Dems have blamed everything on Bush and Obama has continued that practice up to this moment.....

so turn about is just fair play.

I PLAN ON BLAMING EVERYTHING ON OBAMA ..... including inclememt weather


........it should be such fun!

That's like asking what came first the chicken or the egg.

Obams's policies are not helping the economy if they were and the economy was doing good, then the Democrats would be doing better.

It's as though the Democrats don't really care about the economy, only whether or not they look good for the elections. If they could hand everybody some money to spend and boost the numbers they would certainly try but they are going about it the wrong way.

For any sort of long term economic stability and growth we first need decent jobs in America. Along with those jobs come the confidence and ability to spend.

So I do blame Obama for not getting the formula right and for trying to spend his way out of this. It was this same type of irresponsible thinking that got us in this mess in the first place and is preventing a true rebound. Allow the American people to be strong and independent and this nation will be strong as well as prosper.

"...trying to spend his way out of this. It was this same type of irresponsible thinking that got us in this mess in the first place."-MG

"We should be in the second year of a decade-long world-wide depression, but for the Bush/Obama efforts that included TARP (mostly paid back already, with a profit for the taxpayer), stimulus spending, auto company bailouts,-and all we see from the right are cynical crocodile tears about too much spending. It's not real. The complainers aren't that ADHD that they don't know we should be in a depression but for this awful, awful spending. So why are they pretending their complaint is anything more than calculated partisanship? Do they really think the rest of us don't see through their pretense?"-MQ, in the previous topic

Today's GDP numbers are a good way to understand Tuesday's election. Start with who Barack Obama isn't: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You hear people say that if Obama could only sell his vision, his agenda or his commitments the way FDR could, he'd be safe right now. And the comparison is understandable: Like FDR, Obama took office shortly after a financial crisis. But unlike FDR, who took office after three years in which GDP shrank by an average of 9.6 percent each year, Obama -- and his predecessor -- responded effectively enough and quickly enough to stop the economy from collapsing. Our worst year was 2009, when GDP shrank by 2.6 percent. And that was the only year in which we actually lost ground.

"We should be in the second year of a decade-long world-wide depression, but for the Bush/Obama efforts that included TARP (mostly paid back already, with a profit for the taxpayer), stimulus spending, auto company bailouts,-and all we see from the right are cynical crocodile tears about too much spending."-Mike Q

Mike Q, I know the point you are making but you are not telling the whole story. Your reply does not include anything about principles and responsibility but only continued irresponsible spending.

This is how I see it. The government was irresponsible with both spending and loose regulations, so we all got in big trouble. Both TARP along with SOME degree of spending MAY have been necessary to avoid a more serious depression. However, borrowing money from our children in order to pay for our mistakes, does not make Bush great. Obama taking it a step further by borrowing even more does not make him a genius or a savior. He did what he had to do. If Bush were in, he may of had to do the same, to some degree.

So since we can't change the past and should not blame Obama for the sins of the past, we have to look at the present and the future. These questions must be answered:

1) Was all that stimulus needed to save us or was there additional special interest spending built in?

2) What is Obama doing to show he is not continuing the irresponsible spending habits? What is he cutting?

3) Why did Obama spend more then a year on health-care entitlement instead of focusing on jobs and changing this carefree attitude of over spending, that will allow this to happen again?

I'll take your answer off the air.

"borrowing even more does not make him a genius or a savior. He did what he had to do."-MG

Staving off a depression doesn't take a genius, but it sure makes whoever does it a savior.

Question 1: MORE stimulus could have sped things up. Special interest spending? Count on it, and don't look shocked. When is there NO compromise to get something passed?

Q2: After the stimulus and all that, how much heavy spending has Congress done? I haven't seen the details of the 2011 budget, so who knows what may be cut? Without information, all is cheap potshots.

Q3: "Why did Obama spend more then a year on health-care entitlement instead of focusing on jobs?"

Reasonable calculation. By year two pretty much any president is on the skids. If he had waited to work on healthcare reform it would absolutely have bombed. As flawed as it is it will become in time, after lots of rework, something that will be appreciated. In the meantime, short of Obama hiring people to sweep streets and manicure hiking trails, what more effective way could he apply to create jobs than to stimulate the economy via stimulus spending? Once that boost is in place, there's little he could do to get employers to hire workers they don't yet need, so he may as well have worked on healthcare while waiting for the massive financial pendulum to start its slow return swing. It's too easy to say Obama failed to create jobs when no one who's being honest would claim that full employment immediately after hitting bottom is at all a reasonable expectation.

This is how I see it. The government was irresponsible with both spending and loose regulations, so we all got in big trouble- WHO WAS RESPONCIBLE - REPUBLICANS FOR ALL $8.4TRILLION. BUSH ENTERED WITH THE DEFICIT AT $4.3TRILLION... AND LEFT WITH IT AT 12.7TRILLION AND THE NATION UNDERWATER AND IN TOTAL FINANCIAL CHAOS. WHEN BUSH EXITED IN CASE YOU DON'T REMEMBER ALL OF THE BANKS WERE INSOLVANT. FINACIALS WERE READY FOR SUB HELL BURIALS. AND THE CHINA AND RUSSIA WERE LICKING THEIR CHOPS PREPARING TO WAGE IN WITH MASIVE INFUSIONS INTO IRAN AND VENEZUELA. ---> DID YOU FORGET ALL OF THAT?
THE DEMS MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN BY 2006 BUT IT WAS BUSHJRS BUDGET.. Both TARP along with SOME degree of spending MAY have been necessary to avoid a more serious depression OK! THAT $3.1 TRILLION WAS THE BANKS WHO ARE STILL HORDING $1.6TRILLION ON THEIR BALANCE SHEETS AS IF IT WERE THEIRS. NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH THAT MONEY IS --> THE PEOPLES MONEY. However, borrowing money from our children in order to pay for our mistakes, does not make Bush great. GREAT?... GREAT??? ARE YOU F_CKING KIDDING!!! THE MAN WAS A CLOWN. STARTING WITH WHERE'S THAT VICTORY, FLYBOY. THE SLIGHT REPUBLICAN LOCKSTEP PLUNGE FOR THAT MINOR $50bMISCALCULATION IN IRAQ, AND THE RETARDED FLIP-FLOP RETREAT FROM AFGHANISTAN- NOW COSTING US $900B PER YEAR. Obama taking it a step further by borrowing even more does not make him a genius or a savior. He did what he had to do. If Bush were in, he may of had to do the same, to some degree. IF BUSH WERE STILL IN- HE'D BE ON VACATION. AND CHENEY WOULD BE PULLING THE STRINGS. YEAH SURE THAT BASTARD WOULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THE PEOPLE, JUST LIKE HE DID THE ENRON PEOPLE.

So since we can't change the past and should not blame Obama for the sins of the past, we have to look at the present and the future. These questions must be answered:

1) Was all that stimulus needed to save us or was there additional special interest spending built in? YOU KNOW THAT ANSWER HALF OF IT WENT TO THE BANKS, THAT SHOULD HAVE COVERED FORECLOSURES, WHICH WOULD HAVE PROPPED THE PHYSICAL TANGIBLE ASSET THAT IS FLOATING "THE DOLLARS[OURS" THAT THEY THE BANKS AREN'T LENDING. WHAT WAS THE OTHER OPTION- MARTIAL LAW.
2) What is Obama doing to show he is not continuing the irresponsible spending habits? What is he cutting? HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CUT ANYTHING.
BEFORE HE EVEN ARRIVED
THE BANKS, FINANCIALS AND THE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS WHO SYSTEMICALLY RAIDED OUR TREASURY, SSI, AND OTHER INSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED RESERVES COFFERS MADE THEIR MASSIVE KILLINGS, AND OFFSHORED OUR JOBS FOR THE PAST 20YRS- OWE US.
OWE US FOR THEIR SURVIVAL,...
...OWE "US" FOR THEIR WAGING WARS THEY NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF WINNING... OWN "US" FOR THEIR PIPE DREAM SCAM OF ALL SCAMS-DEREGULATION... OWE "US" FOR STACKING THE DECK W/KEYSTOPNE COP REGULATORS...

3) Why did Obama spend more then a year on health-care entitlement instead of focusing on jobs and changing this carefree attitude of over spending, that will allow this to happen again? PERHAPS KNOWING DAMNED WELL THAT THE PRIVATES WOULD CONTINUE TO GUT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLANS, SHIFTING THOSE BROKEN PROMISES TO THEIR PROFIT MARGIN- JUST LIKE THEY ARE DOING NOW, IN PLAIN SLIGHT

I'll take your answer off the air. BELIEVE ME, YOU NEED 3 MORE WHOLE NEW BOARDS TO COVER WHAT "THE VACANT" BUSH AND THE "LOCKSTEP" REPUBLICANS- PUSHED DOWN OUR THROATS, AND NEVER HAD A SECOND THOUGHT ABOUT DOING IT, TO YOU.

NOW COMPARE ALL OF THAT TO OBAMA'S CHALLENGE- HOW TO MAKE AMERICA WHOLE W/ ONLY A $900B STIMULUS...
WHICH HAD TO BY YOUR STANDARDS HAD TO RESTORE EVERYTHING IN 2YEARS.

1. BRING BACK THE ENTIRE ECONOMY
2. CREATE JOBS RESTORE REGULATION AND SANITY TO AN ENTIRE FINANCIAL SYSTEM GONE BERSERK.
3. CREATE AND PAY FOR THE JOBS, THAT THE BANKS ADAMENTLY REFUSED TO DO WITH THE MONEY THEY HAVE HOARDED.
4. MAKE GOOD ON THE BUSH FAILED PROMISE OF A NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM THAT HAD 47MILLION WEIGHING ON THE BACKS OF EMERGENECY ROOM TREATMENTS THAT HAD BEEN COLLAPSING ENTIRE HOSPITAL SYSTEMS NATIONWIDE AS "JOBS", JOBS, JOBS, WHICH PAY THOSE BILLS WERE BEING SHED AT A RATE OF 700,000 PER MONTH FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS BUSH "THE DECIDER" WAS IN OFFICE.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
----------------
Weigh the balances, Mike. Did the Republicans have "the answers" when they were in office or did they just rubber stamp everything w/ lockstep zeal? Then answer this yourself- what is their intention. "BACK TO THE POLICYS OF BUSH", ROLL BACK REGULATION, ...- JOHN BOEHNER
Imagine that. How smart could the rest of the Republicans have been if they never challenged Bush on any of his "half-baked" wars or policys?

THIS IS REALLY A NO-BRAINER! YOU CAN GO DOLLARS AND CENTS OR COMMON SENSE. THERE IS NO WAY THAT OBAMA ISN'T THE MORE PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE. IS THERE?

I'd like to hear your answer for your own perspective. You seem torn between loyaltys to the ties that provide your income, and your conscience.

“THIS IS REALLY A NO-BRAINER! YOU CAN GO DOLLARS AND CENTS OR COMMON SENSE. THERE IS NO WAY THAT OBAMA ISN'T THE MORE PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE. IS THERE? I'd like to hear your answer for your own perspective. You seem torn between loyaltys to the ties that provide your income, and your conscience.” -John

Okay John I will give you my perspective. Judging from the polls I think my perspective probably reflects the majority. You see, I have no loyalties. I have no ties. I never liked or voted for Bush, not once. I am an Independent, not a Republican but intend to vote Republican this election. I think big business has too much power also. So if you can’t convince me, an Independent who did not like Bush or corrupt big business, then what chance do the Democrats have of winning?

“BUSH ENTERED WITH THE DEFICIT AT $4.3TRILLION... AND LEFT WITH IT AT 12.7TRILLION AND THE NATION UNDERWATER AND IN TOTAL FINANCIAL CHAOS.” - John - Agreed, Bush was not a conservative when it comes to being fiscally responsible. The banks were allowed to make bad loans. Fannie and Freddie and pushing for everybody to be a homeowner also had a hand in this but it never gets mentioned by the left. Even still, the majority of the blame goes to Bush and the Republicans.

“WHEN BUSH EXITED IN CASE YOU DON'T REMEMBER ALL OF THE BANKS WERE INSOLVANT. FINACIALS WERE READY FOR SUB HELL BURIALS.” -John. Yes I remember. People were scared and angry. In order for Bush to get us out of the mess, which he helped to create, he took our money for TARP and was thinking of bailing out the autos then his term was up. Certainly not an upbeat ending.

“OK! THAT $3.1 TRILLION WAS THE BANKS WHO ARE STILL HORDING $1.6TRILLION ON THEIR BALANCE SHEETS AS IF IT WERE THEIRS. NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH THAT MONEY IS THE PEOPLES MONEY. “
- John
Okay so here is the point we see things a little differently so please convince me why I am wrong. Obama continued what Bush started. Bailing out the too big to fails and the financial's which the economists deemed necessary to stabilize the economy and it worked but how much was really necessary? Did he spend too much of our money? What has Obama done to get our money back from the banks? What has Obama done to stop this from happening next month? Next year? How has he been more responsible moving forward? Has he put his big spending ambitions aside? Has he shown that his spending is fundamentally different from Bush, don’t buy what you can’t afford? What new burdens and regulations is he putting on the people to carry out his big government agenda? How is forcing all of us to buy medical insurance, whether we can afford to or not, with who knows what type of coverage, instead of fixing the cost of medical care a good thing for us?

And this is the most important question so I separate it from the rest. This election is not about Obama. It is about the Democrats. What have the Democrats done to provide any checks and balances for wrong policy, to empower and defend the people. Certainly, for two years they have acted as nothing more then a “yes man” to Obama. Yet now they distance themselves from both Obama and his policies, like Obamacare. Why if any of it is good, would they not proudly brag about their accomplishments? The only thing they can brag about is that Obama saved us from a depression and it was simply what he had to do and did so, with our money.

"What have the Democrats done to provide any checks and balances for wrong policy?"

Financial reform, as weak as it was, was a help. Credit card reform, ditto. Others.

"(Obama saving us from a depression) was simply what he had to do and did so, with our money."

Hoover failed to do that. And any government money is of course our money, so grousing that our money was used to avert a depression is kinda pointless. Unless you suggest Obama should have made the banks and Wall Street pay us out. Oh, that's right, they've paid us back, with interest, so our money was a loan only, that kept us from suffering infinitely more. That makes it an investment. But, yes, ideally we should not have lost our use of that money for two years. So, yes, blame past Democrats for letting financial deregulation doom us to a bust. Blame today's Democrats for being too conciliatory to Republicans who showed clearly they would not respond to compromise. But I don't see a strong case for bad policy by today's Dems.

MikeG: in order for your voting statement to make a positive difference. First you need the checks and balances, that are ready to reign in insurance refusals, regulate the banks, and get back for us the tax money from the oodles of trillions that reside offshore. Dems will do at least some to most of that Republicans will open the siphons further. Republicans will continue the ponzi schemes of the TransWorlds, Halliburtons etc. allowing them to move their HQs offshore even though the main body of their employees, 99% are here stateside. Under Republican rule you will again see the resurgance of $4.74-$7.00 oil. Customer protections will never get done if the Republicans get in and allow the banksta's the total immunitys leading to complete control that Rockefeller always wanted in the first place.
I bet you haven't had to try to resolve a banking situation yet since the credit card loopholes have been closed either. GOOD LUCK! when that happens, citizen, ... you can speak to an infinite number of "bots" and never see the light of day.

It's your choice, it's your jugular the choices suck but, thats what is. With the Dems you the slow steady roll around the toilet bowl, with the Republicans it's straight down the shitter.

Still worried about insurance rising?
Do a cost analysis. Insurance co's add 47million new clients how many of them dfo you suspect as being chronic? How many of those chronics still use the Emergency Room that you are paying for now? Isn't it cheaper to get them out of the Emergency Room?
One party seeks to get offset whatever the overruns may occur with $700B from the top dogs who can most afford it. Having those 47million insured, allows the smaller businesses in the private sector to hire them back with lesser benefits packages.- VOTE DEMOCRAT /VOTE INDEPENDENT

Contrast that to market based oil speculation that had you paying 3-4x or 300% profit tariff over the actual price of every single gallon you that you purchased over this past 10yr period. Better yet do the annual figure and call the number you came up with Bush/Cheney/Rockefellercare. - VOTE REPUBLICAN
Mind you that one is not a "tax" in the conventional sense of the word- but the money still comes out of the same wallet.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Hey, RNN whats with the million requests for Flash player. Are you going to be resuming on line programming?

It will be the fault of the entire Democratic socialistic/pacifistic machine.
----------------------------------------
Final Nail in the Democrats’ Coffin:

October 29, 2010 5:00 P.M.


Government planners have created a stagflationary growth recession.

On the eve of the midterm elections, a third-quarter GDP report showing a meager 2 percent growth rate is the final nail in the Obama Democrats’ political coffin.

The economic nails slowly have been hammered into that coffin all summer and fall. A spate of subpar economic statistics has shown the failure of the fiscal-stimulus spending program. And myriad tax and regulatory threats produced by new government policies have created a massive uncertainty overhang and a dismal jobs outlook. American businesses have gone on an investment-capital and hiring strike.

For a White House that bet the ranch on a massive government pump-priming plan, it has all turned out to be a complete failure. The scheduled economic recovery has simply not occurred.

And that’s why a Republican Tea Party tsunami lies just over the horizon. That tidal wave could be even greater than current polling suggests.

It should have been recovery summer, according to the president and his followers. But it is now officially a recovery slump. The entire command-and-control economic philosophy of the Obama Democrats has proven to be a big bust. And they’ll pay a very big price for this.

In fact, the last two GDP reports have averaged less than 2 percent growth, something that qualifies as a growth recession, not a recovery.

Even worse, the GDP deflator — the broadest inflation measure — came in at 2.2 percent in the third quarter, following a 2 percent reading in the second quarter. That means inflation is rising faster than real output. Stagflation.

The Bernanke Fed should take notice of this on the eve of its quantitative-easing pump-priming exercise, expected to be announced the day after the election. We are actually experiencing a mini version of stagflationary growth recession.

The spending, taxing, and regulating policies of the Democratic Congress and administration have blocked growth, putting the Fed in a position to provide even more money to chase fewer goods. But in classic Milton Friedman terms, even though the economy is mired in stagnation, that’s still an inflationary prescription.

On top of all that, the depreciating-dollar policies of the Fed have led to a boom in commodity prices, including food and energy — things ordinary Americans pay for in the course of their typical week.

When the economy came in at 5 percent in the last quarter of 2009, and at 3.7 percent in early 2001, it looked like a recovery scenario. This, of course, followed the Fed’s massive $2 trillion stimulus plan and the more than $1 trillion fiscal stimulus. But those sugar highs quickly evaporated as growth slowed to 1.7 percent in the spring and 2 percent in the summer.

Meanwhile, a stubbornly high unemployment rate of 9.6 percent was supposed to have dropped to 8 percent last year and 7 percent by the end of this year, according to the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. But it didn’t. The so-called stimulus failed to stimulate.

Actually, unemployment is much worse for regular workaday folks. Counting marginal part-time workers and discouraged workers, unemployment is 17.3 percent. And this year, while the president promised 1.5 million new jobs, nonfarm payrolls have grown by only 613,000, and actually have fallen over the past four months.

The trouble with the whole Obama mindset is the notion that government can run the economy. That idea has failed. It is business that runs the economy, including entrepreneurs and risk-takers. Yet the animal spirits have been stifled, while the producers have been laughed at, mocked, and insulted.

The Obama class-warfare campaign against business and investment has created a wall of worry and a refusal to invest in the future. The incentive model of growth, where it must pay more after tax and regulatory costs to work, produce, and invest, has been discarded by Obama’s extreme left-liberal Keynesianism. Predictably, higher costs — including the cost of Obamacare, probably the single-greatest barrier to growth and jobs — have forced the most productive factors in the economy to hole up and virtually shut down.

But the whole Tea Party movement of free-market populism represents an attempt to re-oxygenate the economy by unclogging the blood vessels of entrepreneurship with a major rollback of spending, taxing, and regulating. This Tea Party philosophy is derided daily by the Democrats, but it represents a bull’s-eye in terms of creating future economic growth.

Fortunately, the Republican party has returned to this Reaganesque message. This is the single most-important theme in the GOP comeback.

“Oh, that's right, they've paid us back, with interest, so our money was a loan only,” - MQ

MQ, I’m getting mixed signals, John says they owe us $1.6 trillion and you say they paid us back with interest. Which is it? Either way I don’t argue that some degree of spending was required and that Obama did a good thing by not allowing the too big to fails and banks to go under. Still, there is much more to the spending story beyond the bailout which I think is all part of this irresponsible mentality that I disagree with and has not improved. As you point out, they have done a little bit of financial reform but we need a lot, including Fannie and Freddie which is taboo for the Dems to mention.

It’s as though they are saying,“ We should be thanked for diverting a depression. I know we had to borrow money from your children but don’t worry we used some of the extra money to remodel the kitchen. Isn’t it beautiful!”

Hellooo! We are further in depth and we need to pay that back. Or did you forget already where that money came from?

“First you need the checks and balances, that are ready to reign in insurance refusals, regulate the banks, and get back for us the tax money from the oodles of trillions that reside offshore.” - John

John, I’m sorry but I just don’t see that. They held all the power for two years and chose to work instead on Obamacare and still blame the Republicans.

This is the point, for two years Obama pushed some really unpopular policies that the majority rejected. The people did not want Obamacare, demanded we protect our borders, change the philosophy of irresponsible spending, create incentive to keep jobs in America and punish corruption. I am not surprised by Obama’s positions. What I am surprised with is how practically all of the Democratic Congress and Senate went along with it, in spite of strong opposition by the people, dictating to us what they were going to do, against our will. Suing a state, siding with Mexico...with no checks and balances by the Democrat majority.

For two years, the only ones that sided with the majority were the Tea Party and the party of ‘no‘. If the Democrat congress showed they were willing to go against Obama on anything, I might want to keep them in but since they won’t, it is just too dangerous to have no balance of that kind of power. The Democrats will tell you, that we don’t want to go back to the bad policies of Bush but nobody is voting in Bush. Obama is still in. We are only providing the necessary power check required, when government does not serve the people.

Who was it that said, “Those that abuse their power, are not worthy to stay in power?” I don’t know, maybe it was something I just made up?

Mike & Mike: Fine. I'd get rid of 70-80% of them myself but, what is more important in the whole cockeyed scheme of things is to insure that all of those key CFR sellouts- the Richardsons, the zip from Nebraska, and all of the rest.
are kept from doing further damage.

If the globalists are forced into martialing and pooling all of their campaign financing into those elections to secure CFR positions- the people can negate some of their $$$ clout. Then maybe just maybe, we can see far more space opened up for candidates that we can afford to elect elsewhere until the numbers mount up for real meaningful change to occur.

Mike & Mike: Fine. I'd get rid of 70-80% of them myself but, what is more important in the whole cockeyed scheme of things is to insure that all of those key CFR sellouts- the Richardsons-Mexicans, the zip from Nebraska-insurance, Murkowski-oil/energy and all of the rest are kept from doing further damage.

If the globalists are forced into martialing and pooling all of their campaign financing into those elections to secure CFR positions- the people can negate some of their $$$ clout. Then maybe just maybe, we can see far more space opened up for candidates that we can afford to elect elsewhere until the numbers mount up for real meaningful change to occur.

John, You definitely know a lot more then me about this global threat. From my view point in that respect, I see little difference between Democrat and Republican. NAFTA started under Clinton. No effort has been made to keep jobs in America. No effort has been made to stop the influx of illegals, primarily for the sake of business. No free trade is allowed for Americans to buy prescriptions outside this country. Obama apologizes for America and sides with other nations against it's own, Arizona. No effort has been made to bring back manufacturing or to cut our debt and reliance to China.

Together lets put the politicians from BOTH parties on notice. Americans will no longer tolerate policies that hurt our nation and it's people, regardless of what other nations think. Every two years, every incumbent from either party that does not do whats best for all Americans, will be thrown out if necessary, until we get the right ones in that will.

Every two years, every incumbent from either party that does not do whats best for all Americans, will be thrown out if necessary, until we get the right ones in that will.

======================

The whole system is corrupt with "Pay To Play" so term limits are useless.

The two major parties in collusion with mainstream and rightwing media ridicule third party truth tellers.

That is why Ron Paul received millions of votes all across America and was not allowed to speak at the Republican convention.

And a truth teller like Ralph Nader is blacklisted with the Democratic party.

-------------------------

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates / http://tinyurl.com/4q5vf8 / October 2, 2008
The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed, secret contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate as well as the topics raised during the debates. We speak to Open Debates founder and executive director George Farah.
Whats missing however is any concern about the fairness of the very structure of the debate. The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate as well as the topics raised during the debates. But the contract remains secret and the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation created by the two major parties, has refused to release the contract to the public.
Open Debates is a non-profit committed to democratizing the presidential debate process. Last month Open Debates and nine other pro-democracy groups called on the Commission to make the contract public.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and

Judge Andrew Napolitano says Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for crimes against the United States Constitution.
Lies The Government Told You
Author: Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://tinyurl.com/ykdwxlc /
Judge Andrew Napolitano has created a great book with Lies The Government Told You. He has put into writing what many of us have long suspected…our government has been lying to use for years about almost everything it has ever done. If you think our government is crooked and power hungry, you will realize just how crooked it is when you read this book. Lies The Government Told You is scary as hell to be truthful. I didn’t find a single thing that I disagreed with. It’s almost unbelievable how far our Nation has moved from the Constitution. While I don’t watch much news anymore (I find most so called “journalists” to be either too frightened or too stupid to ask real questions that actually matter) I see enough to keep up with the major stories. I was glad to see Napolitano mention the failure of the national media as well in the book. Lies The Government Told You will really open your eyes to how broken our government is, not just because it’s virtually bankrupt, but because it fails to uphold the constitution and protect the very citizens that fund it. You will also learn that the Federal Reserve isn’t a “federal” entity. It’s a private corporation that controls all our money with little or no oversight. There used to be a joke that if Alan Greenspan happened to comment how nasty a rainy day was, the stock market would drop fifty points. It doesn’t sound far-fetched when you realize how much power the Federal Reserve actually has. I wold love to see this book as required reading in any government class. It truly does open your mind to the countless ways we as citizens have failed to protect our own freedoms by allowing such actions to occur time and time again. If you can still vote for most politicians after reading this, I can only hope they have also read the book. All Americans should be both shocked and ashamed at our government for these lies. We should remember these actions the next time we vote, though another big problem is the lack of choices on the ballot. Let’s be honest, how many times have you voted for the lesser of two evils? I highly recommend this book for everyone. If millions read it and understand how far we have fallen, maybe there is still hope that we can get our government and our constitutional rights back.
http://www.bookreviewsweekly.com/lies-the-government-told-you-by-judge-andrew-napolitano/

Poll - 46 Percent Say 'Bring Back Bush!'

Public Policy Polling has some interesting and, for some, sobering numbers. It seems that 48 percent of those polled would like to keep Barack Obama in the White
House. However, 46 percent would really like to bring George W. Bush back.

The results would seem to be in the margin of error. They lend numbers to the growing sense of agreement in the viral Internet image that became a well known billboard, "Miss Me Yet?" Considering President George W. Bush's abysmal poll numbers during the last year or so of his presidency, the Public Policy Polling numbers are remarkable.

How does one explain how who some used to consider "the worst president ever" suddenly come to tie with a President who has been compared by some to be the Messiah?

The answer can be summed up in one word: anxiety.

By anxiety, we mean that not only do we live in anxious times under President Obama, but there is the growing belief that President Obama is not up to the job. More importantly, the Tea Party protests are filled with hundreds of thousands of people who have concluded that the President of the United States means the country harm, inadvertently of course.

Not so President Bush. The most anxious day in the living memory of many people was September 11th, 2001. President Bush quickly became a pillar of strength. The day he stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center, the elderly fire fighter at his side, and thundered that "Soon they will hear from all of us!" was the day that many people believe that George W. Bush became president in fact as well as by law.

Bush's subsequent hammering of the terrorists in Afghanistan proved that the man from Texas meant business. Things only began to go south when the Iraq War began to grind on too long. But even there subsequent events have proven Bush right. The Surge Campaign has all but swept the terrorists from the field, proving that Iraq was not, after all, Vietnam.

Obama/Bush Nearly Divided:
Rush Limbaugh recently articulated another reason why a growing number of people would like George W. Bush back in the White House in place of Obama. George W. Bush, opined El Rushbo, was not busily trying to take our
money and our freedom. He was not enacting policies, like health care reform, that could kill people.

And, one might add, George W. Bush wanted to explore the high frontier of space. Obama would put an end to such overweening ambition.

If the news about President Bush is not chilling enough for the White House, it seems that Obama is also tied with the uber libertarian Ron Paul, a Congressman whose governing philosophy is the polar opposite of Barack Obama's in every way possible in a Rasmussen Poll. That should keep a lot of people awake at night.

"The two major parties in collusion with mainstream and rightwing media ridicule third party truth tellers." - Casp

Caspian, Of course that is what partisan politics is about. The Party comes before the people and that is what I reject. At some point though, the individual candidate will get the message that they will lose their job if they don't split ranks with their party, especially on issues that are important to the voters. Really, the answer is for the people to be united on those issues, having millions of votes is not enough, the majority needs to agree on the policies and the cause.
Sure, pay to play and all of corrupt media, makes it much harder to get that message across but more people then ever are listening now.

For example, Odonnell who looks to be the weakest of candidates, beat out a long term Republican establishment candidate, against the wishes of the Republican party and probably costing them a seat. It is possible to stand up against the machine if enough people unite on a common cause. In order to bring the trophy home the majority must agree on that cause, which is really the most difficult part.

When You Have The Media In Your Hip Pocket.........
---------------------------------------

A Tale of Two Presidents:
How Media Treated Bush’s Unemployment #’s Compared to Obama’s


It never ceases to amaze me how differently the Old Media treats Republican presidents compared to how they treat Democrat Presidents during times of unemployment reporting. Today, in the vaunted era of Obama, the unemployment numbers for November 2009 have come out and it shows some of the highest unemployment numbers since the Great Depression. Despite that the Old Media seems to be playing this as a sign of optimism. Such optimism was decidedly not in the cards when that same Old Media was reporting rates during Bush’s years, however.

Let’s take two reports from The New York Times for example. One from September 7, 2002 in Bush’s first term and one from December 4, 2009, early in the Obama presidency.

In 2002, The New York Times reported Bush’s 5.7 percent unemployment rate, noting that it was a drop from 5.9 percent, with the following headline: Unemployment Fell in August, But Drop Is Called Insignificant.

For the Times, David Leonhardt started off on a sour note whilst reporting this drop in unemployment.

The labor market improved slightly last month but offered little hope that the economy would soon emerge from its prolonged weakness.

For the Times a 5.7 percent unemployment rate in 2002 was doom and gloom. This rate did not excite, said the Times. Later in the piece Leonhardt reported that the decline was “almost meaningless” and that ”(t)he drop in the unemployment rate should be ignored.”

Remember, in 2002 Bush was president.

Flash forward to 2009 as the Times finds that from Bush’s 5 percent to Obama’s 10 percent unemployment we have double the bad news but as far as the Times is concerned it is actually all good news. On Dec. 4, the Times happily issued a report with this headline: U.S. Economy Lost Only 11,000 Jobs in November.

Hallelujah, we “only” lost 11,000 jobs! Yes, it was all sunny optimism for a 10 percent rate. The Times went on with more happy talk.

In the strongest jobs report since the recession began two years ago, the nation’s employers all but stopped shedding jobs in November, the government reported on Friday, and they appeared to be on the verge of finally rebuilding the work force.

The Times then informed us that, “(t)he sudden and unexpected improvement surprised even the most optimistic forecasters.”

Let’s review to what party the president today belongs, shall we? Yes, a Democrat.

During a Republican administration, a report of a drop in unemployment is seen as meaningless, easily dismissed, and no sign that the economy is turning around. Yet when a Democrat is in office the same paper reports that a 10 percent rate — double what it was during the Bush years — is a sign that everything is wonderful and the economy is obviously on the mend.

The difference couldn’t be more stark. The Old Media is obviously little but an arm of the Democratic Party.
____________

The Only Reason Why The Democrats Are Going Down.........And With A Thud!
----------------------------------------
The Washington Times

Friday, March 5, 2010
The United Socialist States of America:

President Obama is close to completing his socialist revolution. Since coming to power last year, he has sought relentlessly to transform America. From his days as a student radical, Mr. Obama has been obsessed with smashing the traditional free-market system. Like most leftists, he thinks capitalism is the enemy.

"He was a Marxist-socialist in college," said John C. Drew, who knew Mr. Obama as a university student, in an interview. "He kept talking about the need to overthrow capitalism in favor of a working-class revolution."

One of Mr. Obama's favorite philosophers was Frantz Fanon, a post-colonial Marxist who championed Third World liberation movements. Fanon argued that the West - led by America - was based on racism, imperialism and the economic exploitation of the world's poor. The only remedy was authoritarian socialism and a massive redistribution of wealth from Western nations to developing countries.

Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has had radical associations. At Columbia University, while teaching constitutional law, he embraced postmodernist legal theory that maintains that the U.S. constitutional system presents an artificial veneer for liberty while actually advancing the economic interests of powerful white males. As a community organizer in Chicago, he studied and tried to mimic the activism of Saul Alinsky - a neo-Trotskyite who championed "permanent revolution." His longtime associates, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are supporters of Marxist liberation and share a deep hatred for the United States. They believe only fundamental, sweeping change can redeem America.

Rather than being a pragmatic centrist - as the mainstream media insists on portraying him - Mr. Obama is the very opposite: an ideologue who is pursuing his political project even at the risk of badly damaging the Democratic Party.

This explains his bizarre, almost reckless desire to ram Obamacare through Congress. The president has said he wants an "up-or-down vote" on his health care overhaul - preferably by the end of this month, before the Easter recess. In other words, he has given the green light to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to use reconciliation, a parliamentary process designed to fast-track budgetary measures. Under these arcane rules, a simple majority in the Senate of 50 Democratic votes plus a tie-breaker from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be enough to pass health care reform. The filibuster will be rendered impotent.

This is unprecedented. Never in our history has reconciliation been used to pass a major piece of social legislation on a narrow partisan majority. Obamacare will overhaul nearly one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By contrast, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid passed with overwhelming bipartisan consensus. Contrary to popular myth, numerous Republicans endorsed the New Deal-Great Society welfare state. This is why repealing it has been so difficult (if not impossible).

The White House and its media allies claim that the 1996 welfare reform bill, the 1997 children's health insurance program and the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed using reconciliation. This is misleading. Every one of these measures had strong Democratic support - especially in the Senate.

Mr. Obama is engaged in an abuse of power. He is thwarting the will of the majority of the American people who do not want socialized medicine. They rightly fear that the proposal's massive $1 trillion price tag will add to our skyrocketing national debt, which has brought us to the brink of ruin. They understand it will stifle medical innovation and reduce the quality of care, leading to rationing and longer waiting lines. It represents the greatest expansion of entitlement spending since the 1960s.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's actions are undermining the traditional system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. The institutional role of the Senate is to serve as a bulwark against raw majority rule. By circumventing the filibuster, Mr. Obama is not only thumbing his nose at the voters - including those in Massachusetts who elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown - but the very constitutional safeguards meant to prevent this kind of usurpation of power.

His proposal seeks to create a centrally planned medical economy that will erect a gigantic government bureaucracy based on massive taxes, subsidies and regulations. Mr. Obama is willing to sacrifice his party's political fortunes in November - and even his own re-election in 2012 - because he understands one fundamental fact: Nationalized health care is the heart of cradle-to-grave statism. No country that has ever embraced socialized medicine - Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy - has ever been able to regain economic freedom.

This is not because government-run health care is so effective or beloved; rather, it fosters a debilitating spirit of dependency that is fatal to a self-governing people. In short, it kills the self-reliance and individualism critical to a free-market democracy.

For Mr. Obama, that is precisely the point. Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, laid out the Marxist blueprint that has been followed by the radical left since 1917. Lenin urged that any disaster should be exploited to "hasten the destruction ... of the capitalist class." The 2008 Great Recession brought Mr. Obama to power. He has been seizing this crisis in order to overthrow the old capitalist order.

Mr. Obama is relentlessly giving birth to a new nation: the United Socialist States of America - the U.S.S.A.

"How does one explain how who some used to consider "the worst president ever" suddenly come to tie with a President who has been compared by some to be the Messiah?"

Obviously, this is a testimony of the false expectations some people had for Obama and how bad he has been so far. A more truthful statement would be. "How did Obama ever become tied with what some people consider the worst president?" Sorry man, I know you like Bush but I think if the same people were asked, "Would you rather have Carter over Obama, around 46% would choose Carter".

For example, Odonnell who looks to be the weakest of candidates, beat out a long term Republican establishment candidate, against the wishes of the Republican party and probably costing them a seat

-----------------------

I wish your words were true and I do like the idea of overthrowing a life time politician.

The Liberals thought Obama was going to help the foreclosures and the millions who lost their JOBS, pensions and 401ks.

He did very little to help the masses but gave Billions to Wall Street so they received their bonuses.

Many of the Tea Bags are backed by a couple of Billionaire brothers named Koch.

How does a rightwing Billionaire have anything in common with 99% of all Americans?

-------------------

From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries.[citation needed] Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008.[40] According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries is the major source of funds of what Greenpeace calls "climate denial".[41] Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

"The Liberals thought Obama was going to help the foreclosures and the millions who lost their JOBS, pensions and 401ks" -Casp

Caspian, yes that is true but you must look beyond just the liberals to see all of America. The numbers on Obamacare probably best tell the story. Approximately 37% of the public want it repealed, (those leaning Conservatives). About 36% want something much more, (those more Liberal). About 15% like it the way it is and want to keep it, (those who back Obama completely).

"How does a rightwing Billionaire have anything in common with 99% of all Americans?"- Casp

You seem to keep missing the truth about the tea party. The majority of the the tea party consists of everyday Americans, mostly conservative, who use it as a vehicle to get their voices heard. The main message is "more responsible government". There is no surprise that any movement that disagrees with this administration, is a friend to the right wing. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing.

What the billionaires and right wing don't realize is the everyday Americans that agree with tea party principles are not THEIR friend but a friend to those principles only. You don't honestly believe that the Democrats won in 2006 and even in 2008 strictly due to the Liberal vote?

Here is something to think about that you probably never considered. How many of these everyday Americans that back the tea party today, also voted against and helped to throw out the Republicans in 2006? I'll bet it was the majority of them.

"John says they owe us $1.6 trillion and you say they paid us back with interest."-MG

John said the banks are just holding onto $1.6T rather than loaning it out and boosting economic activity. What I said was something else. As of 10/5, just $30B have not yet been paid back of TARP money. Not everybody has paid back what they were loaned, and these obviously have not paid interest. Sometimes I think some of the reports of profit are based on projections, not actual results, but mostly it looks good. It took 1% of our GDP to avert this crisis, while the Savings and Loan crisis cost us 3.2% of GDP. I didn't hear as much wailing and gnashing of teeth back then as I hear now, and the children of S and L crisis era parents are not paying 75% taxes. Good economic times erased the debt. That's how it's always worked.

The GM and Chrysler bailout saved a million jobs and kept important industries going in this country. Bankruptcy helped these companies clean up their act.

Do you think that if you worry about today's deficit spending levels you become the responsible adult in the room? Or is it more likely that, with next to no detailed knowledge or understanding of the complexities of national and international finance informing you, this worry, fabricated by agendists on the right, is helpful to them but not to anyone else? Maybe if I knew more I'd worry, but I believe that applying kitchen table financial rules to national finance and thinking that this country has never weathered recessions before and Washington needs our wisdom to get us out of this one, is maybe a little,-well, I'll bite my tongue.

How many of these everyday Americans that back the tea party today, also voted against and helped to throw out the Republicans in 2006?

Mike G.


-----------------------

And many liberals will not vote in this election because they see what Obama did with back room deals with Wall Street.

How come I never hear any Tea Party member complain about the Trillions and Trillions for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yet they want to cut medicare and social security to reduce the debt.

How come Not One Republican complained about Obama care giving the HMOs/Pharma everything they wanted with mandates.

Instead the Republicans all cried Socialism and Communism.

Obama care does not go far enough.

Obama Wall Street reform does not go far enough.

Both give the whole loaf of bread to the power and we the people get a few crumbs.

I think Obama won in nine Bush red states because the masses thought he was going to help them instead of helping Wall Street like Bush and Cheney did.

It's all funny money, why don't you get it? When the Savings & Loans scams took place America was solvent. We were autonomous. We were self reliant. That 3.2% of GDP was from "tangible/physical assets" a much smaller pot than the 1% GDP from todays amorphous credit default swaps and derivatives ponzi schemes that has just recently been set to be figured "adjusted" at $721 trillion dollars. Still nobody knows for sure. Its a figure they made up, that they can live with. Except that we know that most of those homes, commercial properties, and busineses that were leveraged over the past decade at 70x-1000x times their actual value still remain on those ledgers that are tallied and totalled.
They for appearances sake with those gaudy fly by night, whose books are the toxic assets on now, inflated and reinflated figures seem invincible. But, its exactly what Mike Q doesn't ask or call for and that is AUDITS/ FULL DISCLOSURES that would have every single one of them imploding because, the physical assets to cover $721trillion isn't there. Especially since the property[OUR PROPERTY] has been devalued well over 20% across the nation.
The only way that they can come close to making the pot right is to break us, and make us land renters and debtors.
Their goal as you well know has been stated time and time again by the MSM mind altering machines.
"MORE THAN 50% OF ALL HOMEOWNERS WILL BE UNDERWATER BY THE YEAR 2013"
For those who think that the purge will end there, think again- BECAUSE THAT 50% WILL BE DEBTORS, BROKE, UNINSURED & MOST PROBABLY UNEMPLOYED. Yes unemployed, ...unemployment is the PRIMARY catalyst toward setting foreclosures into motion.

NOW LETS GO BACK TO THE S & L's FAMILIES AND CHILDREN... WERE THEY EVER MADE WHOLE BY THOSE RIP OFF "TITANS" WHO SCAMMED THEM BY CALLING IN ALL OF THOSE LOANS PREMATURELY?
No, Mike the rest of the nation might have gone about their business, and some might even be still prospering but, THE DOW, and other stock indexes w/ those high numbers that you see are all based on futures that don't exist yet. May never exist and might even be tomorrows-... (sniff, sniff) DubaiWorld another unsustainable, energy and resource siphoning putrid stinkhole.


----
Let's audit the FEDERAL RESERVE. Let's see who draws from it, ...can they pay back, ... lets see for certain if they have any right at all to foreclose on anyone?
What right does the IMF have to dip into our money, lend it, and keep it for themselves? Who the hell are they to tell us that we must pay any deficit and how fast when they exist solely on money they've taken not from banks/bankers but from public reserves?

Just asking?

Let's audit the FEDERAL RESERVE. Let's see who draws from it

--------------------

Exactly, and if Obama were honest he would have picked Ron Paul to clean up the Fed and Howard Dean to clean up Health Care.

Stiglitz for Treasury and General Wes Clark for DOD.

Elizabeth Warren should have authority to clean up this mess.

Just speculation on my part.

lol

Sincerely,

Little Spock, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold

Caspian: Howard Dean to clear out the insurance cartel gravy train in the healthcare bill. He would have given America single payer even if not the public option.

Yes John,

Obama proved by picking all corporate hacks in his cabinet that he is not a liberal/progressive.

Obama is business as usual in DC.

Go Giants. The Bush's took it on the chin last night.

LOL

TKO

"John said the banks are just holding onto $1.6T rather than loaning it out and boosting economic activity. What I said was something else. As of 10/5, just $30B have not yet been paid back of TARP money" Mike Q

Mike Q, wow this one got lost in translation somewhere. I already acknowledged TARP and some degree of spending was needed but was stating the Obama stimulus went to far and did not work. If TARP worked then why did we need stimulus too? If it was to stimulate the economy but did not work because the banks hoarded the money, then how did Obama save us? It sounds like Bush TARP saved us. John gives a good explanation of how it is the people’s money but it is not lining up with the original question. Probably best to let this one go.

"I believe that applying kitchen table financial rules to national finance and thinking that this country has never weathered recessions before and Washington needs our wisdom to get us out of this one, is maybe a little,-well, I'll bite my tongue."- Mike Q

MQ, I don’t pretend to have the wisdom to get us out of this. However, any responsible person knows you don't spend more then you have, especially trillions of dollars more. If we are not willing to learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them. Perhaps, next time around borrowing to get us out of immediate trouble will not be an option. Recessions come and go but 2008 was NOT business as usual. It was caused largely by an overall, caviler, irresponsible attitude and greed which could have been avoided and is yet to change. I can best express this by re-coining and combining a couple of old sayings, “a dollar saved in prevention, is worth a million spent for a cure”.

Caspian you make excellent points and I see where you are coming from.

“How come I never hear any Tea Party member complain about the Trillions and Trillions for Iraq and Afghanistan?” I think for War and only War, most people will never question the costs or try to find ways to cut expenses. It is similar to the post about someone’s house burning down, you simply must spend the money. Could you imagine somebody saying, shut off the hoses and let the house burn down so we don’t go over budget. Now if you can make the case the fire was set deliberately or through gross negligence, then those people should be held accountable for everything. If you can prove it to the courts.

“Yet they want to cut medicare and social security to reduce the debt.”
As far as Medicare and SS Tea party supporters don’t want to cut it, many are even on it. They do however, want to find ways to make it solvent without having to throw endless amounts of taxpayer money at it. Republicans may want to cut it but that won’t fly with the Tea Party unless they get something as good or better in return.

“How come Not One Republican complained about Obama care giving the HMOs/Pharma everything they wanted with mandates.” Tea Party only really care about the mandates because that is an assault on personal liberty. Republicans care about big Pharma but they are not the Tea Party. It will be interesting to see how hard they will push for repeal knowing it could hurt Pharma. This issue could cause a break, in the fragile alliance.

“Go Giants. The Bush's took it on the chin last night.” Casp

Whether you hate Bush or like him one thing is for certain, he knows how to throw out a first pitch, a lot better then Obama can. Why isn’t that a criteria for the presidency? LOL

Mike G.:

"Whether you hate Bush or like him one thing is for certain, he knows how to throw out a first pitch, a lot better then Obama can. Why isn’t that a criteria for the presidency"

It was and** WE** all caught it.:=)

Robert, very good ha ha,

The criminals "walked", the banks "stole home" and the players got booed but we all lost when we payed to watch this.

They do however, want to find ways to make it solvent without having to throw endless amounts of taxpayer money at it

-------------------
Trustees Announce Solvency of Medicare Trust Fund Extended By 12 Years to 2029

August 5, 2010


=====================

It will be interesting to see how hard they will push for repeal knowing it could hurt Pharma. This issue could cause a break, in the fragile alliance.

================

Mike G. this is the $64,000 question.

The Tea Bags will never go against Wall Street because they will have to listen to the Republican leadership.

THE LIBERALS WITNESSED THE SAME WITH OBAMA.

Don't you think if Obama helped the millions of people with foreclosures, jobs, pensions, etc. instead of Wall Street with fat bonuses most Americans would still be on his side.

I am very glad not one Republican supported his health care bill even though it was a Republican Mitt "Corporate" Romney that authored it in Mass.

This way it is only his administration to blame.

Neil Cavuto discusses Mass. Health Care Law with Mitt Romney
http://tinyurl.com/yf653xt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__s18YXcMs

Mike G:

Touche!!
:=)

"Don't you think if Obama helped the millions of people with foreclosures, jobs, pensions, etc. instead of Wall Street with fat bonuses most Americans would still be on his side." - Caspian

Caspian, not all those things would have the majority of Americans backing him. If Obama concentrated on creating private jobs and punishing those guilty on Wall street, that would have created a lot of support for him and unity.

Bailing out homeowners and pensions would not get unified support by the masses. Most people want equal opportunity, fairness and help but with less government involved in their lives.

As for Obamacare, I know you see it as bad because it helped big pharma. Many others see it as bad because it puts more big federal government engaged in our lives. On a state level, it would be more acceptable to most because there are ways to opt out.

"It's all funny money, why don't you get it?"

John: I've never made a study of finance. It seems like the rewards for such concentrated work to learn are only to find out how to rip off lots of people, not to understand and see order in chaos. Since you have looked into it for better reasons, I'll ask a few elementary questions- but don't tell me too much.

Even before Nixon took us off the gold standard, the value of our currency was based on a metric everybody just agreed to, nothing intrinsic and self-evident, eternal, around which everything else is referenced. Off this gold standard we didn't even have a tangible, finite, measured commodity to arbitrarily assign a value to and which set limits for us. Every decade our currency's value has become more and more a matter of pretending and keeping our fingers crossed.

Questions: At what point does this gentleman's agreement go from an acceptable arrangement to insupportable chaos? How can someone be sure we have reached that point and didn't reach it 30 years ago or won't really be there for another thirty? Cheney said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," on the premise that large nations not beholden to the IMF don't answer to banks the way we little people do. Analyses I've accidently read say that, as I repeated to MG, the unforgiving strictures of your and my kitchen table financial affairs are a different universe from Oslo or Paris or Washington.

So I have to ask you why you're so sure that today we're running on funny money while yesterday's was OK. Since I avoid write-ups on high finance I really have no idea, so I ask you. And the Federal Reserve,-is that a brandy? Kidding. I should read up on it.

Bailing out homeowners and pensions would not get unified support by the masses. Most people want equal opportunity, fairness and help but with less government involved in their lives.

====================

Wall Street LOVES big government helping them out.

Corporate welfare, government subsidies, tax loopholes, and bills that their own lobbyist write.

MQ.
The spoils of war (ww2)gave us the Bretton Woods System.

It may soon be replaced, however.

Keynesianism gave us a middle class. Replace Bretton Woods agreements and you replace the middle class with- what, the grinding misery of workers before Keynes (with a previous, short-lived bump up from Teddy Roosevelt)? I read that the right in Europe is saying Keynesianism is obsolete, and want to replace it with something more in keeping with Europe's long earlier history of lords and serfs. But that doesn't mean that the right will always have their way in all things. The press likes to "report" sensationalist drivel. Hence my nuisancesome questioning of MG, John, and others, to see what substance is behind their beliefs.

"Marxism in America" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin

Sunday, October 24, 2010

http://www.morningstartv.com/oak-initiative/marxism-america

"Marxism in America"

Hee hee hee!