with lower credit scores you will see that they did better in this recent financial meltdown than the "big banks". That's because they maintained credit or income verification requirements. Whereas the banks that got in trouble did little verification, passed off bad loans quickly and wrapped them into complex investment vehicles that then infected the markets. The neighborhood and community bank's by comparison kept their mortgages and loans and did not sell off significant portions of them to the markets to make quick buck. But then many of them are non-profit privately held or differently chartered and don't have to live life looking at the next quarters returns.

http://www.mpsaz.com/common/files/BALM Nov08 After the Financial Crisis McGuire.pdf
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20090320a.htm
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...nks-are-weathering-economic-slump/
http://www.scnow.com/scp/news/local/...ffer_during_financial_crisis/41103
http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/busin..._didnt_cause_economic_crisis/3350/

Stop blaming "subprime lending", it was the banks and how they used "Alt A loans" and didn't enforce proper lending standards and were looking for a quick buck that caused the problems.

Tugg

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 13): The 'hate card'? Really? Tell us more about this hate card.

Read the reply, go back and read the threads on the GOP. More than one forum member has played the card more than once.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): They don't need the GOP anymore

60 doesn't mean anything for today's Democratic party. Between Blue Dogs who want to get re-elected and the two senators who are technically independent, they still need the GOP for anything that will require broad-based support to get done. And frankly, for some of the President's loftier goals, that's not going to be possible unless the White House is willing to compromise far more than they've shown willingness to do.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 16): 60 doesn't mean anything for today's Democratic party.

Does not change the fact that they have what their party leaders have been crying for for several years. Their mantra was that they couldn't get things done because the GOP was obstructing them. The obstruction is gone, and with it that excuse.

Quoting DXing (Reply 17): The obstruction is gone, and with it that excuse.

Yeah, you are definitely right.

Both parties are just awful. I am beginning to doubt the political design of the USA. Maybe it is inevitable that we destroy ourselves. Still, that is much better than the Republicans going and destroying Iraq in the name of (whatever it was). They had some mumbo jumbo they were saying when they killed all those Iraqi women and children and innocent men, who did not attack the USA. Compared to that shame, our country's darkest hour since the 1860s, Obama can completely burn the Federal Reserve down; I really don't care.

Quoting DXing (Reply 12): Only took nine replies for the hate card to be played.

Well, actually, if you read the OP, you will see.... oh, wait... that comes from a Republican supporter, so that does not count....

Why is it, when Dems do anything at all, they get blamed and called names and told they are stupid and un-American and such things, but when the GOP does anything it is patriotic and American and anyone standing in their way is terrorists and obstructionists? It just confounds me how the GOP can go around telling everyone how global domination is the best and most patriotic thing for the country, but taking car of our own citizens is the wrong and worst thing that can possibly happen AFTER the GOP has bankrupted the country. Explain that one to me, please.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 2): Yes, I am registered a democrat, but I am really thinking of switching parties here with everything that's happening...

Come next fall you will have a lot of company. I know a few hard line lefties who were in love for Obama last fall and now can't believe the mess he has created. He has proven what we all have said, a great campaign (mostly due to the internet, teleprompter and stolen speeches) but no substance. He has put this country in danger with his cowardice with terrorism and I just hope there is something left for the GOP to fix in 2012'.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 19): Why is it, when Dems do anything at all, they get blamed and called names and told they are stupid and un-American and such things, but when the GOP does anything it is patriotic and American and anyone standing in their way is terrorists and obstructionists?

??? I'm sorry, maybe I missed something. Exactly where was that "name" tossed out? Who said anything about stupid or un-American? Guess we're back to making things up in this thread since the facts are too much to handle. What has Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi been saying for the past two years? Who was supposedly obstructionist because they didn't vote for the tarp bill, or the stimulus bill, cap and trade, and are not planning on supporting the dems health care bill just to name a few recent examples? Which leads into your second statement...

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 19): It just confounds me how the GOP can go around telling everyone how global domination is the best and most patriotic thing for the country, but taking car of our own citizens is the wrong and worst thing that can possibly happen AFTER the GOP has bankrupted the country. Explain that one to me, please.

After? That would mean that the stimulus bill, the loans to GM, as well as the health care bill have passed, been granted, or will be voted on by a bankrupt government? And yet it is still spending money? How does that work?

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): In addition there should be no stopping the recesinding of "Don't ask Don't tell"

WTF? LOL. wow... typical.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): socialized medicine, passing even more restrictive hate crime legislation

I'd much rather know for sure that I have access to health care, that think hmm.... How much is this costing me.

So you're saying... you like hate crimes? I guess I really don't understand that.
Its rediculous to think that even in today's time's we still have racists! Wow.... grow up!  

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): cap and trade

Needs work, but I'm not opposed to the principle.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): socialized medicine

Not something I want rushed through, but again I agree with the principle

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): passing even more restrictive hate crime legislation

That I could do without.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): gun control legislation

As long as it's sensible.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): windfall profit taxes on oil companies

Ultimately this doesn't really do anything useful, so I hope they let it drop.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): immigration reform

Much needed.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): the recesinding of "Don't ask Don't tell"

Should have been done a while ago.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): the defense of marriage act

Also should have been gone a while ago.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): no child left behind

Well-intentioned, but it's been a disaster and needs to be fixed.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): heck they could quash the NAFTA treaty if they wished

Which they shouldn't.

They have the green light to push their agenda through, but I still hope they take the time to make sure it's all going to do what needs to be done and doesn't mess with what's working now. It's Congress, though, so I'm not hopeful. If there's one bright spot, it's that the Democrats should be more incompetent than the Republicans, so they'll have a harder time getting their agenda done.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 11): Don't tie yourself to either like that, whats the point?

   Independent is the way to go.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 18): I am beginning to doubt the political design of the USA. Maybe it is inevitable that we destroy ourselves.

Well, unless we fix it. Some new, viable third and fourth and fifth parties would go a long way.

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 22): So you're saying... you like hate crimes? I guess I really don't understand that.

The problem with hate crime legislation is that you are basically punishing intent in addition to the crime itself, which means you are legislating thought.

I despise hate crimes (you could say I hate them), but I also despise the legislation of thought.

-Mir

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 22): WTF? LOL. wow... typical.

Now there's an answer with some meat on it.

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 22): I'd much rather know for sure that I have access to health care, that think hmm.... How much is this costing me.

You mean costing your parents? How much is the health care bill in front of the Congress going to cost? If you know how about sharing since Congress doesn't even know the answer to that one.

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 22): So you're saying... you like hate crimes?

Define a hate crime versus a regular crime.

Quoting DXing (Reply 21): And yet it is still spending money? How does that work?

Because the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq cost nothing? All those soldiers are there on a volunteer basis? For all those years, anyone voting against the Patriot Act, and war funding were un-American and terrorists. Anyone against the war (but not the soldiers, keep in mind) were told they were/are no better than al-Qaida and those that attacked us on Sept 11. BTW, how well did Bush do in containing Taliban and al-Qaida? How many years did he have to contain the threat? How many billions of dollars were spent on data mining, soldiers, spying, mercinaries, and propoganda? What exactly did that get us? We are just swimming in dough, right? We only got the trillions of dollars of debt the second Obama was sworn in, but before that, we had absolutly no debt at all?

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 5): I realize it's still too soon to tell what will become of the country under the Obama Administration.

Of course. Right now we are seeing a guy who doesnt really wana do anything he has said. But we will not see the effects of the Obama Administration until maybe 8 years from now when our taxes are through the roof because of all the spending going on!

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 3): Switching parties to the party that allowed this this happen?

Okay so Bush did start this at the end of his term with spending like crazy and I was 100% against that, then you have Obama who wants to continue. Its like you have Bush grabbing a shovel and started to dig a giant ditch and Obama came into office and asked for the shovel from Bush and he started to do some more digging himself! What the heck?! Change? I think not!

I absolutly hate Bill Mahr but I loved his segment I think it was last week when he actually wanted President Obama to start doing things the way Bush did! What?! Bill was saying Obama needs to stop being a "rock star" looking out for his "likable" raitings and start doing some crap. Your voted in office to help the people, not to look good dip.

Ill take a President any day who cant speak proper english over a guy who wants to look in the mirror 24/7 and wants to hear how good he is.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 19): but taking car of our own citizens

And how has Obama taken care of the citizens and the Democratic party? Is taking care of your citizens hiking up taxes? It doesnt just have to be your tax on your paycheck but sales tax, property tax, pollution tax?, gas tax, all these other darn things they wana add fees onto. What in the world? Talk about opening up my pockets and helping yourself. If you want the economy to bring itself back up, gotta keep money in their pockets to spend on goods and not on fees and taxes. The current powers in the states and federal government dont seem to care about the people. Just about themselves and their special intrests.

Quoting DXing (Reply 24): You mean costing your parents? How much is the health care bill in front of the Congress going to cost? If you know how about sharing since Congress doesn't even know the answer to that one.

Hehe. Yes my parents.
I don't mean how much it will ultimately cost for the health care package, I'm talking about my family and how much it costs us to have health insurance(obviously I don't actually know this)
I'm still just a boy.  

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): Because the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq cost nothing?

I'm beginning to find it more and more humorous that the only way supporters of the current administration can justify it's financial policies is to compare it to the previous one. Not "previous ones" but just the last one. If we want to truly adopt your line of thinking then we should also include Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41 and Clinton because they all signed off on budgets that were in deficit and ran up unpaid for debt. Before anyone bothers to waste the time typing President Clinton did not sign a balanced budget even once since SS funds were included in those budgets general funds and IOU's were issued to the SS trust fund to cover them.

I really fail to see how the "two wrongs make a right" strategy is one that will stand up to the light of day.

BTW I can quote President Obama as saying we are out of money. Can you quote any other President as saying that? Once a CEO indicates the company is broke, do they then announce a massive new building program?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): We only got the trillions of dollars of debt the second Obama was sworn in, but before that, we had absolutly no debt at all?

We had debt alright but within the first 100 days President Obama managed to add several trillion more. The difference between the spending, if there is any, is that things like health care and some of the other programs that President Obama is pushing are ongoing social programs that have no end. Our military spending will be coming to an end in Iraq in 2011. Hopefully in Afghanistan not long after that. Medicare and Medicaid have been spending more and more money since their inception in the 60's. President Obama's health care initative will do just the same. As has been noted several times in different threads, the Constitution specifically mandates that the Federal government provide for a common defense. Can you point out where it specifically mandates it provide health care for all? If the population disagrees with defense spending they can vote out the current administration and that spending can change almost immediately. Since Medicare, Medicaid, and presumably any national health insurance plan are written as "laws" which require "laws" to change them, the funding issues are completely different. A new President cannot just say "I'm not going to spend as much money on Medicare this year." because that would be against the law.

But none of this has to do with the democratic party having no excuses left on not passing all those little, and big, programs they said that the evil GOP was standing in the way of.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 26): we are seeing a guy who doesnt really wana do anything he has said.

Gee... a politician flip-flopping? How shocking. The only ones that ever get called on it are Dems by Republicans. But, it happens in both parties. Don't even try to say it doesn't.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 26): Bush did start this at the end of his term with spending like crazy

Right. Because Bush kept the small government started by Clinton, right? Bush didn't even start expanding government until the end of his term? Department of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, domestic spying, war in Iraq... none of those started until the end of his second term? Give me a break. He expanded government faster than (almost?) any other president in history.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 26): And how has Obama taken care of the citizens and the Democratic party?

Allowing new technology to take shape, therefore, hiring of new employees. More people working means more people being taxed meaning more money going into the federal government. As opposed to lowering taxes, allowing businesses to ship jobs overseas, and, therefore, lowering money going into the federal government.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28): Clinton did not sign a balanced budget even once since SS funds were included in those budgets general funds and IOU's were issued to the SS trust fund to cover them.

I'm sorry... I gotta call BS on this one. It was not even an issue until some right-wing blogger brought it up a few months ago. It was not even a point until then. IF it was such a big deal, it would have been fought tooth and nail since Clinton did it.

Besides, everyone on the right still blames Clinton for every little ill in the United States even though he has not been in office for... what... nine years? Bush was a saint, but Clinton was the reason for what we are going through now? I am so sick of that. Can you guys find something else to blame? Like your own out of conrol Republican congress and president? Oh, wait. I forgot. They are all saints. Never ever done anything wrong.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28): Can you point out where it specifically mandates it provide health care for all?

"Promote the general welfare" How can a sick and under-educated populace possibly make for a healthy and good nation? To further your own point, can you tell me exactly where it says we are all entitled to carry around automatic weapons if we are not defending our nation?

Quoting DXing (Reply 28): the democratic party having no excuses left on not passing all those little, and big, programs

When, exactly, did anyone say any of that would happen, anyway? One or two people? A bunch of people said we would be safer if we went and invaded Iraq, too. Right after that happened, we were still told about terror and terrorists being everywhere and wanting to kill Americans and do evil to the United States.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): I'm sorry... I gotta call BS on this one. It was not even an issue until some right-wing blogger brought it up a few months ago. It was not even a point until then. IF it was such a big deal, it would have been fought tooth and nail since Clinton did it.

Call BS all you want, it wasn't President Clinton that started it. SS otherwise known as FICA taxes have been included in the general fund in every budget since 1969. While some will claim it is only an accounting gimick, the fact remains that prior to 1969 SS contributions were counted in a completely seperate column. Now SS contributions appear as additional income to the government which is not how the original program was envisioned. The contributions, or tax for a better word appears to add to the income of the government in the budget when in reality those taxes are loans that will have to be repaid someday.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): "Promote the general welfare"

Does not spell "universal health care". Provide for the common defense has a definitive meaning. In addition the defense appropriation is discretionary spending and can go up and down as the years go by. Medicare, Medicaid, and presumably any universal health care program are and most likely will not be. They will be written into law at a certain rate which will do nothing but increase as the years go by.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): To further your own point, can you tell me exactly where it says we are all entitled to carry around automatic weapons if we are not defending our nation?

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". That point was backed up by the Supreme Court just last year. The first part of the amendment makes no specific reference to anyone "having" to belong to a militia to bear arms, just that a militia being necessary.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): When, exactly, did anyone say any of that would happen, anyway?

Senators Reid, Durban, Kennedy, Dodd, Schumer, as well as former Senator Daschle, Speaker Pelosi, Resprenatives Clyburn, Frank, Rangel, and Waters just to name a few have all at one time or another repeated the claim that the GOP is being obstructionist and if the Democratic Party only had a majority in both houses and 60 seats in the Senate things that would help the country could be enacted without their (GOP) meddling. That was the tertiary mantra of the past Presidential election.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): Gee... a politician flip-flopping? How shocking. The only ones that ever get called on it are Dems by Republicans. But, it happens in both parties. Don't even try to say it doesn't.

Well first I am not a Republican so we can count me out on the one calling out a Dem because of political party. So dont add me to that list por favor. Republicans were always called out by the great CNN and MSNBC as well. That is true. There is a difference in a guy who gets things done, and a guy who wants to look like hes getting things done. I am sorry but America is not a better place than it was 2 years ago when Bush was entering 2008 and his last year in office.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): Department of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, domestic spying, war in Iraq...

There is a difference in gov exanding in these areas then the gov making jobs to kick out the private sector.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): Allowing new technology to take shape, therefore, hiring of new employees. More people working means more people being taxed meaning more money going into the federal government

And they get paid by tax payers. America can never get out of a recession if the jobs being created are gov jobs that require Americans to pay higher and more taxes. The private sector is where the money should be made and what WILL cause America to come back. I sat in a town hall meeting in my city with Senators and Congressmen for my state and they said that California is now 52% government jobs and 48% private sector. That right there is sickning.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 2): I am really thinking of switching parties here with everything that's happening...

The republicans screwed this country up so bad that they should be mandated to not be allowed back in office for the next term either. When I think of idiots like rush Limbaugh talking crap about Obama less than a year into his first term. Bush nearly destroyed this country with his foreign policy and with no regard for the economy. What are we now, almost 10 trillion dollars in debt. Most of that to China. He spent his entire time in office isolating the U.S. and Britain and making our countries two of the most hated on the earth. We got attacked by Bin Laden and he sent a few thousand troops after him.

Then he claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and sent in almost half of our military for Saddam. The other day the FBI released information stating that Saddam Hussein blatantly made it seem as though he had weapons of mass destruction to the international community, because he was scared of the power of his neighbor Iran. THOUSANDS OF TROOPS DEAD FOR A BLUFF, Top