Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 48): Remember how those non profit government backed institutions called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac turned out?

Fannie Mae did not receive any federal government funding or backing until the bailout. The government sold it off in 1968. It is a common mistake. One that even institutional investors make, meaning Fannie can save on borrowing costs.

Freddie Mac, while a government sponsored enterprise, does not have any government backed guarantees: "[S]ecurities, including any interest, are not guaranteed by, and are not debts or obligations of, the United States or any agency or instrumentality of the United States other than Freddie Mac." http://www.freddiemac.com/debt/products/faq_fnotes.html

Mismanaged and out of government oversight . . . so are you saying that the government should actually run the health care system instead of a non profit (which Fannie and Freddie definitely are not)? Try again.

Texan

Quoting Texan (Reply 51): Fannie Mae did not receive any federal government funding or backing until the bailout. The government sold it off in 1968. It is a common mistake. One that even institutional investors make, meaning Fannie can save on borrowing costs.

It was implicit in the established of Fannie Mae that the government would bail it out if it got into trouble. That bailout just illustrates the US Government will step up if needed....

Here's an article from the Atlanta branch of the Federal Reserve:
http://www.frbatlanta.org/pubs/finan...nd_freddie_mac.cfm?redirected=true

As government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which are both publicly traded companies — receive explicit and implicit government subsidies. This mix of private and public involvement means that these organizations need to fulfill a public mission as well as provide investors with acceptable rates of return.

The federal government maintains its ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by providing various explicit subsidies: a $2.5 billion line of credit with the Treasury, exemption from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and exemption from state and local income taxes.

"Though obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, investors have indicated that they believe the government would provide any support necessary to keep these companies solvent because of their public sponsorship and mission. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac benefit from this implicit guarantee through lower funding costs: Investors in their stock, general obligations and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) accept lower rates of return in exchange for perceived lower risk."

And the government did EXACTLY that. Fannie and Freddie aren't exactly independent companies say like Ford...

[Edited 2010-01-19 21:38:45 by sv7887]

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 39): Humility? "You're either with us or against us." "We'll get him, dead or alive." "Bring it on!" "I have political capital, and I intend to use it." Care to change that tune? He was probably the most arrogant president we've ever had

What about those statements is arrogrant? In your first statement he was talking about regime's that harbor terrorists. In the second statement he was talking about Bin Laden, and since then he has been the subject of ridicule on the left for not bringing Bin Laden in, so which is it? Do you want him caught or not? The third statement was in response to AQ saying they were going to force us out of Iraq. Do you expect him to agree with AQ? The fourth statement is a statement of fact that the current President has used as well when he said to the GOP "I won". Care to change your tune? Everyone of your examples is completely flawed. When talking about combat I don't want a President with humility. I want him to instill the sense of fight in our troops.

Quoting Cws818 (Reply 42): How, exactly, is he able to force the House and Senate to operate exactly how he wants them too?

He didn't exactly call them out either as he had constantly done to the GOP since the election. He made a promise, he should chide the leader of the House and Senate for not following their own promises of having the most open and transparent Congress ever.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 52): investors have indicated that they believe the government would provide any support necessary to keep these companies solvent because of their public sponsorship and mission

We said the same thing. There is and never was a guarantee. What investors believed was irrelevant to their actual missions. In one of the authorizing statutes, the term "government sponsored enterprise" is defined as "a corporate entity created by a law of the United States that . . . (B)(i) Does not exercise powers that are reserved to the government as sovereign; (ii) does not have the power to commit the government financially . . . ." Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. 601 (1974, amended 1990). The government was never under any financial obligation to assist Freddie or Fannie. That they did does not change history or the law.

Texan

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 37): Actually, G.W. Bush had humility and rarely fired back at his detractors.

No he had Karl Rove for that.

Quoting Cws818 (Reply 42): So why didn't you start trying to save the country before now? Why the sudden interest?

I'd love to know the answer to that as well.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 34): Obama lied to us, he said health care debate would be trasnparent.

And George W Bush lied to us when he told us there were WMDs in Iraq. Which is the more serious lie?

Oh and let's not forget Bill Clinton's infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech. Politicians lie to us all the time, it's the seriousness of the lie that matters.

Quoting Texan (Reply 43): Obama is, at best, an Eisenhower-era Republican. He might even be a little further to the right than that. Just because you don't recognize the shift in American politics and that the Democrats are now classical Republicans and the Republican Party has, overall, been hijacked by right wing nut jobs doesn't make the Democrats socialist.

      Excellent post and excellent points Texan.

Quoting Texan (Reply 43): I am just as critical of the Democrats. Anyone who believes either of these parties is the savior of the country is delusional.

Exactly. I vote Democratic because I see the part as the lesser of two evils. But at the end of the day, I have many issues with the Democratic party and its leadership.

Quoting Texan (Reply 43): And if you think Obama is socialist then you are truly an ultracrepidarian. President Obama is about as socialist and left wing as the conservative stalwart Ike.

Many (if not most) Center-right politicians in Europe are firmly left of Obama.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 36): Did Republicans "ramrod" through private social security accounts in 2005 when they held the White House and majorities in both houses? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no.

Fortunately that one died on the vine - when the DOW was 14000+, which was before it went to the 6000 range. If old George had gotten his way on that one a lot of self assured conservative leaning would have moved that money over and received the anal plunge of their lifetime.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): Fortunately that one died on the vine - when the DOW was 14000+, which was before it went to the 6000 range. If old George had gotten his way on that one a lot of self assured conservative leaning would have moved that money over and received the anal plunge of their lifetime.

Versus a Social Security trust fund that is in the red now? And will be depleted in less than 20 yrs or so at this rate? It will get worse as more baby boomers retire. As it is the system is being stretched due to so many early retirements.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/tsOps.html

Old George saw the writing on the wall with regards to Social Security reform. It's going bankrupt period.

As for investing.....You're making a general assumption based on someone investing in 100% stocks to take that kind of loss. Anyone up for retirement wouldn't invest that aggressively....Responsible investors who manage their risk got hurt but didn't get cleaned out.

For Massachussetts, the result of this election was the embodiment of Obama's philosophy of change. The same voters who voted in Obama as the answer to four more years of republican demagogery (not to mention the notion of Sarah Palin being a heart beat away from the presidency with a sitting president who's 72 years old scared the bejesus out of most people other than the fanatic neo cons who basically arm twisted McCain into accepting her in the first place) have just voted out the Kennedy dynasty and their chosen surrogate, Coakley, and voted in someone new.

As the democrats have just learned, change works both ways. They mobilized the forces of change to vote out the GOP but I suspect that the Democrats only wanted change to be a one way street. They wanted the forces of change to go to work on their behalf and throw out republican incumbents, replacing them with new Democrats. However, when it came to incumbent democrats or their surrogates, the dems expected that the forces of change would stop working and return to embracing the old way, blindly voting for anyone with a D next to their name or the last name Kennedy or even, in this case, anyone endorsed as being "What Teddy would have wanted" regardless of their perceived ability to do the job.

Coakley probably assumed, naively, that she didn't really need to run a good campaign, that her status as a democrat in a state that votes democrat 90 percent of the time and her endorsement by the Kennedy family in a state that pretty much lionizes the Kennedys, would be enough to win. I suspect that she also expected that the GOP would run a "paper tiger candidate." I mean, afterall, she was Uncle Teddy's chosen successor, the heir to the seat, certainly the GOP would just continue to act like the token opposition and not really challenge Uncle Teddy's wishes that his seat be bequeathed to Aunt Martha.

Well, she got a big surprise, the GOP understood that it had alot on the line and that this election was a golden opportunity to stop a power grab on the part of the Dems in the guise of health care reform and so picked a candidate who turned out to be a real tiger, rather than a paper one not to mention one who believed himself to be more than just token, meaningless, opposition to the succession of another generation of Kennedys to the seat.

the only question now becomes how long does he have to build a reputation for himself as a senator and a track record for the voters so that in the next real election, he can actually hold onto the seat.

So, congratulations to Mr. Brown for winning the election, and congratulations to the Democrats, you just got a great big helping of change, hope you find it tastes good.

I guess this ends the Democratic hubris in a pretty huuuuuuuuge hurry.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): And most polls show Americans DO want Health Care reform, so I don't see where it should be dead. In fact, it should not be dead.

I understand the statistic you're quoting, but I hope that we both understand that statistics can be very misleading. It is entirely plausible that most Americans want health reform; but, is it the Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Dem brand of health reform that ALL (or even most) of Americans want? Likely not.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): simply to kill reform, or to make reform-which is going to happen anyway-something better?

But the thing is, with the way things are going to go from here, they are basically going to have to kill THIS reform in order to change it. The Dem's best bet is to pass the Senate bill with no revision through the House, have Obama sign it, and then basically conduct the conference process through reconciliation. But there will not be enough wiggle room for the GOP to meaningfully and positively modify the bill in reconciliation, so they will have to kill it to the extent possible before starting from scratch.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): Most Americans, just one year ago, voted overwhelmingly for Obama to be President, and, unlike you, do not think he is a Socialist. In fact, he's not.

You're right, he's not a socialist by the letter of the definition. I think the word is popular to describe him by because his big-government, paternalistic, populist and (economically) interventionist policies remind us of full-fledged socialism. It would be hard to argue that he doesn't fan the flames of class warfare in this country.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): I wonder, off-hand, if anyone has ever done a study about who ends up paying more in the long run: people in socialist democracies, who have that high tax rate, or Americans, who would rather pay for Day Care, Health Care, etc, out of their own pocket? Might be interesting.

I'd pay a considerable premium for quality day care and health care over a single, government-provided option that doesn't have to innovate or be competitive. If I don't want the mediocre government option, I don't want to have to pay for it.

Sure, Canadians don't have to pay for healthcare (ignoring what they pay in taxes), but I know several personally who own houses in the United States because they come here so often for medical procedures. Many would rather have the option of being able to pay to get an MRI on Friday rather than be put on a 10-week waiting list.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 20): And by then a lot of voters will be able to get insurance for themselves or someone in their family with "pre-existing conditions" outlawed. I don't believe conservatives consider that as important as it is.

Sorry, but even if the bill were passed before November, it most certainly will not take effect until probably the first of next year, and they way the Dems have set it up, no one would be seeing such benefits till what, 2014? Don't forget that we'll all be paying for it in the meantime.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23): Which he is not. When the bailout money was handed to the banks, conservatives screamed "See, he's taking over the industry!". Well, that was a lie. Many, if not most, of the banks have paid back the money, and the government no longer has a stake in them, does it?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): You just don't get it, do you? Did the government give up it's stake in those banks who paid back the Federal money? Yes or no? A temporary investment in them, is not permanent control, and you know it. But you're pretending you don't simply to play political games.

But that is exactly the scary part! The government has gotten it's TARP funds back (plus interest) from most all of the banks, and Obama is STILL not happy with it! Where do we draw the line? He has demonstrated that he has no qualms exerting even more control of private corporations from which the government has already divested with this bonus tax. Before that, he handily dismantled property rights when dealing with GM's secured bondholders in order to save the UNIONS. Where does it end?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8): With Brown elected I see the House simply passing the Senate version of the Health Reform Bill - and doing so rather quickly. There is no reason to spend any more time on it in the Senate from the Democrat's point of view, or from Obama's point of view.

I read about this in a German news magazine article. For the Democrats, it would be the logical course of action because if they do decide to find a compromise between the two bills, the Republicans can now filibuster the new bill until at least the upcoming midterm-elections, if not outright kill the bill if the Democrats suffer heavy losses during the midterms.

Bottom line is that Kennedy's death, and Brown winning this special election is a huge blow for Obama and the Democrats in Congress, there's no way around that. They lost their filibuster-proof "super-"majority and it could kill their healthcare reform. And let's face it: Obama's approval rating is going down, people seem to become more and more disappointed with Obama overall (according to the article), and Mitt Romney said on Fox News that this vote was a referendum against Obama's agenda.

From my neutral point of view, I believe that this vote will simply stall the healthcare reform, and if the democrats lose more senate seats during the midterms, then all the supporters of the heathcare reform can kiss it goodbye. Eventually, it could even become a similar, if not the same situation as in 1994, with the Republican victory during Clinton's first midterm.

I hope the Dems delay the seating of Brown and Rahm the Anti-Health Care Reform Bill through Congress. C'mon Pelosi/Reid don't fail us now 

Quoting National757 (Reply 62): I hope the Dems delay the seating of Brown and Rahm the Anti-Health Care Reform Bill through Congress

The insurance and Pharma stocks shot WAY up yesterday and today with the poll's projecting of a substantial Coakly loss in MA, and (in my opinion) President Obama has bowed to every industry demand from the get-go. According to some, Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have been kissing the medical industrial complex's butt in order to keep the lobbying money in the Democratic coffers and, thus, away from the Republicans. They have succeeded throughout the healthcare reform fiasco (except for some Pharma funneling of money for anti-healthcare reform ads) and now they have justification to either push through the Senate version of the bill without ANY CHANGES AT ALL in the House (a process in which Dems don't need the 60 vote filibuster majority in the milionaires club, ummm, the Senate), the bill passes AS IS which, of course, is horrible or, as even some Dems in Congress have suggested, dump it.

Since we don't really have two parties in the U.S.A., just two halves of the same party with different names in my Libertarian opinion, it is just a matter of who can win over the healthcare corporate puppet masters and their huge lobbying war chests filled with billions of dollars. Throw the MA special election and win the BIG medical-industiral complex money. Just a thought......

It's a clear sign that Americans are fed up with Obama, and hopefully this will continue. It's not just about Obama's insanely stupid healthcare plan. It's about his endless spending and his complete inability to actually accomplish anything other than interrupt television broadcasts and make an intelligent sounding speech.

And, to think, despite myself being Republican, I am very anti-war/military spending, and I always really thought with the disappointment of Obama winning, "well, at least will slow down the military spending and start a pull out." Ha!


That's all I'm going to say on this, I'm not much for political debate, but I'm very happy with the result.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56): Fortunately that one died on the vine - when the DOW was 14000+, which was before it went to the 6000 range. If old George had gotten his way on that one a lot of self assured conservative leaning would have moved that money over and received the anal plunge of their lifetime.

1. The Dow Jones in 2005 was just about where it is now, actually.

2. The root cause of the stock market plunge was a liquidity crisis. The solution was to move about a trillion dollars of public money into the private sector to stabilize major financial institutions. Private social security accounts would have accomplished the same thing back in 2005 with most of the money going into relatively safe investments. Who knows, it may have actually prevented or lessened the extent of the 2008 crisis.

Either way, the biggest impediment to getting substantial economic growth again is uncertainty. No one wants to start hiring or start building again when there is untold regulatory burdens coming down the pipe from Obama and this Democratic congress.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): What we have in this nation isn't Socialism.

Not entirely. It is a mix of socialism (the "pure" welfare programs and outright government owned businesses such as the Post Office, most roads); fascism, where you achieve the same results as socialism via government regulatory control of nominally private property, and a (still significant) free element.

The defeat of the "single payer" (can we drop the obfuscating names please? No? Yeah, thats what I thought) provision was a blow to outright socialism, but the rest of the bill is pure fascism - no real improvement.

When the debate is between the government taking over or the government telling you what you are allowed to do, you are screwed either way. There is still time for America to escape that death trap - here is hoping.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 49): They invoked the "nuclear option", if you will, over the budget back in the mid 90's, and got the blame for the government shutdown. This won't be quite on the same level, but do they REALLY simply want to kill health care reform?

Again, you use the term incorrectly. The nuclear option was the term coined for the procedural move whereby a Senator would raise a point of order asking the chair to rule that the filibustering of Article III judicial appointments was not allowed under the Senate rules. The Presiding officer of the Senate (a member of the then majority GOP) would rule the point of order correct. The minority would then appeal the chair's ruling, which under Senate rules required only a simple majority vote to uphold.

That procedural maneuver was never used in the Clinton budget battle.

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): God Bless America, nay God Save America.

God does not have an American passport! Or can you prove otherwise....God Bless Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Norwary, Cuba, Brazil, etc.etc....I get so sick and tired of this "God Save America" diatribe.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23): We are not a Socialist State. We do not have a Socialist president. It seems Conservatives always need some scary term to try and peg their domestic enemies as somehow "UnAmerican". Which is shameful.

Bravo!

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 27): Does the US own GM? Does the US own Fannie and Freddie? Does the US own AIG? Does the US still own warrants representing about 35% of Citibank? Does the US own Chysler? Did Pres. Obama not demand banks modify private mortgages?

But they all were fighting to be first in line with their hands out begging the gov't for taxpayer's money

My only other thought about Senator-elect Brown is he's kinda cute shame he's a Republican.....
    

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 66): but the rest of the bill is pure fascism - no real improvement.

Well, it's a slight improvement over Satanism, which is what the current health system is. Which is actually pretty cool. Yeah, go Satan, long may He live.

Anyway, enough about my politics. It is hardly fascist to have a Japanese style health care system. Their system is humane and affordable. I don't have too much patience for people saying America is different and we were born to stick in the mud. We can have a good and cheap health care system, if we want it. But we have to want it.

Obama talks the talk, but this is pretty technical. You need to know a lot about insurance markets to see why the USA "private market" is a doomed charade, and always has been. And, it will get worse.

Congrads to US Senate Elect Scott Brown. Now he must live up to his promises, that he will vote against ObamaCare, just live the good people of Massachusetts have done. More than 55% of the US citizens do not want ObamaCare, in any form. It is not even wanted in Mass., the bluest of all blue states.

It was Independents and some 22% of the democrat voters in MA that pushed Brown to a stinging 5% victory, not just republican voters, giving Senator Elect Brown a wide appeal to the people. In Massachusetts, a 5 point GOP victory is considered a landslide, and 100% of the precints have reported, today they will begin counting absentee ballots. There are about 120,000 absentee ballots sent into election officials, of which Brown only needs about 25,000 votes to maintane his victory.

I am very happy the good people of MA are not following in the election in MN that Al Frankin stole after some 200 days. Mass. conducted a fair and honest election.

Massachusetts has fired the "second shot fired heard around the world", my hope is it was heard loudest in Washington, DC.

[Edited 2010-01-20 05:08:47]

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69): Massachusetts has fired the "second shot fired heard around the world"

 

Talk about overblown sophistry!

Epic Upset.

The slide of the United States of America into the mediocrity of socialism has been halted by the People of Massachusetts, for now .

The fear is that Democrats will not learn from this Epic Event, but neither shall the Republicans.

The American People of Massachusetts have spoken, but are any politicians really listening.

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 68): Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): God Bless America, nay God Save America. God does not have an American passport! Or can you prove otherwise....God Bless Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Norwary, Cuba, Brazil, etc.etc....I get so sick and tired of this "God Save America" diatribe.

I don't think God needs a passport issued by any country.

But, in any case, God bless America, and Germany.

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 68): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23): We are not a Socialist State. We do not have a Socialist president. It seems Conservatives always need some scary term to try and peg their domestic enemies as somehow "UnAmerican". Which is shameful. Bravo!

Correst, the US is not a socialist state, nor do we want to be. Unfortunately we do have a socialist POTUS, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader. The "change" for that has begin in Massachusetts and will sweep to other 49 states (or is it 57 states?).

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 68): Quoting GatorFan (Reply 27): Does the US own GM? Does the US own Fannie and Freddie? Does the US own AIG? Does the US still own warrants representing about 35% of Citibank? Does the US own Chysler? Did Pres. Obama not demand banks modify private mortgages? But they all were fighting to be first in line with their hands out begging the gov't for taxpayer's money

The US no longer "owns" Citybank, but we do "own" GM, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie, and get to tell AIG what they can do. Obama did demand banks modify mortgages, and he is now telling them how much to pay their employees.

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 68): My only other thought about Senator-elect Brown is he's kinda cute shame he's a Republican.....

I believe he is married, and spoken for. He may not be "your type", either.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 69): Anyway, enough about my politics. It is hardly fascist to have a Japanese style health care system. Their system is humane and affordable.

I own a Ford, it is reliable, comfortable, and does everything I want it to. But that is hardly a good reason for you to own one, so why do we need to do what Japan, France or any other country does?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 69): I don't have too much patience for people saying America is different and we were born to stick in the mud. We can have a good and cheap health care system, if we want it. But we have to want it.

So, only your opinion counts, and the opinions of 55% of the country doesn't? The proposed Senate version of ObamaCare is far from "cheap". If it were, why would we have to pay into it for the first 4 years of a 10 years budget prediction before we can get any ObamaCare benefits? That's right, we pay now, and cannot use it until later. Why was the 10 year point picked? Because in year 11 and every year after that, it costs huge amounts of money. That costs is going to be paid by my grandchildren, as well as yours.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 71): The slide of the United States of America into the mediocrity of socialism has been halted by the People of Massachusetts, for now .

        

You guys are amazing, just amazing! What a load of crap you're trying shovel. Problem is, only the True Believers believe this lilne.

Massachusettes voted for their own interests, not your, dude. They don't give a flying frack what you or I think.

But, go on with your delusional ways. It is entertaining, that's for sure.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6): Pelosi heads the House, not the Senate. The pressure is now on Reid, not Pelosi, IMHO

Wrong yet again. It seems that the SFGate (her hometown paper) also thinks Pelosi may have a problem retaining her speakership. Remember, you read it here first.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i?f=/c/a/2010/01/20/MNGO1BJRB2.DTL

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 34): Goody. Where were you the last 8 years when Mr. Bush and the GOP trashed this nation? Where were those high and mighty words when all these crisis' began under the watch of YOUR party? The fact is, you're not trying to "save the nation". You simply want it in the image of some kind of Conservative Utopia, nothing else. That isn't "saving the nation". That, for many, would be enslaving it.

It is this mindset that is leading to the downfall of your party. Keep it up. It's working wonders.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): You're either with us or against us." "We'll get him, dead or alive." "Bring it on!" "I have political capital, and I intend to use it." Care to change that tune? He was probably the most arrogant president we've ever had.

Yep keep blaming Bush. It so much easier than to actually admit your policies are not what this country wants or needs. Where you watching anything last night?

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 39): Three days after taking office, Obama’s response to Republicans who disagreed with the economic stimulus plan was “I won.” Obama had been president less than a month when in February he openly mocked Republicans during a speech to the Democratic caucus. In April, he told a group of bankers that he was the “only thing between you and the pitchforks.” In May, Obama threatened to sic the White House press corps on Chrysler bondholders who disagreed with his plan to bail out GM.

Yea funny how Falcon never seems to want to talk about that.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 40): No sir. The US Treasury Secretary has said that our investment in AIG will never be paid back in full. He's said that our investment in Freddie and Fannie will never be paid back. He's said that we won't get all our money back from GM or Chrysler (in fact some of that "investment" has already been discharged in bankruptcy). So what exactly don't I get that you do? It seems that you're just making up the facts. If we're getting all our money back from bailout out banks by sales of their equity, why exactly is Pres. Obama proposing a TARP tax to recover our investment in these entities? You make up facts and then get upset when people call you out on them

Yep the left rarely deals with actual facts. They attempt to scare you with talking points and propaganda. I loved how Rachel Maddow continued to play soundbytes and show the pictures of Brown when he posed nude even after he won the election. I mean if it didn't work before the people voted what is it going to do after? It just shows the level of hatred that oozes out o the far left when the country tells them no.

Quoting DXing (Reply 52): What about those statements is arrogrant? In your first statement he was talking about regime's that harbor terrorists. In the second statement he was talking about Bin Laden, and since then he has been the subject of ridicule on the left for not bringing Bin Laden in, so which is it? Do you want him caught or not? The third statement was in response to AQ saying they were going to force us out of Iraq. Do you expect him to agree with AQ? The fourth statement is a statement of fact that the current President has used as well when he said to the GOP "I won". Care to change your tune? Everyone of your examples is completely flawed. When talking about combat I don't want a President with humility. I want him to instill the sense of fight in our troops.

I didn't even want to touch this one because it is a waste of time. Of course these aren't arrogant. If you want arroagance just watch Nancy Pelosi answer the question about why they aren't brining her health care debate on CSPAN like Obama promised and she not only wouldn't look the person asking the question in the eye but gave the most pompous "Obama made a lot of promises" and laughed basically saying FU we are doing it in secret. That is the epitome of elitism and arrogance and why November will be a bloodbath for them. The American people don't take kindly to being lied. Wilson was kind of right that night he yelled at the president wasn't he?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 71): The American People of Massachusetts have spoken, but are any politicians really listening.

No, didn't you love Pelosi's smugness after Brown won as she said they will still pass health care? They just don't get it. Which is why most of them will be out of work this Nov.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 73): You guys are amazing, just amazing! What a load of crap you're trying shovel. Problem is, only the True Believers believe this lilne. Massachusettes voted for their own interests, not your, dude. They don't give a flying frack what you or I think. But, go on with your delusional ways. It is entertaining, that's for sure.

Denial is a tough one huh? A year ago you were licking your chops thinking all would be good. You would have 8 years of Obama and Democratically controlled congress passing all the taxes and cutting the military, pulling out of the wars and having the whole world love us. Well reality has come crashing down. Obama's approval rating is going south so fast he could probably dig a hole to China. The country is hasr basically turned on him except the far left. His picks for Homeland security and treasury are complete and utter failures, his flashy speeches aren't working anymore and the people are beginning to vote the other way. Yet you still insult the voters of MA and NJ. Well fact is they do care what we think, they feel the same way we do. That Obama lied to us. He told us anything we wanted to hear to get elected and after he was sworn in abandoned it. Well he isn't going to see 8 years and his congress will much different. You can't change with this country is and was built on. That was proven last night. The only person in this thead that is delusional is you.

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 67): God does not have an American passport! Or can you prove otherwise....God Bless Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Norwary, Cuba, Brazil, etc.etc....I get so sick and tired of this "God Save America" diatribe.

Blessings aren't finite. So when we ask God to Bless America, it doesn't prevent anyone else from asking God to Bless anything else. So go ahead, ask God to Bless Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Norwary, Cuba, Brazil, etc ... it won't make America's blessings any less.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72): The US no longer "owns" Citybank, but we do "own" GM, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie, and get to tell AIG what they can do. Obama did demand banks modify mortgages, and he is now telling them how much to pay their employees.

Well had their CEOs or whoever didn't go begging for handouts they would be free to do whatever they pleased and pay their employees whatever they wanted.....when you beg for gov't money you can't complain when the gov't starts making the calls.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72): I believe he is married, and spoken for. He may not be "your type", either.

That hasn't stopped many a man from oggeling over attractive, married women now has it? Lucky gal Mrs. B.....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72): The US no longer "owns" Citybank.

Actually my original statement was correct. See the attached press release from Citibank.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...0095012309073343/y81154exv99w1.htm

The US government continues to own stock warrants representing about 35% of Citi's equity.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 54): Exactly. I vote Democratic because I see the part as the lesser of two evils. But at the end of the day, I have many issues with the Democratic party and its leadership.

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils, of course, is that you are still voting for evil   I tend to vote for the candidate I think is the least corruptible and most susceptible to reasoned debate.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 71): The slide of the United States of America into the mediocrity of socialism has been halted by the People of Massachusetts, for now .

We are nowhere near socialism and, even if we had 100 Democratic Senators and a supermajority in the House, would be nowhere near socialism at the end of Obama's turn. Believe the talking heads all you want, but the Democratic Party today most resembles the Republican Party of the 1950s. And the Republican Party, as a whole, has slid so far to the right they are unrecognizable even to many of their longtime stalwarts.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72): Unfortunately we do have a socialist POTUS, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader.

Obama is to socialism what Bernie Sanders is to conservatism. Pelosi is more liberal than Obama but is still an inept moderate. Reid is an Eisenhower Republican albeit more corrupt and inept. You can repeat lies and propaganda all you want. They are still merely lies and propaganda.

Texan

Quoting Flighty (Reply 68): Well, it's a slight improvement over Satanism, which is what the current health system is. Which is actually pretty cool. Yeah, go Satan, long may He live.

Woah... Cool your jets, people. The Battle of the Metaphors is getting crazy.

As for Brown's treatment of Coakley last night, I think this might be appropriate:



Now that I've got that out of my system, on to serious things...

For the past year, Republicans could accurately blame everything the government did on the Democrats. Republicans did not have the votes to block anything in the House or Senate, so Democrat whining about Republicans blocking anything was pure BS. Now that's no longer true. Even if we have (barely) the necessary votes in the Senate, Democrats are now forced to deal with Republicans, and therefore Republicans do have a mediocum of ownership of what happens going forward.

I want them to go back and start from scratch the Health Care Bill. Instead of a monstrocity, it should aim at an incremental approach of taking a number of steps needed to bring down costs. I would suggest addressing things like Tort Reform, breaking down interstate barriers and local monopolies, and encouraging the packaging together of Health Care Savings Accounts and insurance together (my own idea - at least I have never heard anyone else talk about such a thing).

Once that is done, you wait a year or two to see what the impact is, and take further steps if necessary to bring down costs, or you can start working on individual mandates (and a Constitutional Amendment which would allow for such a thing).

Do it step by step. This whale of a bill was to much, too fast.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 56): Versus a Social Security trust fund that is in the red now? And will be depleted in less than 20 yrs or so at this rate? It will get worse as more baby boomers retire. As it is the system is being stretched due to so many early retirements.

"at this rate" is the issue. During our working lives we paid what was needed, built up a large surplus which both political parties had fun using and now there may ned to be adjustments to the tax levels. The only questions is if the politicians have the courage or moral strength to ensure money flowing in matches money flowing out.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 57): have just voted out the Kennedy dynasty and their chosen surrogate, Coakley, and voted in someone new.

The Kennedy dynasty in that Senate seat died when Ted Kennedy died. There were some Kennedys who could have stepped into the seat, but declined.

Now Brown faces some challenges. He may or may not have a say on the health reform issues. If the House simply votes in the Senate bill then Brown is impotent on that issue.

Brown's big challenge is going to be passing the Republican Purity Test while maintaining a moderate reputation in his home state. Conservatives are probably assuming that Brown will march in step with them. Brown, however, may want to be a long term Senator. From the 5 or so minutes I watched him talk he seemed to be working hard to please the moderates and those Democrats who voted for him.

So will he pass the Purity Test, or will Palin go flying into Boston before Brown's next election?  

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 57): the only question now becomes how long does he have to build a reputation for himself as a senator and a track record for the voters so that in the next real election, he can actually hold onto the seat.

With the conservatives in control of most Republicans Brown might have to decide if he wants to be liked at home or in DC. DC is where the money for the next election will come from so this guy might be screwed. Pity as he seems like a nice guy, gives good cheesecake pics for the ladies (and gay guys) and drives a truck (hopefully US made).

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 59): But there will not be enough wiggle room for the GOP to meaningfully and positively modify the bill in reconciliation,

There could be, but the Republicans are stuck on the insurance company's lap dog songs about tort reform and selling insurance across state lines. Until the Republicans can do something besides being insurance company's lap dogs they really don't have anything to say that will be in the country's interests.

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 59): Sorry, but even if the bill were passed before November, it most certainly will not take effect until probably the first of next year,

As I recall, some provisions take effect immediately, Pre-existing conditions are one part that has immediate effect - and impact.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 75): Yep keep blaming Bush. It so much easier than to actually admit your policies are not what this country wants or needs. Where you watching anything last night?

Bush will never be able to get away from the problems he caused - he was the "decider", after all.

And the problems Bush/Cheney left us with will continue to be on the voters plate until others can clean up his mess.

But I guess that, with Obama as your other option, you would want to go back to the Bush/Cheney years.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 75): No, didn't you love Pelosi's smugness after Brown won as she said they will still pass health care? They just don't get it. Which is why most of them will be out of work this Nov.

The Democrats continue to have options when it comes to getting a bill to Obama for his signature. And they need to pass health care reform. It's had its day in discussions, debates, etc. Get something to Obama and get on with taking care of other problems in this country. Let the Republican's assume that health care reform is the only issue voters care about.

Quoting Texan (Reply 79): We are nowhere near socialism and, even if we had 100 Democratic Senators and a supermajority in the House, would be nowhere near socialism at the end of Obama's turn. Believe the talking heads all you want, but the Democratic Party today most resembles the Republican Party of the 1950s. And the Republican Party, as a whole, has slid so far to the right they are unrecognizable even to many of their longtime stalwarts.

Thank heaven some in the US know where zero is in the political spectrum. Obama being a socialist is indeed risible.

And why does socialism get such a bad rap?

If you don't want to be murdered by a person aged between 15 and 24 it looks as if more socialist systems would be the go, Japan is way down this list, and their government is supposed to be conservative but their society has "very nasty" socialist tendencies.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm
Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):

United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 71): The American People of Massachusetts have spoken, but are any politicians really listening.

Of course, they're not. When Conservatives gain power in Congress, they will quickly continue spending like there is no tomorrow.

That's the funny thing about the Conservative cheerleaders on this board. They think they've won something, but in reality all they've done is continue to perpetuate a failing system.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 81): There could be, but the Republicans are stuck on the insurance company's lap dog songs about tort reform and selling insurance across state lines. Until the Republicans can do something besides being insurance company's lap dogs they really don't have anything to say that will be in the country's interests.

Excuse me, but insurance companies are on the side of the Democrats on this one. Remember Coakley's fundraiser last week? All the big insurance companies, hospital operators and Big Pharma companies were rooting for her, not for Brown.

The current Health Care Bill is beyond saving. Too many special interests have had a hand in it. It's far too complex, over-reaching, and expensive, for very little gain in terms of covering the uninsured (only marginal improvements projected) and lowering costs (which it doesn't do at all). In fact, the only reason that anybody could possibly want to pass it is if you are a member of the special interests that formed it, or are being bought off by them.

It's time to put that monstrosity in the trash, and start again in a more incremental fashion.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 82): If you don't want to be murdered by a person aged between 15 and 24 it looks as if more socialist systems would be the go, Japan is way down this list, and their government is supposed to be conservative but their society has "very nasty" socialist tendencies.

A little exagurated...

Intentional Homicide rates per 100,000 population, 2008

US: 5.4
Canada, 1.83
Sweden: 0.89
Norway: 0.71
Finland: 2.17

Now let's add a few more:

Venezuela: 58.0
South Africa: 37.0
Brazil: 25.7
Russia: 16.5

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 84): Excuse me, but insurance companies are on the side of the Democrats on this one.

Only as long as they escape the public option. Their bonuses increase significantly if tort reform and cross border sales happen.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 84): The current Health Care Bill is beyond saving.

Or the Senate version gets passed and we waste no more time on it for a few years.

An interesting comment someone made during the political discussions on TV last night while waiting for the election results. Seems that when the final vote was going to be made on Medicare the program had a 16% (yes, 16%) acceptance level in the polls. Only 16% of the voters wanted Medicare to be passed. Today it would be political suicide to try to end the program.

So maybe today's health care reform bills will be the same. No majority support today, but politically powerful after it settles in.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): I want them to go back and start from scratch the Health Care Bill. Instead of a monstrocity, it should aim at an incremental approach of taking a number of steps needed to bring down costs. I would suggest addressing things like Tort Reform, breaking down interstate barriers and local monopolies, and encouraging the packaging together of Health Care Savings Accounts and insurance together (my own idea - at least I have never heard anyone else talk about such a thing).

I agree that they need to start over and work at bringing down costs. Tort reform should definitely be on the table, but it should be easier to deal with insurance companies. Of the doctors I have talked to (9 or 10), all of them employ someone whose only job is to deal with the insurance companies, fill out each company's forms, and make sure the doctor gets paid. That is one of the key cost-saving measures I see in a government funded insurance plan. Additionally, having a national system in place would allow doctors from anywhere in the country access to each patient's files. That means they can quickly look at another doctor's notes and save time finding out a patient's allergies, medications, and medical history, saving time and therefore cost. This system would also decrease the amount of lawsuits between doctors and insurance companies and would give doctors more freedom to do their jobs without interference, again driving down costs. Tort reform should also be discussed and we should adopt a national "Apology Law," which many believe would reduce the amount of malpractice claims in courts. Many times families only want an apology when something goes wrong.

The government backed enterprise could also negotiate much lower fees with pharmaceutical companies, again lowering costs for patients, providers, and the government.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 82): Thank heaven some in the US know where zero is in the political spectrum. Obama being a socialist is indeed risible.

Merci beaucoup.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85): Quoting Baroque (Reply 82): If you don't want to be murdered by a person aged between 15 and 24 it looks as if more socialist systems would be the go, Japan is way down this list, and their government is supposed to be conservative but their society has "very nasty" socialist tendencies. A little exagurated...

But you two are comparing different things as well. Our overall murder rate is much lower than the murder rate of our 15-24 year olds, but that makes sense. I think part of what Baroque is trying to show (and please correct me if I am wrong) is the absurdly high number of young people, especially men, who are murdered every year in comparison with other "Western" countries. While we are by no means the most violent nation in the world, we are an extraordinarily violent nation when compared to other "Western" democracies. Baroque's argument would probably be along the lines of more social equality and better education has led other nations to less violence, so why couldn't it work in the U.S.?

Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth but just further explaining a point  

Edit: I am not going to venture an opinion on this issue because I am not well versed enough on the issue.

Texan

[Edited 2010-01-20 08:26:34 by texan]

I hope this election is a sign of things to come in the November mid-terms but that said, the Republicans need to avoid becoming over-confident expecting a major win regardless of what happens between now and November. At this point, I'm sure some of the seats could be won by Howdy Doody so long as he doesn't have a D after his name but that is NOT what we need in Washington. The Republicans need to take careful aim of who they choose to run for the House seats and the 33 or 34 Senate seats up for grabs this November.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): What's next?

I can not speak for others but I know that I am going back to business. I have some hope now that my taxes and costs will not spike and the future of cutting government spending has a chance.

The democrats are scratching their heads on the economy , its simple ... the conservatives are not taking risks for fear and uncertainty of the future. Now this victory may clear things up a bit and give them more confidence... and guess what ? the democrats will benefit from it. So hold your fire on us and let us get the engine running again .

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): The people have spoken.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69): Massachusetts has fired the "second shot fired heard around the world",

I am so sick of this lie. Republicans won one seat in the Senate and it is the voice of a nation? No, it is not. I live in California and I never got a vote in this race. This one race does NOT speak for me nor does it speak for 49 other states. Just because one group hates legislation from the opposition does not mean that one seat in the Senate or House is the voice of an entire nation. I know you guys need your ego stroked constantly, but get over it. I notice none of these lies were spouted when Dems won the seats in NY-23 and CA-17...

Quoting Luckyone (Reply 11): also this rhetoric being spewed about Hope and change was idiotic if you ask me

War, terror, and spending with no plan for paying it back was so much better?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 33): people want the simple equation to get the economy working is to drastically slash taxes.

No. People are reacting to what is being told to them. Bush "slashed" taxes during his terms, remember? Where did that get us?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69): the election in MN that Al Frankin stole after some 200 days

Stole how?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 75): Yep keep blaming Bush.

He was presenting arrogant quotes of the former president. Not only that, but it was BUSH who signed TARP into law. Now, the right is complaining about it but trying to convince everyone that Bush was such a great man.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 75): They attempt to scare you with talking points and propaganda.

What about being told that if we don't invade Iraq, they will bomb the United States? They have WMDs and al-Qaida and Saddam was involved in Sept 11.... The GOP still has a "talking points" memo, too. Letting everyone know what is "important" to the GOP and the nation. Another example of "party before country." What the GOP considers "important" is not important to me, so I must be shamed. Since I am not a teabagger, I am anti-American. Since I do not stand againhst Obama, I am a socialist. Typical right-wing scare tactics and propoganda.

Well said Falcon.

There have been countless articles and voices commenting on the election of Brown and what it means and, more importantly, where things should go.

For starters, Obama needs to get his head out of his ass and make ALL legislation transparent as he promised. He’s allowed (or perhaps encouraged) Reid and Pelosi to be his attack dogs and they’ve failed (thankfully, for the sake of the republic).

I don’t want to read too much into Brown’s election, but given that this happened in Massachusetts of all places tells me that there IS in fact a limit to the amount of bullshit and leftist agenda the people will tolerate. Obama’s administration has jumped the rails too hard, too much, too fast, and has damn little to show for it, all while ignoring the economy at the expense of other non-essential crap like health care and cap and tax.

Make no mistake, the Democrats will attack more ruthlessly than before—it’s their nature. And if the emotion of the Tea Party and momentum of the People coalesce into a more substantive and sustained effort, the midterms will be a bloodbath. They’ve already lost every post-Obama election—unexpectedly I might add—and the rats are jumping ship. The opportunity for conservatism, for liberty, for constitutional principles (note I intentionally do NOT say for the Republicans) has never been greater to seize and turn back the darkness. What happens from here is anyone’s guess.

I still think the Republicans will muck it all up though.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 81): Now Brown faces some challenges. He may or may not have a say on the health reform issues. If the House simply votes in the Senate bill then Brown is impotent on that issue.

Not so. If the House passes the Senate bill, Brown will have a say on every procedural vote during the reconciliation process.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 81): Until the Republicans can do something besides being insurance company's lap dogs they really don't have anything to say that will be in the country's interests.

It is convenient to say that the Republicans are in the pocket of insurance companies but the reality is something else, as has been demonstrated in this topic.

Quoting Texan (Reply 87): Baroque's argument would probably be along the lines of more social equality and better education has led other nations to less violence, so why couldn't it work in the U.S.?

The argument seems to work because he is ignoring tons of relevant variables. The relationship could be and probably is spurious. Other developed countries that are socialist or socialist leaning don't have nearly the same issues as the US when it comes to racial history, ghettoization, etc., besides being the largest market for illegal drugs in the world.

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): The Republican Scott Brown won the senate seat in Masachusetts! The democrats now lack a philabuster-proof senate majority. The Healthcare bill should be dead. The people have spoken. Each of the 3 politicians Obama has backed since his election have lost. America has spoken, we want change from this Obama style Socialism. God Bless America, nay God Save America.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 71): Epic Upset. The slide of the United States of America into the mediocrity of socialism has been halted by the People of Massachusetts, for now .

LMAO! You do realize that Scott Brown voted for universal healthcare in Massachusetts don't you? Or did you pay no attention to issues and voting history and listen to the narrative of someone being paid $400 million to spread their agenda?

Please tell us what else you like about this candidate, now Senate elect Brown is heading to Washington.

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 92): The relationship could be and probably is spurious. Other developed countries that are socialist or socialist leaning don't have nearly the same issues as the US when it comes to racial history, ghettoization, etc., besides being the largest market for illegal drugs in the world.

I disagree that our racial history and "ghettoization" are different from many other countries. France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and even the U.K. to a degree have had huge problems with race, slavery, and "ghettoization." France and Italy have had notable race riots in the very recent past.

You are correct, though, that there are many variables not included. One of the problems is that we don't know what all the variables are or how to measure them. But it might be worth thinking about whether increasing social equality and education could have a dramatic effect in reducing crime.

Finally, just a quick point, I am not positive that my interpretation is Baroque's argument. It is just one possibility for an argument.

Texan

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): For the past year, Republicans could accurately blame everything the government did on the Democrats. Republicans did not have the votes to block anything in the House or Senate, so Democrat whining about Republicans blocking anything was pure BS. Now that's no longer true. Even if we have (barely) the necessary votes in the Senate, Democrats are now forced to deal with Republicans, and therefore Republicans do have a mediocum of ownership of what happens going forward.

Even in an ideal world, the party holding an absolute majority should always confront the opposition. And since in the US, all majorities are absolute due to the two-party system, this should always be important. However, US politics, in all of the years I've been following it, is always black and white. In Europe, parties are forced to find shades of grey because in the country's respective parliament, they're forced to enter a coaliton with a rival party most of the time, forcing them to compromise on policies. In the US, due to the two-party system and the absolute majorities that exist, this is mostly impossible, and bipartisan projects are difficult to come by.

My point is that Democrats should always confront the Republicans in a civilised way, and vice versa. Instead of the majority insisting on its position, it should always be willing to compromise for the good of the country, and that filibuster-proof majority they used to have did not help. If they want change, then this change should also involve the opposition. Change is nothing if it's only one-sided and the parties and their voters only bash each other. This may be the current flaw of the Democrats for which they're punished, they want to impose their own change but are not willing to change themselves. In the public, they only bash the Republicans but aren't willing to do some serious self-reflection. Granted, the GOP can be exactly the same in that regard, but in the eyes of the public, my perception is that this flaw is more evident with the Democratic Party.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 90): War, terror, and spending with no plan for paying it back was so much better?

I have a post on either in this forum or the other one about this topic where I stated that Obama is just the opposite extreme of both and they're both terrible. Obama's doing the same thing (though spending MORE).

Quoting Slider (Reply 91): For starters, Obama needs to get his head out of his ass and make ALL legislation transparent as he promised. He’s allowed (or perhaps encouraged) Reid and Pelosi to be his attack dogs and they’ve failed (thankfully, for the sake of the republic).

Really? How so, please be specific. Which "non transparency issues" are you specifically speaking to? You haven't provided a single fact in your entire post, just rhetoric and talking points.

Now, even if the Democrats are or aren't being transparent, frankly does it matter anyway? Republicans aren't going to vote for anything anyway, so why bother? A bill could be the most "socialist" leftist partisan bill possible and it would get 0 Republican votes. Or, a bill could be very centrist, well balanced, and just slightly left of center and the bill would get 0 Republican votes. So why should the Democrats bother placating Republicans?

For the next 4 years Republicans are going to vote "NO", which is their prerogative. So why all the noise and fuss? Perhaps it's to muddy the waters enough so you can't see the truth things for what they are? Why are Republican's abusing the filibuster process?






http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/...USTERS.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 90): War, terror, and spending with no plan for paying it back was so much better?

I am still confused as to why you equate disagreeing with Barack Obama's policies with endorsing all of George Bush's. That makes NO sense. I can tell you know that I think both were piss poor in their respective areas, but your argument is attacking something that just isn't there.

Furthermore, I hope we can all move past the idea that the entire economic crisis happened because of the Bush administration. That is a simplistic and wishful stance but has no grounding in reality, especially when we can see drastic measures taken by Democrats (like the CRA) in plain daylight. I'm not saying he doesn't share ANY blame, and I'm not saying that he governed particularly well, but the idea that GWB delivered BHO the economic crisis on a silver platter is a joke.

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 98): I am still confused as to why you equate disagreeing with Barack Obama's policies with endorsing all of George Bush's. That makes NO sense. I can tell you know that I think both were piss poor in their respective areas, but your argument is attacking something that just isn't there.

Especially since most post had no mention of that at all...! I think a lot of people are being let down tremendously by the Obama administration and are feeling duped. This is NOT what Obama campaigned on. The Pelosi and Reid led Houses of Congress have seized the opportunity they have had the past twelve months to for all intents and purposes pay off their fringe supporters and have done an abominable job of representing the people, what they're paid to do. If Obama is smart he will do well to reign in the party leaders and not tell us, his employers, what we want.

Being completely tongue-in-cheek I say we lose the charade and put our own Thunderdome in the Capitol rotunda and let them duke it out. At least it'd be much more entertaining...

[Edited 2010-01-20 10:14:01 by luckyone]

Having said that I will now forever associate the song "We Don't Need Another Hero" with the Obama administration!                        

[Edited 2010-01-20 10:15:48 by luckyone]