Obama on blaming Bush for deficits

[Jordan55]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg
Obama, a democrat you can trust!
Heritage has some figures on deficit spending that should enlighten Obama and his team about the “structural deficit” they inherited. While the deficit jumped in the last year of the Bush administration, thanks to the spending on the bailouts, deficits had declined since 2004 until then. Bush had structured his budgets to get back to balance in the next few years — although without considering the huge mandates in Medicare and Social Security.
Obama’s plans don’t count those mandates, either — but they blow up the deficit:

Not only does Obama quadruple the deficit this year, the long-term outlook shows them rising, not falling, under Obama’s plans. Even the White House projections, using the rosiest possible conditions, shows them increasing after never getting down to the 2008 level. Even in 2013, the White House predicts a budget deficit higher than Bush’s last year, and then increases in the deficit steadily through 2019.
And again, as I said, that doesn’t count the real structural deficit of Medicare and Social Security.
They’re not doing everything they can do to eliminate the deficit. They’re doing everything they can do to make them exponentially worse.

[ZeroClub]

Bush's errors of omission and commission regarding the regulation of financial institutions led to a crisis that Obama is left to clean up.

Clean up costs associated with an inherited crisis are inherited costs.

[Jarv]

Bush's errors of omission and commission regarding the regulation of financial institutions led to a crisis that Obama is left to clean up.

Clean up costs associated with an inherited crisis are inherited costs.

Oversight on the regulation of financial institutions was lead by your friendly, local, neighborhood Dems Dodd and Franks. Of course thats just the lib way of pointing fingers, the real story is the escalation that this guy is spending...and not just on recovery programs, but actually using recovery as a blind to his other liberal agendas he wants to push through although the government can't afford them. He doesn't care and will bankrupt us accordingly.

I take it you voted for him Zero ?

[STAR GAZER]

Stop the partisan finger pointing. Regardless of who is in office at this time, they are going to be contributing to the deficit.

[WoodysGirl]

Stop the partisan finger pointing. Regardless of who is in office at this time, they are going to be contributing to the deficit.
I can tell you're new to this forum. You almost can't have a discussion without some partisan finger pointing..

[Jordan55]

Stop the partisan finger pointing. Regardless of who is in office at this time, they are going to be contributing to the deficit.

Apparently you didn't listen to your Messiah last night he is the one finger pointing and who ever is in office might be adding to the deficit but not at this rate :bang2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

I think this is the graph you wanted to post. If not, let me know and I will try to retrieve the correct one.

[Jordan55]

I can tell you're new to this forum. You almost can't have a discussion without some partisan finger pointing..

Are you trying to make a point! :bow: I thought this was a political blog

[Jordan55]

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

I think this is the graph you wanted to post. If not, let me know and I will try to retrieve the correct one.

I get the same thing, but no graph it's the graph on the Obama deficit

[STAR GAZER]

I can tell you're new to this forum. You almost can't have a discussion without some partisan finger pointing..

I know, but it needs to be said. :)

[STAR GAZER]

Apparently you didn't listen to your Messiah last night he is the one finger pointing and who ever is in office might be adding to the deficit but not at this rate :bang2:

If you keep towing that party line too much longer, your back is going to give out.

[trickblue]

If you keep towing that party line too much longer, your back is going to give out.

As the only declared Conservatarian in here... I'm the only one here to tow the line... ;)

[Jarv]

If you keep towing that party line too much longer, your back is going to give out.

Me thinks you can add the independents to that "line" also. The only ones still backing Obuya after 60 days are the liberal Dems...and he could lose the moderate ones soon too.

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you keep towing that party line too much longer, your back is going to give out.


Fortunatly, there are other strong backs to help out with the message.

:)

Although, I would certainly like to see more young strong conservatives but I don't see that happening until we can get back to a more traditional message in the Republican Party. JMO.

[Jordan55]

If you keep towing that party line too much longer, your back is going to give out.

Star, open your eyes to the possibilities of economic implosion and it won't be my back that I will be concerned about:) I'm looking for the cure to the situation not an excuse to continue it.

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

[STAR GAZER]

The tension of the opposites is a place of rest. Rarely is there an issue of controversy that takes sides with any one extreme point of view.

[STAR GAZER]

Star, open your eyes to the possibilities of economic implosion and it won't be my back that I will be concerned about:) I'm looking for the cure to the situation not an excuse to continue it.

Once the economic crisis has stabilized, then and only then can we think of how to get out of our current deficit problem.

The only cure is to restructure our fiscal policy. That's what got us where we are. The deficit was astronomical long before any one of the last two, three,four administrations took office.

[Doomsday101]

Bush's errors of omission and commission regarding the regulation of financial institutions led to a crisis that Obama is left to clean up.

Clean up costs associated with an inherited crisis are inherited costs.

You mean like with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac where the White House wanted the senate to look into both companies and Barney Franks and Maxin Watters rips into the White House saying these 2 companies were in excellent shape and there was no reason for closer examinations or regulations placed on them? Dem controlled house and senate for the last 2 years of the Bush administrations and played a big role in todays mess. To sit there and claim it was all Bush is beyond lame it is down right stupid.

[tyke1doe]

I can tell you're new to this forum. You almost can't have a discussion without some partisan finger pointing..

The Repubs couldn't wait to storm the board after Obama took office.

It's called payback x8. ;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Repubs couldn't wait to storm the board after Obama took office.

It's called payback x8. ;)

I think there is truth to what you say here Tyke but I would also say that the Right has not been nearly as hard on President Obama as the Left was on GW. The left was mercilous with him and it was that way since before he was ever elected. The Left hated that man, which I really don't understand because he was probably closer the the left then he was to the right in his presidential views. JMO

[JBond]

I think there is truth to what you say here Tyke but I would also say that the Right has not been nearly as hard on President Obama as the Left was on GW. The left was mercilous with him and it was that way since before he was ever elected. The Left hated that man, which I really don't understand because he was probably closer the the left then he was to the right in his presidential views. JMO

I never understood the hate by the left towards Bush for the same reasons. The guy went out of his way to include the Dems in every process. He was open almost to a fault. I knew we were in trouble when he allowed that alcoholic murderer write the education bill. It was a sign of things to come. I would have preferred Cheney on the top of the ticket and Bush the VP to give him a chance to learn the ropes. I never did believe Bush was the most qualified man to be President. His inexperience hurt him the same way it's killing Obama.

[Hoofbite]

I can tell you're new to this forum. You almost can't have a discussion without some partisan finger pointing..

You almost don't see a post with someone saying "libs", "left", "right"......etc.

[JBond]

Bush's errors of omission and commission regarding the regulation of financial institutions led to a crisis that Obama is left to clean up.

Clean up costs associated with an inherited crisis are inherited costs.

Obama has created a bigger deficit than all of the other Presidents combined. Did he do it to defend us against Nazi's or a Cold War USSR? No, he did it spending money on his pet liberal projects and paying off the idiots who voted for him. He is a complete and utter failure and the sooner he is gone the better off America will be.

[trickblue]

I never understood the hate by the left towards Bush for the same reasons. The guy went out of his way to include the Dems in every process. He was open almost to a fault. I knew we were in trouble when he allowed that alcoholic murderer write the education bill. It was a sign of things to come. I would have preferred Cheney on the top of the ticket and Bush the VP to give him a chance to learn the ropes. I never did believe Bush was the most qualified man to be President. His inexperience hurt him the same way it's killing Obama.

I always felt for him, as I would any president, with the hand dealt him as a result of 9/11, but I knew early in that I wouldn't vote for him again.

I did like where he started off with tax cuts, but when I saw his propensity for spending, I knew he was heading down the wrong path. Now we have Bush x 10 in regards to spending...

Hopefully fiscal conservatives can win the mid-terms and we can usher in a new Contract with America type congress...

[JBond]

You almost don't see a post with someone saying "libs", "left", "right"......etc.


It is what it is. I prefer knowing where someone is coming from rather than hiding behind the phony titles of independent minded or unbiased. Everyone has biases. Some choose to hide or lie about them, but that does not mean they are not there.

[Jordan55]

Once the economic crisis has stabilized, then and only then can we think of how to get out of our current deficit problem.

The only cure is to restructure our fiscal policy. That's what got us where we are. The deficit was astronomical long before any one of the last two, three,four administrations took office.

So your telling me you buy into the theory that government spending is going to get us out of this economic crisis, but what about the next economic crisis called inflation because of the devaluation of the American Dollar.

The point of this gloom and doom is that all this pain is entirely preventable. It will be caused by Obama's excessive spending and trillion dollar-plus deficits. This spending, of questionable utility in overcoming the current recession-depression, is so far out of line with what the economy can handle that it will do more harm than good when the inflation hits.

Proof that his spending will have little impact on the depression is the vast increase in money supply with no commensurate improvement in the economy. Providing money, via spending hikes or tax cuts, does not guarantee that the money will be spent. Tax cuts can be saved and spending increases, while surely spent once on the initial project, can rapidly lose their multiplier effect as wage-earners on the government payroll bank their money just like those who get tax cuts will do. Getting out of this economic mess depends on consumer and business confidence, a faith that Obama is eroding with his looming tax increases as rapidly as he tries to kindle it with his excessive spending.

Hey the bottom line is if your happy and believe the Clown in the White House and his administration so be it, My posts here won't change your opinion,
but his negative polls are rising, which gives me and others hope and change for the future

[WoodysGirl]

It is what it is. I prefer knowing where someone is coming from rather than hiding behind the phony titles of independent minded or unbiased. Everyone has biases. Some choose to hide or lie about them, but that does not mean they are not there.There's nothing phony about thinking independantly. Of course you're right when you say everyone has their biases. Being independant doesn't mean you don't have them. It means that you don't lean exclusively one way or the other when it comes to certain ideologies.

I will say that running around asking people if their dem or repub is like a gang member running around asking "What set you claim?" It's funny to me.

[ShiningStar]

OKay, lets all be truthful. See if you can handle it.

Both parties suck, the problem, the people. Everytime election time comes around they allow themselves to be sucked into the brown nosing and whos party is going to win.

The media wins, the parties win, anyone with an open pocket wins. Who loses, the people, why, cause they are the problem.

Real simple. New Jersey is a mess, makes tons of money, never has any. The last 4 governors have been democrats who put us in this mess single handidly. How do the people of NJ correct this problem, put in another Democratic governor, because they say the same thing and the state rallies behind them.

You want to solve the problem, go to another party. Trust me, they are out there, but they dont, you know why, the same reason they voted for Obama, they do as they are told and they dont do their homework.




*** This post is sponsored by no one and the views do not reflect the Cowboy Zone in any way, nor do they take responsibility for the drivels of an idiot. Continue on with your posting and enjoy your day.*****

[ShiningStar]

There's nothing phony about thinking independantly. Of course you're right when you say everyone has their biases. Being independant doesn't mean you don't have them. It means that you don't lean exclusively one way or the other when it comes to certain ideologies.

I will say that running around asking people if their dem or repub is like a gang member running around asking "What set you claim?" It's funny to me.


*runs back into the closet and hides*

[Jordan55]

I always felt for him, as I would any president, with the hand dealt him as a result of 9/11, but I knew early in that I wouldn't vote for him again.

I did like where he started off with tax cuts, but when I saw his propensity for spending, I knew he was heading down the wrong path. Now we have Bush x 10 in regards to spending...

Hopefully fiscal conservatives can win the mid-terms and we can usher in a new Contract with America type congress...

Right on the mark Trick, When the Republicans had control they pissed it away with their spending and Bush was at the fore front of this debacle and now were paying for it, Because the party lost site of it's principles.
I'm hopeful for the midterms and I'm all for throwing all Rino's out of the party.

[ZeroClub]

I think there is truth to what you say here Tyke but I would also say that the Right has not been nearly as hard on President Obama as the Left was on GW. The left was mercilous with him and it was that way since before he was ever elected. The Left hated that man, which I really don't understand because he was probably closer the the left then he was to the right in his presidential views. JMO

Clearly people were down on Bush longer than people have been down on Obama - but that's because Obama has only been in office for 2 or 2 and a half months. In the PZ, I much have faith that several of the trash talkers will exceed their quotas of phrases and terms like "Obama is garbage," "trash," "moron," "idiot," etc. The early returns are promising (assuming that the mods don't raise the general level of discussion by raising the bar).

I do take issue with the underlying idea that it is somehow unfair that Bush took more criticism than has Obama.

If you assume that Bush and Obama should be subject to equal levels of criticism ... you assume that both individuals are equally worthy of criticism. But there is no good reason to assume that they do, in fact, merit identical levels of criticism.

I understand that the natural inclination of someone who strives to be neutral is to take an "even Steven" approach - but that doesn't make "even Steven" correct.

For example -- Recently, with respect to the financial crisis, more people have said bad things about A.I.G. than have said bad things about Ford Motor Company. That doesn't mean that people are being unfair to A.I.G. or are blind to the faults of Ford. It could be that A.I.G. just plain screwed up worse and is, in fact, worthy of more criticism.

If you look at the poll numbers and contrast Bush's lowest approval numbers to Obama's, you could argue that criticisms of Bush should have been at least twice as harsh as Obama's.

[iceberg]

Bush's errors of omission and commission regarding the regulation of financial institutions led to a crisis that Obama is left to clean up.

Clean up costs associated with an inherited crisis are inherited costs.

hairy horse balls.

we have (2) parties for a reason, yet most people seem to only use the other party for blame and it freakin sucks.

who controlled congress?
who forced a spending bill never before seen by any country through congress w/o reading it?
who pushed for subprime lending?

if you dig enough we have a joint responsibility across the board and going YOU DAMN MORON!!! to the other side, while can be theraputic hardly goes to resolving the problems.

obama is president. these are HIS problems and i don't give a nanny rats arse where they came from. we have 2 parties, 2 parties created this mess.

[JBond]

There's nothing phony about thinking independantly. Of course you're right when you say everyone has their biases. Being independant doesn't mean you don't have them. It means that you don't lean exclusively one way or the other when it comes to certain ideologies.

I will say that running around asking people if their dem or repub is like a gang member running around asking "What set you claim?" It's funny to me.

Fair enough...but all of our ideas are formed by events, people and our environment. I'm not sure how truly independent our ideas and beliefs are. Now when it comes to political parties, I can understand why many would rather not align themselves with the Repubs or Dems. I am in that boat myself right now. Both parties have sufficiently pissed me off to the point I can not support either in good faith.

[iceberg]

I can tell you're new to this forum. You almost can't have a discussion without some partisan finger pointing..

it's your fault and you know it, WG!

:eek:

[ShiningStar]

Clearly people were down on Bush longer than people have been down on Obama - but that's because Obama has only been in office for 2 or 2 and a half months. In the PZ, I much have faith that several of the trash talkers will exceed their quotas of phrases and terms like "Obama is garbage," "trash," "moron," "idiot," etc. The early returns are promising (assuming that the mods don't raise the general level of discussion by raising the bar).

I do take issue with the underlying idea that it is somehow unfair that Bush took more criticism than has Obama.

If you assume that Bush and Obama should be subject to equal levels of criticism ... you assume that both individuals are equally worthy of criticism. But there is no good reason to assume that they do, in fact, merit identical levels of criticism.

I understand that the natural inclination of someone who strives to be neutral is to take an "even Steven" approach - but that doesn't make "even Steven" correct.

For example -- Recently, with respect to the financial crisis, more people have said bad things about A.I.G. than have said bad things about Ford Motor Company. That doesn't mean that people are being unfair to A.I.G. or are blind to the faults of Ford. It could be that A.I.G. just plain screwed up worse and is, in fact, worthy of more criticism.

If you look at the poll numbers and contrast Bush's lowest approval numbers to Obama's, you could argue that criticisms of Bush should have been at least twice as harsh as Obama's.


Im sorry I was under the impression Ford wasnt dying out. If i believe Ford didnt want the bail outs because they would be the winner. GM begged, screamed, doomed and gloomed.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[WoodysGirl]

Fair enough...but all of our ideas are formed by events, people and our environment. I'm not sure how truly independent our ideas and beliefs are. Now when it comes to political parties, I can understand why many would rather not align themselves with the Repubs or Dems. I am in that boat myself right now. Both parties have sufficiently pissed me off to the point I can not support either in good faith.That's a good point. There are some idealogies that are directly tied to what they think the political party should be. However if neither political party reflects those beliefs then how can your really support one 100% completely. I know I can't. It's one reason why I've never voted party line.

it's your fault and you know it, WG!

:eek:
Well I've already been called a fraud and a phony. Might as well get the blame for that, too...whenever I figure out why it's my fault.

[trickblue]

That's a good point. There are some idealogies that are directly tied to what they think the political party should be. However if neither political party reflects those beliefs then how can your really support one 100% completely. I know I can't. It's one reason why I've never voted party line.


Well I've already been called a fraud and a phony. Might as well get the blame for that, too...whenever I figure out why it's my fault.

Let's roll it up into a tidy package...

You are an "at-fault fraudulent phony"...

[WoodysGirl]

Let's roll it up into a tidy package...

You are an "at-fault fraudulent phony"...Only if you can say it three times without messing up.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Clearly people were down on Bush longer than people have been down on Obama - but that's because Obama has only been in office for 2 or 2 and a half months. In the PZ, I much have faith that several of the trash talkers will exceed their quotas of phrases and terms like "Obama is garbage," "trash," "moron," "idiot," etc. The early returns are promising (assuming that the mods don't raise the general level of discussion by raising the bar).

I do take issue with the underlying idea that it is somehow unfair that Bush took more criticism than has Obama.

If you assume that Bush and Obama should be subject to equal levels of criticism ... you assume that both individuals are equally worthy of criticism. But there is no good reason to assume that they do, in fact, merit identical levels of criticism.

I understand that the natural inclination of someone who strives to be neutral is to take an "even Steven" approach - but that doesn't make "even Steven" correct.

For example -- Recently, with respect to the financial crisis, more people have said bad things about A.I.G. than have said bad things about Ford Motor Company. That doesn't mean that people are being unfair to A.I.G. or are blind to the faults of Ford. It could be that A.I.G. just plain screwed up worse and is, in fact, worthy of more criticism.

If you look at the poll numbers and contrast Bush's lowest approval numbers to Obama's, you could argue that criticisms of Bush should have been at least twice as harsh as Obama's.

Your missing the point here Zero. Your looking at this as a comparison of Bush to Obama.

That's not it. The point, at least for me, is the ability for people to criticise Obama as they did Bush. More, less, even, the job he does will dictate that. However, at least right now, this Administration does not allow people to criticise President Obama. They lean on you and they make it tough when somebody says something negative.

It should not be that way.

[ShiningStar]

That's a good point. There are some idealogies that are directly tied to what they think the political party should be. However if neither political party reflects those beliefs then how can your really support one 100% completely. I know I can't. It's one reason why I've never voted party line.


Well I've already been called a fraud and a phony. Might as well get the blame for that, too...whenever I figure out why it's my fault.


Another well done day by WG who puts in a lot of effort to this section of the board.

[WoodysGirl]

Another well done day by WG who puts in a lot of effort to this section of the board.
Oh I don't know about all that. I think there are far more higher quality contributors to this forum than me.

I might post an article here or there, but there are some good, knowledgeable folks in this forum who make this a place to come visit.

[Vintage]

The Repubs couldn't wait to storm the board after Obama took office.

It's called payback x8. ;)


Part of me says its understandable.

Part of me laughs at the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

Its hard to tell which party is more incompetent these days. The Democrats couldn't beat George Bush. Twice.

Then... the Republicans offered up Palin as VP.

Kind of funny, if you think about it.

[arglebargle]

Obama has created a bigger deficit than all of the other Presidents combined. Did he do it to defend us against Nazi's or a Cold War USSR? No, he did it spending money on his pet liberal projects and paying off the idiots who voted for him. He is a complete and utter failure and the sooner he is gone the better off America will be.

So when you agree with the goals, it is alright to break the rules and the constitution?? And when you don't like the goals, only then does it becomes ebil and dastardly??

[tyke1doe]

Part of me says its understandable.

Part of me laughs at the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

Its hard to tell which party is more incompetent these days. The Democrats couldn't beat George Bush. Twice.

Then... the Republicans offered up Palin as VP.

Kind of funny, if you think about it.

:laugh2:

Tru dat.

[arglebargle]

You mean like with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac where the White House wanted the senate to look into both companies and Barney Franks and Maxin Watters rips into the White House saying these 2 companies were in excellent shape and there was no reason for closer examinations or regulations placed on them? Dem controlled house and senate for the last 2 years of the Bush administrations and played a big role in todays mess. To sit there and claim it was all Bush is beyond lame it is down right stupid.


You mean Barney Franks, who helped organize and shephard that bill, til floor amendments changed parts to the point that he could no longer support it?

The blaming of the Fannies for the subprime meltdown has become an article of faith for certain elements, as it's an excuse that can be laid at someone else's doorstep. Despite the evidence that they were losing market share in subprime throughout the decade as the WaMu's of the world realized they could scam profits with their Madroff style ponzi schemes. Last statistics I saw had the Fannies holding less than 20% of the subprime market, and that their paper was generally on more secure mortgages.

I personally think that the moves against the Fannies were based on them contributing more $s to the democrats' warchests, and to a 'K-Street Project' aligned party, this was unacceptable.

[Doomsday101]

You mean Barney Franks, who helped organize and shephard that bill, til floor amendments changed parts to the point that he could no longer support it?

The blaming of the Fannies for the subprime meltdown has become an article of faith for certain elements, as it's an excuse that can be laid at someone else's doorstep. Despite the evidence that they were losing market share in subprime throughout the decade as the WaMu's of the world realized they could scam profits with their Madroff style ponzi schemes. Last statistics I saw had the Fannies holding less than 20% of the subprime market, and that their paper was generally on more secure mortgages.

I personally think that the moves against the Fannies were based on them contributing more $s to the democrats' warchests, and to a 'K-Street Project' aligned party, this was unacceptable.

Yes that Barney Franks who sat there and lied through his teeth. Look if you think it was all Bush so be it but the fact is the Dem controlled both house since 06 and obama was also part of that group and you damn right they hold responsibility as well for the crisis we are in. I have never stated Bush is not responsible but when I see hypocrites sit there and point their finger at Bush when they were playing a role in this mess then I will call them out.

[tyke1doe]

I think there is truth to what you say here Tyke but I would also say that the Right has not been nearly as hard on President Obama as the Left was on GW. The left was mercilous with him and it was that way since before he was ever elected. The Left hated that man, which I really don't understand because he was probably closer the the left then he was to the right in his presidential views. JMO

I think we're dealing with perceptions so it's going to be hard to convince some conservatives that Bush wasn't criticized heavily before his first term. Truth be told, every presidential candidate/elected president gets hammered by the other side.
Bush was attacked no more than any other presidential candidate (Kerry was attacked as viciously). But I think - no I'm quite certain - the Iraqi War turned up the venom toward Bush.
You simply can't engage a country in war, offer its young men and women up to die, cost us billions of dollars and simply say, "Sorry, it didn't work out the way I thought. My bad," and not expect tremendous criticism.

Moreover, Bush enjoyed an increase in popularity after Sept. 11. Granted, that probably wasn't going to last - not to the degree it did right after the terrorist attacks - but his legacy would be much different had he not decided to invade Iraq.

IMO, the only way Obama's popularity will drop as low as Bush's is if through Obama's policies somehow another terrorist attack occurs on American soil.

Presidents survive economic downturns. But history isn't too kind to presidents who get involved in wars the public doesn't feel are justified or justifiable.

[tyke1doe]

That's a good point. There are some idealogies that are directly tied to what they think the political party should be. b]However if neither political party reflects those beliefs then how can your really support one 100% completely.[/b] I know I can't. It's one reason why I've never voted party line.


:clap:

My wife and I are pretty conservative, socially conservative, and I voted for Obama this time. In filtering through who she should vote for (I don't tell her who she should vote for), she asked how could I do that given the abortion issue and where Obama stands on it? Among other points, I told her, "Sending soldiers to fight a war I feel is unjustifiable is a 'sanctity of life' issue."

Don't tell me because they're soldiers they're doing what they should, i.e., giving their lives for the country. If you trust spotty intel and piece together a reason to fight a war (especially when you insist that if we don't act, we could face an imminent attack) and cost American lives and grief to thousands of families throughout this country, don't tell me that's not a "sanctity of life" issue.

Those soldiers' lives are as important as that fetus developing in the womb.

And if you justify, excuse or dismiss the lives lost in this war, then, "structurally" that argument is no different than those who condone abortion, IMO.

[arglebargle]

Yes that Barney Franks who sat there and lied through his teeth. Look if you think it was all Bush so be it but the fact is the Dem controlled both house since 06 and obama was also part of that group and you damn right they hold responsibility as well for the crisis we are in. I have never stated Bush is not responsible but when I see hypocrites sit there and point their finger at Bush when they were playing a role in this mess then I will call them out.

I take issue with a crew that held the presidency and the congress for most of six years, but only starts to rail about instutional problems when the other party comes to the forefront.

It's rarely 'all-anyone's' fault. From my view, both parties are far too compliant to large corporate interests. The 'If it's too large to fail, it's too large to exist.' position.

[ShiningStar]

:clap:

My wife and I are pretty conservative, socially conservative, and I voted for Obama this time. In filtering through who she should vote for (I don't tell her who she should vote for), she asked how could I do that given the abortion issue and where Obama stands on it? Among other points, I told her, "Sending soldiers to fight a war I feel is unjustifiable is a 'sanctity of life' issue."

Don't tell me because they're soldiers they're doing what they should, i.e., giving their lives for the country. If you trust spotty intel and piece together a reason to fight a war (especially when you insist that if we don't act, we could face an imminent attack) and cost American lives and grief to thousands of families throughout this country, don't tell me that's not a "sanctity of life" issue.

Those soldiers' lives are as important as that fetus developing in the womb.

And if you justify, excuse or dismiss the lives lost in this war, then, "structurally" that argument is no different than those who condone abortion, IMO.


So people that need the military to live the style they want and enjoy doing what they do because of the military, that doesnt count as well?

A lot of people go to the military for different reasons but they go, hence voluntary. Its their own reasons, and when there is no war, that life will filter down. But its voluntary, is abortion voluntary? Does the fetus in the womb" as you put it get a vote?

I justify the loss of life during a war as heroic and I go to gravesites to give my respect. But again, voluntary. War is a matter of survival on this planet. Abortion is not, to make comparisons is beyond humane.

Do you honestly think the UN did a great job of getting information as they announced their surprise inspections and looked around and disregarded all evidence?

When we went to war it wasnt just based off the publics outcry, it was to do the planet a service and in a lot of cases we have.

Whether we like people dying or not, its not our choice to tell the solider that. It is theirs and their choice and to compare that choice to that of a fetus in a womb is different in my mind. So to say nicely.

[Vintage]

So people that need the military to live the style they want and enjoy doing what they do because of the military, that doesnt count as well?

A lot of people go to the military for different reasons but they go, hence voluntary. Its their own reasons, and when there is no war, that life will filter down. But its voluntary, is abortion voluntary? Does the fetus in the womb" as you put it get a vote?

I justify the loss of life during a war as heroic and I go to gravesites to give my respect. But again, voluntary. War is a matter of survival on this planet. Abortion is not, to make comparisons is beyond humane.

Do you honestly think the UN did a great job of getting information as they announced their surprise inspections and looked around and disregarded all evidence?

When we went to war it wasnt just based off the publics outcry, it was to do the planet a service and in a lot of cases we have.

Whether we like people dying or not, its not our choice to tell the solider that. It is theirs and their choice and to compare that choice to that of a fetus in a womb is different in my mind. So to say nicely.


Yes, it is.

Women voluntarily get abortions across the country every day.

:)

[lewpac]

Bush's errors of omission and commission regarding the regulation of financial institutions led to a crisis that Obama is left to clean up.

Clean up costs associated with an inherited crisis are inherited costs.

Funny.................if anyone even MENTIONED Clinton after January 15th, 2001, it was tantamount to heresy! The recession he left, and all the terrorist problems he turned a blind eye to.................a mess that BUSH HAD TO CLEAN UP..................it was called whining and complaining and "shifting blame".

Listen, ya' got your boy. Here's the "hope and change" ya'all got up in a lather about. Instead of, every time he's questioned or challenged on his (lack of) performance, he blames Bush either directly or indirectly................maybe get off the "campaign trail" he seems to be addicted to and actually go to work for while.

He'll get away with this cowardly, chicken-**** "blame Bush" crap for maybe another month or two. But, it's a "watch what you pray for" scenario that's shaping up. Both for Obama and the lemmings who were mezmerized, brainwashed, and allowed this man-child to sit in the White House.

Bottom line: Bush was "so bad" that it swept this idiot and his ilk into office. OK. Bush is out. Done. That was the goal. Now get on with the "hope and change" and quit making excuses..................

[MetalHead]

I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton for the recession he inherited.

[ArmoredSaint]

Star, open your eyes to the possibilities of economic implosion and it won't be my back that I will be concerned about:) I'm looking for the cure to the situation not an excuse to continue it.

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Meet the new boss........same as the old boss.

[lewpac]

I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton for the recession he inherited.

Of course you didn't "remember". The very THOUGHT of such a thing was dismissed. Secondly, the media would never have such a thing.

What about the umpteen terrorist attacks under Clinton that were ignored? Unless, of course, he decided to bomb someone to deflect from cheating on his wife (can't blame him there) and lying about it.

All I'm saying, is that I don't want to hear about anything "Bush" out of this guys mouth. He ran and ran and ran, and talked and talked and talked, and brainwashed everyone into voting for him out of "change". Well, here's you change.

How long, who sets the time-table, for all this "change" to take place? Given all the broo-ha-ha about Obama, and how he's the "next coming" and the "mesiah" for America.....................I'm not giving him an inch. He's got to live up to all the "promise" and "hope" that was shoved down our throats for two years.

There was nothing nuanced or subtle about all his claims, promises and declarations. He said what he stood for, but never explained "how". Now, when the "how" and the meat and taters are up for scrutiny, he typically has no answers, appoints every Clinton appointee to his staff (some "change"), and blames Bush for all his gaffs and weakness's.

A democrat operative working for Clinton during the primaries got fired for saying that "if Obama was white and named Roberts, with THAT resume and experience, nobody would know who he was". And that's true. If this guy was was white and his name was Dan Oblansky, no deal. He's nothing but the "anti-Red State" red meat that bitter and angry libs and Dems wanted to get "revenge" for the last eight years.

Put up or shut up....................................

[Doomsday101]

I take issue with a crew that held the presidency and the congress for most of six years, but only starts to rail about instutional problems when the other party comes to the forefront.

It's rarely 'all-anyone's' fault. From my view, both parties are far too compliant to large corporate interests. The 'If it's too large to fail, it's too large to exist.' position.

I call them all out I don't take blame away from Bush I take exception that Obama and other Dem act like they had nothing to do with the situation we are currently in.

[ZeroClub]

I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton for the recession he inherited.

I do.

Also, Carter was blamed for Reagan's recession. (That is, the recession that happened early in Reagan's first term).

[DIAF]

I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton for the recession he inherited.

No, but administration spokesmen sure as heck did. In 2001 they were all over TV, reminding everyone that it was inherited (and they were right). Don't act like the current President is doing anything new....he's partly right, the Bush administration IS to blame for the current recession.....at least partly. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, drive for more home ownership (especially minority home ownership in the Bush the 1st/Clinton years), consumer society used to using money they dont have to live beyond their means, years of administrations looking the other way when it comes to the financial sector....it finally all came crashing down. There's blame stretching back 20+ years across Republican and Democratic administrations.

[Jarv]

I do.

Also, Carter was blamed for Reagan's recession. (That is, the recession that happened early in Reagan's first term).

Link please of Bush blaming Clinton for the recession he inherited.

Talking heads...maybe, but I'd like to see those to.

I can provided probably a 1,000 links of Obuya blaming Bush for everything.

Your the one who remembers this, so show us.

[DFWJC]

I think both parties had a big hand in this mess. Obama is radically magnifiying it, but he is correct to say that the snowball began rolling on Bush's watch.

[ZeroClub]

8th paragraph (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303486.html)

[Rackat]

8th paragraph (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303486.html)
Upon entering the White House in 2001, Bush pinned the lackluster economy on his predecessor, using the "Clinton recession" to successfully argue in favor of tax cuts that won some Democratic support. But for Obama, who built his candidacy on a promise to rise above Washington's divisive partisan traditions -- winning over many independent voters and moderate Republicans in the process -- blaming his predecessor holds special risks.
I think he meant a link to Bush actually doing the criticising/blaming, not some article that says he did it.

[Jarv]

I think he meant a link to Bush actually doing the criticising/blaming, not some article that says he did it.

Tahnk you Rackat...Zero has nothing so far.

[WoodysGirl]

It's not hard to find...and you don't even have to google.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in separate speeches Wednesday, both claimed the U.S. economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January 2001, implying the blame for the slowdown rested on President Clinton's shoulders.

<snip>

When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession," Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school. "Then our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals. But I'm certain of this: We won't let fear undermine our economy and we're not going to let fraud undermine it either."


http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/

And in the same search, I saw Clinton blaming Bush I. All incoming presidents blame the outgoing presidents on whatever the latest crisis is.

[tyke1doe]

So people that need the military to live the style they want and enjoy doing what they do because of the military, that doesnt count as well?

A lot of people go to the military for different reasons but they go, hence voluntary. Its their own reasons, and when there is no war, that life will filter down. But its voluntary, is abortion voluntary? Does the fetus in the womb" as you put it get a vote?

I justify the loss of life during a war as heroic and I go to gravesites to give my respect. But again, voluntary. War is a matter of survival on this planet. Abortion is not, to make comparisons is beyond humane.

Do you honestly think the UN did a great job of getting information as they announced their surprise inspections and looked around and disregarded all evidence?

When we went to war it wasnt just based off the publics outcry, it was to do the planet a service and in a lot of cases we have.

Whether we like people dying or not, its not our choice to tell the solider that. It is theirs and their choice and to compare that choice to that of a fetus in a womb is different in my mind. So to say nicely.


Again, excuses. There's still no reason to mislead the public to fight a war that will cost lives.

And if it weren't for voluntary service, we would have a draft and still be in the same thing.

Sorry, but "sanctity of life" means we shouldn't take innocent life or deliberately put innocent life in danger of death. I don't care whether it's in the womb or in military service.

And if you think there's a difference, God punished King David for the very same thing, trying to use the cover of war to kill a man whose wife he had impregnated. Ironic indeed, given the topic. ;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think we're dealing with perceptions so it's going to be hard to convince some conservatives that Bush wasn't criticized heavily before his first term. Truth be told, every presidential candidate/elected president gets hammered by the other side.
Bush was attacked no more than any other presidential candidate (Kerry was attacked as viciously). But I think - no I'm quite certain - the Iraqi War turned up the venom toward Bush.
You simply can't engage a country in war, offer its young men and women up to die, cost us billions of dollars and simply say, "Sorry, it didn't work out the way I thought. My bad," and not expect tremendous criticism.

Moreover, Bush enjoyed an increase in popularity after Sept. 11. Granted, that probably wasn't going to last - not to the degree it did right after the terrorist attacks - but his legacy would be much different had he not decided to invade Iraq.

IMO, the only way Obama's popularity will drop as low as Bush's is if through Obama's policies somehow another terrorist attack occurs on American soil.

Presidents survive economic downturns. But history isn't too kind to presidents who get involved in wars the public doesn't feel are justified or justifiable.

I think this is an over simplification of the who thing but OK. I understand it's your opinion on things.

IMO, the left was against the war, not the country. It's all relative I suppose.

[iceberg]

8th paragraph (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303486.html)

so in every speech obama gives it seems he said BUSH DID IT, NOT ME!

and you go dig up some 8th paragraph somewhere where it's referenced for a single gain.

glad you're not biased or anything.

[Doomsday101]

so in every speech obama gives it seems he said BUSH DID IT, NOT ME!

and you go dig up some 8th paragraph somewhere where it's referenced for a single gain.

glad you're not biased or anything.

True, you can look at almost any Obama speech and the line I inherited this is sure to be there.

[tyke1doe]

I think this is an over simplification of the who thing but OK. I understand it's your opinion on things.

IMO, the left was against the war, not the country. It's all relative I suppose.

I thought the left was part of the country? :huh:

[WoodysGirl]

so in every speech obama gives it seems he said BUSH DID IT, NOT ME!

and you go dig up some 8th paragraph somewhere where it's referenced for a single gain.

glad you're not biased or anything.
Obama's administration does yell "I inherited this..." too much. He did, but he asked for it. It's his now and he and his admin should move on.

However, the assertion was that Bush didn't do it. Now it was proven that Yes, he did. Now the assertion is he didn't do it as much. Does it really matter in the end?

Whenever Obama leaves office, the next president will most assuredly cry about fixing something.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I thought the left was part of the country? :huh:


Lets not be petty here. The Country implies all of the people. The Left is a Part of the people in this Country.

[trickblue]

Whenever Obama leaves office, the next president will most assuredly cry about fixing something.

Like... everything... :D

[WoodysGirl]

Like... everything... :D
Change, you can count on. ;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, but administration spokesmen sure as heck did. In 2001 they were all over TV, reminding everyone that it was inherited (and they were right). Don't act like the current President is doing anything new....he's partly right, the Bush administration IS to blame for the current recession.....at least partly. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, drive for more home ownership (especially minority home ownership in the Bush the 1st/Clinton years), consumer society used to using money they dont have to live beyond their means, years of administrations looking the other way when it comes to the financial sector....it finally all came crashing down. There's blame stretching back 20+ years across Republican and Democratic administrations.


History is written by those who are in power. If you ask Liberals on this board right now, about the Recession Bush was elected into, a great many would say that the Country was in great shape and everything was fine. It is what it is. I understand that. The problem here is that on the one hand, you hear the whole, "The Country was fine" but you also here, "The current mess is Bush's fault." It can't be both.

[trickblue]

Change, you can count on. ;)

Well played! :laugh2:

[ZeroClub]

There is a continuity of government in the U.S. As a result, what occurs early in a President's first term usually first began to develop during the predecessor's term.

I can't imagine how this could be controversial. It is obvious.

Surely there can't be anyone here who really believes that the economy was going just great right up until this moment in time:

kbuaP8F_JhQ

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is a continuity of government in the U.S. As a result, what occurs early in a President's first term usually first began to develop during the predecessor's term.

I can't imagine how this could be controversial. It is obvious.

Surely there can't be anyone here who really believes that the economy was going just great right up until this moment in time:

kbuaP8F_JhQ


Great and Poor are relative Zero.

[iceberg]

Obama's administration does yell "I inherited this..." too much. He did, but he asked for it. It's his now and he and his admin should move on.

However, the assertion was that Bush didn't do it. Now it was proven that Yes, he did. Now the assertion is he didn't do it as much. Does it really matter in the end?

Whenever Obama leaves office, the next president will most assuredly cry about fixing something.

bush didn't screw it up this bad, wg. he had a role in it, sure. but so did every man and woman in office today. this is not a partisan problem and you can find missteps by both parties along the way.

when the normal world would synch up and figure out those missteps, we've gotten mired in saying YOUR MISSTEP IS WORSE THAN MINE! on both sides.

bush spent too much but obama buried him in his 1st month. we can't spend and print money to get out of debt. we're committing some strange form of political suicide and are so hellbent on blaming the other guy, on both sides, we can't see our own failings.

policy above process.

it sucks.

so i agree, wg. both sides are guilty and who's "less guilty" is prolonging the pain. and i also agree that obama ran for office and gets what he gets. man up and do something besides hide behind the failures, real or otherwise, of bush.

[WoodysGirl]

bush didn't screw it up this bad, wg. he had a role in it, sure. but so did every man and woman in office today. this is not a partisan problem and you can find missteps by both parties along the way.

when the normal world would synch up and figure out those missteps, we've gotten mired in saying YOUR MISSTEP IS WORSE THAN MINE! on both sides.

bush spent too much but obama buried him in his 1st month. we can't spend and print money to get out of debt. we're committing some strange form of political suicide and are so hellbent on blaming the other guy, on both sides, we can't see our own failings.

policy above process.

it sucks.

so i agree, wg. both sides are guilty and who's "less guilty" is prolonging the pain. and i also agree that obama ran for office and gets what he gets. man up and do something besides hide behind the failures, real or otherwise, of bush.
My opinion is no matter who was going to get the big chair in November, many of the moves that have been made would STILL have been made. Obama wonn the big chair so he gets the heat (just like Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I).

The one thing I think is overlooked is if folks had really looked at their plans during the campaign, they would have noticed there wasn't much different in what they offered.

You could've tossed it in the air, shot it while blind, and came down with some of the same policies being enacted now.

[Jarv]

My opinion is no matter who was going to get the big chair in November, many of the moves that have been made would STILL have been made. Obama wonn the big chair so he gets the heat (just like Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I).

The one thing I think is overlooked is if folks had really looked at their plans during the campaign, they would have noticed there wasn't much different in what they offered.

You could've tossed it in the air, shot it while blind, and came down with some of the same policies being enacted now.

I disagree whole heartily with this statement.

[iceberg]

I disagree whole heartily with this statement.

i'm not sure i do. appearances may have been different.

policy on some issues like wanting to control vs. not wanting to, but the other night i was listening to jesse "the body" ventura talk about his time in politics and he said it was a lot like wrestling. in front of the people it's a huge fight. behind the doors, they get along fine and put the show down.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that WG is correct in her assumptions that no matter who got in, it was going to be a job.

I disagree with the assumption that the plans were the same or that the problems would have been handled the same. Both promised that they would use a pen to cut out unnecessary spending. We don't know what McCain would have done because he never got a chance to show us. We do know what President Obama has done and it is not what was promised IMO.

McCain was in favor of cutting spending, freezing Government spending, control of cost, tax cuts that were not in the form of 14.00 kick backs. He believed that in order to get the economy going, the housing industry mess had to be addressed immediatly. He believed that consumer confidence was tied to there home securities. Essentially, address the bad debt issue immediatly. That was not President Obama's plan. In fact, only in the last couple of weeks has this become priority with this Administration and interestingly enough, Wall Street has responded. Clearly, President Obama was interested in getting his agenda issues passed before addressing the issues of housing and trading fixes.

At least, that is how I see it. We will never know for certain because there can only be one President at a time but, based on what has happened and what McCain said he would do, I think you can make a strong case that they would not have done it in the same way. JMO.

[ethiostar]

i'm not sure i do. appearances may have been different.

policy on some issues like wanting to control vs. not wanting to, but the other night i was listening to jesse "the body" ventura talk about his time in politics and he said it was a lot like wrestling. in front of the people it's a huge fight. behind the doors, they get along fine and put the show down.

:hammer:

Thank you.

That also has the effect of having us bicker with each other about bipartisan politics while both parties cater to lobbyists, transnational corporations and banks, and the other very extremely filthy rich. As long as we continue this, "my political party is better than your party" crap instead of being vigilant and examining what the hell is going on over there, they will continue their business as usual.

[Jarv]

I think that WG is correct in her assumptions that no matter who got in, it was going to be a job.

I disagree with the assumption that the plans were the same or that the problems would have been handled the same. Both promised that they would use a pen to cut out unnecessary spending. We don't know what McCain would have done because he never got a chance to show us. We do know what President Obama has done and it is not what was promised IMO.

McCain was in favor of cutting spending, freezing Government spending, control of cost, tax cuts that were not in the form of 14.00 kick backs. He believed that in order to get the economy going, the housing industry mess had to be addressed immediatly. He believed that consumer confidence was tied to there home securities. Essentially, address the bad debt issue immediatly. That was not President Obama's plan. In fact, only in the last couple of weeks has this become priority with this Administration and interestingly enough, Wall Street has responded. Clearly, President Obama was interested in getting his agenda issues passed before addressing the issues of housing and trading fixes.

At least, that is how I see it. We will never know for certain because there can only be one President at a time but, based on what has happened and what McCain said he would do, I think you can make a strong case that they would not have done it in the same way. JMO.

That is what I was talking about about, thank you for articulating it so well.

[STAR GAZER]

i'm not sure i do. appearances may have been different.

policy on some issues like wanting to control vs. not wanting to, but the other night i was listening to jesse "the body" ventura talk about his time in politics and he said it was a lot like wrestling. in front of the people it's a huge fight. behind the doors, they get along fine and put the show down.

I agree with WG as well. I also heard Jesse Venturas comments too. I think he was commenting while speaking with Willie Nelson in an interview.

One thing I would like to add. The mess we are in has a lot to do with deregulation, which the Republican Party was a much stronger proponent of. I agree with deregulation, but they shouldn't have eased the regulations as much on the fat cats on Wall Street. There was no transparency what so ever. These guys know every loophole in the system and how to manipulate trading practices. They cook the books and have little accountability because there isn't enough regulation for these crooks

The S.E.C. and similar entities were created after the Great Depression to protect us from this kind of thievery. What we need now is a new watch dog with some serious bite. Something equivalent to a Pit Bull would be nice.

[ShiningStar]

I agree with WG as well. I also heard Jesse Venturas comments too. I think he was commenting while speaking with Willie Nelson in an interview.

One thing I would like to add. The mess we are in has a lot to do with deregulation, which the Republican Party was a much stronger proponent of. I agree with deregulation, but they shouldn't have eased the regulations as much on the fat cats on Wall Street. There was no transparency what so ever. These guys know every loophole in the system and how to manipulate trading practices. They cook the books and have little accountability because there isn't enough regulation for these crooks

The S.E.C. and similar entities were created after the Great Depression to protect us from this kind of thievery. What we need now is a new watch dog with some serious bite. Something equivalent to a Pit Bull would be nice.


WEll we had that and the SEC failed, so your idea is to put another organizxation in charge and wait for them to fail as well. Great. Why not chain the SEC and jail them for being failures and just getting rid of the people in charge that failed. Why make another organization do what the first one was meant to do?

[ethiostar]

WEll we had that and the SEC failed, so your idea is to put another organizxation in charge and wait for them to fail as well. Great. Why not chain the SEC and jail them for being failures and just getting rid of the people in charge that failed. Why make another organization do what the first one was meant to do?

Any suggestions on what should be done instead?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with WG as well. I also heard Jesse Venturas comments too. I think he was commenting while speaking with Willie Nelson in an interview.

One thing I would like to add. The mess we are in has a lot to do with deregulation, which the Republican Party was a much stronger proponent of. I agree with deregulation, but they shouldn't have eased the regulations as much on the fat cats on Wall Street. There was no transparency what so ever. These guys know every loophole in the system and how to manipulate trading practices. They cook the books and have little accountability because there isn't enough regulation for these crooks

The S.E.C. and similar entities were created after the Great Depression to protect us from this kind of thievery. What we need now is a new watch dog with some serious bite. Something equivalent to a Pit Bull would be nice.

Is your point that the Republican Party was the driving force behind the deregulation that caused this?

[ShiningStar]

Any suggestions on what should be done instead?


Yeah, i thought i made that clear, CHAIN and jail them, they failed on many many levels. The next people wont screw up, i guarantee it.

[ethiostar]

Yeah, i thought i made that clear, CHAIN and jail them, they failed on many many levels. The next people wont screw up, i guarantee it.

Ok, i thought you were wanting to do away with any oversight. I agree with you for those who were knowledgeable accomplices in this mess, i.e., they looked the other way knowing the consequences. The penalty should be pretty severe.

[STAR GAZER]

Is your point that the Republican Party was the driving force behind the deregulation that caused this?


No. I think deregulation is great for business. It's that the Corporations are in the business of manipulating politicians on both sides of the isle. It's just that the Republicans have been holding office 20 out of the last 28 years. So I would say that they have more corrupt money in their pockets.

[ABQCOWBOY]

No. I think deregulation is great for business. It's that the Corporations are in the business of manipulating politicians on both sides of the isle. It's just that the Republicans have been holding office 20 out of the last 28 years. So I would say that they have more corrupt money in their pockets.

I see. I don't know that I agree but I understand your view point.

[ShiningStar]

Ok, i thought you were wanting to do away with any oversight. I agree with you for those who were knowledgeable accomplices in this mess, i.e., they looked the other way knowing the consequences. The penalty should be pretty severe.


Its not just that, its all the Madoff case, where people were writing letters to teh SEC telling them what this guy was doing. Than those same people wanted to testify and get something done and the SEC still ignored everything that went down.

[Rogah]

Bush's errors of omission and commission regarding the regulation of financial institutions led to a crisis that Obama is left to clean up.

Clean up costs associated with an inherited crisis are inherited costs.I believe Bush deserves a heckuva lot of blame for our current situation, but I refuse to blame him for things which were not his fault. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are institutions that have been overwhelmingly under Democratic control over the past decade, plus it was the Clinton Administration that had the brilliant idea to force those institutions to make more loans to low income citizens.

It was an idea that sounded nice at the time, but probably wasn't the wisest action in the long run.

[tyke1doe]

Lets not be petty here. The Country implies all of the people. The Left is a Part of the people in this Country.

I'm not being petty.

First, we don't know the opinion of all the people because all American people don't vote, and many aren't of age to understand the issue.

Second, feelings about the war are a matter of which place on the pendulum you focus. Right at the start of the war, many Americans, based on the polls, supported the war. On other points on the pendulum, Americans did not support the war.

Just wanted to clarify. :)

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not being petty.

First, we don't know the opinion of all the people because all American people don't vote, and many aren't of age to understand the issue.

Second, feelings about the war are a matter of which place on the pendulum you focus. Right at the start of the war, many Americans, based on the polls, supported the war. On other points on the pendulum, Americans did not support the war.

Just wanted to clarify. :)

I agree. Not all Americans supported the War and they still don't, even today. However, that's kind of the point right. Not all Americans feel like many in the left do. That's the whole point.