Change we can believe in

[dal]

ah yes..... welcome to the chicago political machine.

ah yes..... welcome to the chicago political machine.

this stimulus will create probably 600k government jobs over the next several years....now theres a way to put everybody back to work....." good morning comrade, welcome to the salt mine "

i can name a few people who need to be run out of washington...how bout barney franks, tom dodd, and of course, the personal buddie of obama himself...the mr. franklin raines, who managed to run freddie mac into the ground.

the real estate industry did not initiate policy to loan people money who couldn't pay it back, it was the politicans. already back in 2004 it was identified the problems that were about to be unleashed because of these policy makers decisions. this stimulus would have been farthered served by simply giving the money back to the tax payers. please notice i said tax payers.... not the welfare state.

i have predicted the second coming of jimmy carter with the election of this obama character. unfortunately what it will take is for the dems to screw this up again and a republican to fix it. making the government the size this clown ends up taking us will not solve the problem.....it will only make it impossible to fix.

 

[Bubba]

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, but it sure would be nice to see some Republicans give this guy a chance. He's been in office not even 2 months and he's already the worst thing to hapen to this country in their minds. I loved McCain's concession speech. It sounded as though he was willing to put politics aside and support this country. Unfortunately his actions haven't backed it up -- he has loudly opposed Obama ever since. He is not supporting this president, he's acting with sour grapes.

Now I don't know if Obama is going to be successful. The Japanese succesfully turned their economy around a few years back with the same approach we are now using. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who think it won't work which is enough to help ensure that it won't. From my point of view, the Republicans WANT this guy to fail and that sucks a whole lotta ass.

 

[notredomer23]

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, but it sure would be nice to see some Republicans give this guy a chance. He's been in office not even 2 months and he's already the worst thing to hapen to this country in their minds. I loved McCain's concession speech. It sounded as though he was willing to put politics aside and support this country. Unfortunately his actions haven't backed it up -- he has loudly opposed Obama ever since. He is not supporting this president, he's acting with sour grapes.

Now I don't know if Obama is going to be successful. The Japanese succesfully turned their economy around a few years back with the same approach we are now using. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who think it won't work which is enough to help ensure that it won't. From my point of view, the Republicans WANT this guy to fail and that sucks a whole lotta ass.

I do want this guy to fail. I want him to fail because he is trying to turn this country into something that the founding fathers didnt want it to be. I gave him a chance, and his actions have already blew it.

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't agree with WANTING him to fail... but let's not throw that in the exclusive face of the right... the left was all over Bush from Day 1 just like the right is now all over Obama... the right blames Obama for his actions in a very short period of time and the left blamed Bush for a lot of 9/11 and even gave an award to a proaganda film maker for making a "documentary" flaming Bush over 9/11...

I have my thoughts and have not kept them secret... but I fully want Obama to prove me wrong and turn this thing around... and it would be an honor to meet the man... just as it would be an honor to meet Bush...

the extremes on either side are quite horrible

 

[Bubba]

I don't agree with WANTING him to fail... but let's not throw that in the exclusive face of the right... the left was all over Bush from Day 1 just like the right is now all over Obama... the right blames Obama for his actions in a very short period of time and the left blamed Bush for a lot of 9/11 and even gave an award to a proaganda film maker for making a "documentary" flaming Bush over 9/11...

I have my thoughts and have not kept them secret... but I fully want Obama to prove me wrong and turn this thing around... and it would be an honor to meet the man... just as it would be an honor to meet Bush...

the extremes on either side are quite horrible

I disagree with this point. I don't believe that the left was all over Bush until a year or 2 into it. In fact, it seemed that everyone approved of most of what he was doing until he went into Iraq. Afganastan was justified and everyone supported that. Iraq is a huge part of why our deficit is where it is and now, less than 2 months into his administration, Obama is to blame. It doesn't matter at this point because partisanship rules. Despite all the talk, our 2 parties just don't want to play together well. It's a battle for who wins control in the next election even though this one just ended. So, in my opinion, no matter what.... the Republicans are going to fight what the Democrats do. Just to prove a point. "See...they could accomplish anything....we told you so..."

Mind you, I am not a Democrat. In fact, if the Republicans would have chosen McCain for the nominee for the 2000 election, I would have voted for him. I believe he would have done a better job than Bush. I guess I'm jsut frustrated that our politicians...Rep & Dem alike, are in it for themselves and not for this country. And, the media doesn't help matters. It's all about how much the sides disagree. Cooperative, agreeable politics doesn't make good headlines.

 

[Bubba]

I do want this guy to fail. I want him to fail because he is trying to turn this country into something that the founding fathers didnt want it to be. I gave him a chance, and his actions have already blew it.

Wow, so you want our country to take an even steeper nosedive than it's already in? That's too bad. I'm not sure what you mean about the founding fathers. Are you saying we're headed to socialism? That's a big bunch of whooey that some in the the media would like you to think. We are still a capitalist country and that comes with good and bad....from great new advances in technology and more efficient means of production to greed and decisions made without concern of anything other than the bottom line. There are too many people benefiting from capitalism to let it go away. There are also plenty feeling the ill effects. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for supporting everybody so they can be lazy. This is a topic that could get much deeper, but I'm not going to continue into that. It just seems sad to me that 2 months into a 4 year term you've already given up hope and would like it if he fails. Forgive me for disagreeing with this. Personally I wish for no one to fail. That included Bush, and includes Obama & Charlie Weis!!

 

[ACamp1900]

I disagree with this point. I don't believe that the left was all over Bush until a year or 2 into it. In fact, it seemed that everyone approved of most of what he was doing until he went into Iraq. Afganastan was justified and everyone supported that. Iraq is a huge part of why our deficit is where it is and now, less than 2 months into his administration, Obama is to blame. It doesn't matter at this point because partisanship rules. Despite all the talk, our 2 parties just don't want to play together well. It's a battle for who wins control in the next election even though this one just ended. So, in my opinion, no matter what.... the Republicans are going to fight what the Democrats do. Just to prove a point. "See...they could accomplish anything....we told you so..."

Mind you, I am not a Democrat. In fact, if the Republicans would have chosen McCain for the nominee for the 2000 election, I would have voted for him. I believe he would have done a better job than Bush. I guess I'm jsut frustrated that our politicians...Rep & Dem alike, are in it for themselves and not for this country. And, the media doesn't help matters. It's all about how much the sides disagree. Cooperative, agreeable politics doesn't make good headlines.

We agree on just about everything but the beginning of the Bush era for sure... I too totally disagree with this statement... Afganastan aside, I can remember quite a bit of opposition to just about anything Bush said going back to 2001...

and I would say Congress (Demos AND REpubs, but certainly the Demos that now blame Bush solely for the economy included) completely ignoring Bush and Rice when they warned about the housing market, Fannie Mae and Co. YEARS before the crisis hit played a huge role in where we are today as well as the war... among many other things

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

1.On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined by a 1996 economic reserch committe, the American economy performed better during the Regan years than it did during the pre- and post Regan years.

Once you push that out to 2000, Reagan falls behind Clinton.

2. Real median family income grew by 4,000 during the Regan period, after experiencing no growth in the pre-Regan years; it experienced a loss of over 1,500 in the post Regan era.

Not true. It experienced a loss until 1995, when it roared back from the Bush recession.
Real Median Income - US Census, August 2007

Notice that Reagan got it about $2,000 above where it was under Nixon.

3.Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Regan than they did befor or after his presidency.

They fell even faster after his Presidency.

4.The only economic variable that was worse in the Regan period than in both the pre- and post Regan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the eighties.

PRECISELY...BECAUSE HE FUNDED HIS ECONOMIC STIMULUS WITH GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!

5.The productivity rate was higher in the pre- Regan years but much lower in the post Regan years.

Not true at all. Americans are more Productive now than in 1988. They were more productive in 1998 too.

Regans tax cuts combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy,deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating Americas greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever.

Until Clinton.

Our economy grew by more than 1/3 in size, producing a 15 trillion dollar increase in American wealth. Every income group from the richest to the poorest in this country grew its income from 1981-1989.

Hey, check this out...net change in household wealth in the US...by year.
File:Change in US household wealth 1946-2007.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reagan was a nice dip in the middle, eh?

The economic principle that business expansion, jobs and wealth follow low tax rates is very widely accepted.

I agree. When taxes prove a disincentive to work, people don't work.

Here's the kicker though...the US has amongst the lowest actual taxes paid amongst Stable Industrialized nations.

My only problem with his economic plan was the amount of debt it created. As far as I know that was the only major criticism of his policy. However you cannot deny that his tax cuts brought us out of that recession.

It's easy to deny since it's never be proven. We spent our way out of it...every year was more and more government largesse (or is that "stimulus"??).

Lowering tax rates helped somewhat, but to say it brought us out of the recession is ridiculous.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

not true. the economy has done nothing but go down, and the economy is run on investor CONFIDENCE. maybe if he said something positive for a change, the economy would suck as much as it does suck.
there have been plenty of recessions before and we all got out of them with any of this bailout crap

If you think the economy is run on investor confidence, you have a helluva a lot to learn.

You know the economy was dipping even while the stock market was predicting record gains? You do realize that the Market was predicting nearly 20% profit growth for 2009 as recently as September right?

We all knew it was going to hell in a handbasket, but the market was humming along.

As for bailout crap...an utter collapse of the financial markets would bring complete devastation to the business market, like we have NEVER seen in 80 years.

You know that just a few months ago, ships loaded with goods never left dock in the US headed to Asia all because they could not get a letter of credit, since the markets dried up?

Seriously, forget the stock market, they can bugger off...we are talking about the economy here not market analysts.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I do want this guy to fail. I want him to fail because he is trying to turn this country into something that the founding fathers didnt want it to be. I gave him a chance, and his actions have already blew it.

Dude, you just said "I want him to fail..."

What do you think the founders wanted anyway? [not saying this is it, just wondering]

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

all over Bush from Day 1

Florida maybe?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

LMI, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.I will always feel that tax cuts are the way out. I guess it comes down to where we get our information. I have seen very credible sources say and show very conflicting statistics and data from that recession. Im sure that even reliable sources of information are not without some bias. I guess only time will tell but I can promise that if this massive spending does turn the ship around, you will have a messege coming your way admitting I was wrong.
I always enjoy good discussion with smart people even if we dont see eye to eye.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

LMI, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.I will always feel that tax cuts are the way out. I guess it comes down to where we get our information. I have seen very credible sources say and show very conflicting statistics and data from that recession. Im sure that even reliable sources of information are not without some bias. I guess only time will tell but I can promise that if this massive spending does turn the ship around, you will have a messege coming your way admitting I was wrong.
I always enjoy good discussion with smart people even if we dont see eye to eye.

It does not come down to where we get our info...you had OLD info...I gave you updated unbiased info. You were quoting stats from 1996.

Cutting taxes is fine if you cut spending. When you don't cut spending and you cut taxes you blow up the deficit. That has been proven time and time again. The ONLY time cutting taxes increases net tax revenues is when the tax itself is a disincentive to work. For instance when the top rate was 91%.

I am not saying Obama's plan will work...we are in a situation we have really never faced before. We can only hope it will pan out well.

However, when all is said and done it will be CRITICAL to right the ship of state by balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

The last time we had a surplus, some jackass pissed it away, gave tax cuts, and drove us into a massive deficit. Had we paid down the debt and strengthened financial regulation we would simply not be where we are today.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

OK

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

OK

By the way, I am all for healthy debate. It's clear that no person or party has a monopoly on good ideas.

HOWEVER, as we look back from 20 years out on the Reagan era, his successes are more myth than reality...so while I am happy to talk about some of the positive effect he had on the economy, let's not get ahead of ourselves and try to ignore the fact that Supply-Side failed

To this day people pretend that the Iranians let the hostages go because they were scared of Reagan. When in reality they knew that Carter was willing to take action...but due to poor military planning (lack of sand-filters on helicopters) it did not work out. Also, Carter was the man who established the Carter Doctrine...which established that any attack on our National interests in the Persian Gulf would be met with force.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:

So, they held the hostages until the day Carter was done...they did it to make him look bad and to get the American people to vote for someone who would let them create their dictatorial-theocracy in peace. And here we are 20 years later with a bunch of a-holes who almost have a nuke and have been able to do so in peace knowing that their chance to get taken out passed.

By the way, here are some statistics to mull over...

Tax revenue declined drastically when tax cuts went into effect. Tax collections in billions (1987 dollars)
1981 $766.6
1982 $ 738.2
1983 $684.3
1984 $730.4
(Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget historical tables)

GDP Growth
1970's 18%
1980's 18%
(Source: U.S. commerce department)

Potential economic growth. [Potential economic growth is economic growth factored in with a constant unemployment rate in order to eliminate fluctuations in the natural business cycle that would skew the results.]
1970's 2.5% per year
1980's 2.5% per year
(Source: Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity)

Disposable savings.
1980 7.9% of GDP
1990 4.2% of GDP
(Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis)

Private investment.
1970's 18.6% of GDP
1980's 17.4% of GDP
(Source: Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity)

Poverty rate.
1980 18.3% of children under 18 10.1% of people ages 18-64
1990 20.6% of children under 18 10.7% of people ages 18-64
(Source: U.S. census)

IN the 1980's
Income of the poorest 20% fell by 10%
Income of the richest 1% rose by 105%
(Source: Paul Krugman: Peddling Prosperity)

 

[IrishAlum1997]

More proof that this guy was SOOOOO not prepared for this...

British Prime Minister comes to US. Gives Barry Hussein priceless gifts made from remnants of anti-slavery ships and a 1st edition copy of the biography of Winston Churchill.

Barry says, "Hey man!!! Hollywood runs our country! Here's 25 really cool DVDs!!!" Problem is, they are US DVDs, and do not play in standard DVD players in Great Britain. Must have been a sale at BMG.

He also gives back a bust of Winston Churchill against the wishes of the UK, given to the US as a gift of solidarity after 9/11.

Marxist. Socialist. A-hole.

I've lost my cool on this.

 

[Bubba]

Yeah, I mean seriously?

Guy doesn't even know protocol.

He probably wears white after Labor Day.

I hope he's never put in charge of buying me a gift.

I wonder if they even talked about anything important?

 

[IrishAlum1997]

Sarcasm doesn't become you, DRI. Although we are all susceptible to a gaffe now and again, don't you think that all of the time Barry saves on practicing speeches since he ONLY reads from a teleprompter could be used to think about foreign relations? I mean someone has to get paid to buy the gifts, right?

"Um sir, we are out of fruitcakes, but we have these DVD's that the last President enjoyed watching."

"Works for me! Let's spend some more money!"

LMAO.

 

[Bubba]

Glad I didn't get you too riled up! Don't let me fool you, I can be a little too sarcastic at times...but I'll try to restrain myself.

He is a pretty good communicator; probably won him the election. I don't think he reads exclusively from the prompter from what I can tell. Maybe he does, but so do most. In fact, most don't even write their speeches.

You may not agree with his approach or his tactics, but you have to admit he is quite intelligent. And, in my opinion, he does want to work with the Republicans...it's just not going to be easy. All of the arguing needs to stop. Who cares WHO is right, let's just DO right. What we were doing wasn't working, why not give a new approach a try.

As far as foreign policy goes, "you're either with us or against us" was a great policy, huh? The Brits don't like us anyway. They ran Blair out of office because he got too buddy-buddy with G.W. Bush. The British press is even worse than ours and that's tough to do.

When it comes down to it, I think all the nicities are BS. Be honest, prudent and make some progress and who cares what present you got before you left. It's just fluff as far as I'm concerned.

And, if that doesn't work you could always shoot a guy in the face with a shotgun...oh wait that's already been done!! LMFAO!!!

 

[fortwayne_nd]

More proof that this guy was SOOOOO not prepared for this...

British Prime Minister comes to US. Gives Barry Hussein priceless gifts made from remnants of anti-slavery ships and a 1st edition copy of the biography of Winston Churchill.

Barry says, "Hey man!!! Hollywood runs our country! Here's 25 really cool DVDs!!!" Problem is, they are US DVDs, and do not play in standard DVD players in Great Britain. Must have been a sale at BMG.

He also gives back a bust of Winston Churchill against the wishes of the UK, given to the US as a gift of solidarity after 9/11.

Marxist. Socialist. A-hole.

I've lost my cool on this.

Why would Barry understand/care about a gift made from an anti-slavery ship? Barry's not descended from slaves, Barry is descended from slaveowners. And I thought Dubya was a peckerhead.

And more people have been killed by Ted Kennedy's car than by my guns (accurate as of 3/9/09). Note the stock price of Ruger (RGR) and Smith and Wesson (SWHC) taking off. I guess killing isn't just for liberals like Ayers, the Weather Underground and Planned Parenthood. First the fleecing of the Common Man and now the taxing of the Forgotten Man.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

Glad I didn't get you too riled up! Don't let me fool you, I can be a little too sarcastic at times...but I'll try to restrain myself.

He is a pretty good communicator; probably won him the election. I don't think he reads exclusively from the prompter from what I can tell. Maybe he does, but so do most. In fact, most don't even write their speeches.

You may not agree with his approach or his tactics, but you have to admit he is quite intelligent. And, in my opinion, he does want to work with the Republicans...it's just not going to be easy. All of the arguing needs to stop. Who cares WHO is right, let's just DO right. What we were doing wasn't working, why not give a new approach a try.

As far as foreign policy goes, "you're either with us or against us" was a great policy, huh? The Brits don't like us anyway. They ran Blair out of office because he got too buddy-buddy with G.W. Bush. The British press is even worse than ours and that's tough to do.

When it comes down to it, I think all the nicities are BS. Be honest, prudent and make some progress and who cares what present you got before you left. It's just fluff as far as I'm concerned.

And, if that doesn't work you could always shoot a guy in the face with a shotgun...oh wait that's already been done!! LMFAO!!!

I will give you he is one smart man. Sold the country extreme liberal policies as 'change.' We'll see if he reaches across the aisle. Nancy keeps slapping his wrist every time he tries.

 

[FrankMA]

I will give you he is one smart man. Sold the country extreme liberal policies as 'change.' We'll see if he reaches across the aisle. Nancy keeps slapping his wrist every time he tries.

Why anyone would think he would reach 'across the aisle" now is a mystery to me. He was rated the most liberal senator and never reached across the aisle as a senator. Reaching across the aisle to me means being willing to compromise. He never showed any willingness to compromise; therefore, that is why he was rated the most liberal senator.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

let's wait a year to see how he reaches across the aisle. he can't reach across the aisle on every issue. there could be something in the works. after eight years with Bush in office i think it's more than fair to request patience, especially with the issues he has to tackle right off the bat.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

let's wait a year to see how he reaches across the aisle. he can't reach across the aisle on every issue. there could be something in the works. after eight years with Bush in office i think it's more than fair to request patience, especially with the issues he has to tackle right off the bat.

'8 years of Bush in office' is not an excuse for passing his agenda. Nancy and Harry have nothing to do with the last couple of years, do they? The something in the works is my tax dollars going to rebuild New Orleans and fund abortions. It's not fair to request patience when his eyes are on something other than the economy. How to peacefully negotiate with the Taliban is not an 'issue.' How to get them to sit on a nuke is.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

did i talk about any of that stuff or are you just being obnoxious? you can throw out random topics like that but i was speaking in generalities. it's amazing how quickly you forget that the bush administration got us into this mess in the first place. the same president who was MIA as the market collapsed.

p.s. what nukes? you mean the ones saddam had? please...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

let's wait a year to see how he reaches across the aisle. he can't reach across the aisle on every issue. there could be something in the works. after eight years with Bush in office i think it's more than fair to request patience, especially with the issues he has to tackle right off the bat.

Agreed.

Abortion, Stem Cell research, etc. I *LOVE* how he has changed Bush's policies...I fully support him on those...but there is no middle ground.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

did i talk about any of that stuff or are you just being obnoxious? you can throw out random topics like that but i was speaking in generalities. it's amazing how quickly you forget that the bush administration got us into this mess in the first place. the same president who was MIA as the market collapsed.

p.s. what nukes? you mean the ones saddam had? please...

You didn't talk about any issues, so I picked the ones that Barry is focused on. Figured they were relevant.

There was no WMD reference there...I would just like to see these terrorist snakes sit on an armed nuclear device and be turned into dust.

BTW, does the 'Bush administration' include the liberal House and Senate? Bush is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage disaster? Do your research...

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Dude

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

BTW, does the 'Bush administration' include the liberal House and Senate? Bush is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage disaster? Do your research...

you keep losing focus on the fact that i was speaking generally. did i even suggest bush was responsible for the sub-prime morgage disaster? no. i was referring to a larger series of messes which i will now lay out.

afghanistan and iraq were completely mismanaged. his self proclaimed executive powers put us there and he's responsible for its management. on a very broad scale his administration played a role in the recession without being the cause. one word, deregulation. and you'd think he would try to do something in response to the economy instead of making the president elect start his term two months early. to touch on your previous NOLA comment about tax dollars being wasted...a competent response there would have minimized the reconstruction required and thus saved you tax dollars. whose fault is it that FEMA was a joke? who appointed the head of FEMA?

no research needed. just things i know.

i'm not hating on you for being conservative. hell, i'm from texas and hold many republicans in high esteem. but there's a point where any american should be able to criticize a president from their party. being overly defensive just creates an irrational argument. if obama messes up then i'll criticize him too, but it's waaaaaay too early for that. as a democrat i'm willing to exercise patience, for now.

edit: also, please read what i'm discussing instead of deciding beforehand what your argument is and forcing it into the conversation.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

BTW, does the 'Bush administration' include the liberal House and Senate? Bush is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage disaster? Do your research...

Do you mean the Republican dominated Congress of 2001-2006? Or the Democratic one from 2007-2008?

Bush warned the REPUBLICAN Congress to do something 4+ years ago...not the Democrats.

Hard to place blame on the people who were not in power...unless of course you believe that the Dems were using some kind of secret mind control weapon.

Maybe you need to do a little research?