More conservative ideas from the Obama camp.

[top gun]

Andy;81810]Which still implies they could pass something, now doesn't it? Are you claiming that the amazing republicans were able pass everything they wanted without any democrat votes at all, but the poor pathetic democrats couldn't pass anything whatsoever without the republican vote, even with a majority some of the time?

Do you not follow politics Andy? There is always some legislation that gets through by members crossing over. NAFTA was passed by President Clinton and the Republicans in Congress working on this together. Bush was not a "work together " sort of President.

You still are not making me very confident the democrats have anything to offer at all. In fact, nearly every point you've made seems to indicate utter incompetence at anything but complaining. Something that seem the major of the democrats ability even on this forum. No ideas, no support, tons of complaints.

Well then you are going to be THRILLED!!!!!!!!! Watch how quick legislation moves now with the Obstructionist Party in the background. Just watch your TV... you'll see the roll out of positive changes one right after another!

To be honest as hard as President-elect Obama has tried to let Bush finish out his term he's really been in charge for weeks!

Funny, I remember 1993-1994 when democrats had both houses and the executive, and they simply screwed up everything. It was so bad, that 1994election was a landslide victory republicans in all of congress.

Republicans had there little scam that worked for a minute... their Contract on America! But President Clinton still found ways to be a great President and even left office with an overall job approval rating of 65%... 65%!!!!

Bush is leaving with more than he deserves... a dismal 25% approval rating... and truthfully that's about 6 or 7 points to high !

Yeah, I already see him following the same pattern of Bush. Huge changes... *cough*

I was actually kind of surprised to watch Bush at the end start taking foreign policy cues from President-elect Obama! President Obama will govern from the middle just like Clinton did and things will be soooo much better.

ooooOOOOooooo.... So the National Highway Safety Institute can read a car's owners manuel too.... well great. Nice to see other government agencies have litterate people employed.

I know you have a problem with the truth Andy but it's kinda a universal thing. When something is true and for the good EVERYBODY should be promoting it. For instance... that's why I supported a winner, President Obama!

Tell you what. Since you got it figured out, and I have yet to find it... by all means, explain what his energy policy is?

Come on Andy stop the stupid filibustering (man you certainly are a Pubbie!)

Go to Obama's webpage and look up his energy policy yourself... I'm not posting all his numerous goals and ideas... I'll post a couple quick YouTube overviews of the process. Believe me his team will be all over it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOMc1coT9oY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEMnjWgT7Kg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HlBZxInJRw

Later on? Then why wasn't there a retraction or correction of the report? I know there hasn't been, because I downloaded the report itself from the Senate Post-Iraq Intelligence report, to verify the claims. Rockefeller can say anything he wants after the fact, but unless he has new evidence, that he's failed to add to the report, I'm going with the findings by the Senate Intel committee.

Once a report is filed it is what it is for the time it was delivered. If things are later found out people come forward. That's exactly what Senator Rockefeller did... to his credit he even publicly apologized for not uncovering the Bush administration's misinformation.

The only option would be to open up some new investigation and up till 2006 the Dems didn't have control to open an investigation and after that to their credit they have chosen not to focus on hearings or even an Impeachment that would appear vindictive.

They simple wanted to win the Presidency and get to work actually fixing something. I'm so proud of their tone. President Obama really does have people thinking differently than before.

 

[Alexithymia]

Not at all. But when there is a complete lock up of power as in before 2006 there's is little pressure to bring to bare.

Honestly there never really is much incentive to change anything. Even when, what was it, 60% of the country wanted to start drilling for oil congress refused. Furthermore, Republican control of the government for 6 years hardly changed a thing. (With that in mind though, I'm not sure why everyone is convinced all of our problems are their fault.)

And I was personally against most of the Patriot Act from the start because I believe it gives far to much power to the Executive and not enough oversight which easily leads to abuse of power... plus the FISA court already in place was no burden since they did not have to prior approve this type surveillance, it just at some point had to be reviewed and cleared by the court.

I never cared for it at all, but it was supported by democrats.

I understand the paranoia and hype the administration put forward and the times themselves after 9-11 created an atmosphere where Democrats were understandably concerned... but I myself never agreed with them going along.

Well I'm glad you have 20/20 hindsight.

Well you are entitled to your opinion we will have to see how it goes. I'm understandably somewhat more optimistic.

Good luck with that. There are a few things Obama could be good for, but again I'm skeptic that we're going to get the "change" he promised.

I've done that already in more posts than I care to remember. Graphs and charts and news accounts of the time. Andy just likes a lot of repetition to try and help wear ya down. But it gets rather burdensome when it's a point that everyone already knows the answer to. Watch I'll ask you... Was the economy better off all 8 years of President Clinton or George Bush today? See...

Well the economy was overall "better" during Clinton's presidency, but thats not to say that the issues and legislation that lead to our current predicament weren't already in place. Furthermore, correlation doesn't equal causation.

Well your facts are really blurry there my friend. First Clinton didn't follow Reagan, he followed Bush #41.

You are absolutely correct, but I didn't mean that Clinton was directly preceded by Regan, just that Regan before him had started the process of cutting spending. Bush did the same (granted, I wasn't alive at the time), but it is my impression that Clinton balanced the budget by increasing taxes. Thats not a problem or anything, but if cutting spending hadn't been in the works, those taxes would have been beastly.

Second Reagan was the deficit spender that caused the economy to crash on Bush #41.

Every president except Clinton and Jackson have been deficit spenders, that in it of itself isn't a bad thing. Its just important to keep things in control. Reagan did attempt to balance the budget and made strides towards doing so, these just didn't come into fruition from any single individual. It was a team effort.

Third The policy to loan to low income people was a bipartisan effort. Dems liked it for trying to create pride & ownership in troubled often transient type communities and Pubbies liked it because they thought it would help business.

The key point here is that the kind of blame you are trying to assign needs to be spread out much more than you are doing so.

But regardless of all that only a mere 12% of all this bad mortgage loan paper we're hearing about is from that type of loan anyway... leaving 88% something more secured and not part of this program.

Excuse me, a "mere" 12 percent? The kind of money that comprises this "mere" statistic is unfathomable. We can't just discard this sort of detail, the lesson is clear, keep government out of business.

The President is not the only factor. But when he repeatedly looks the American people right in the eye and says... THE FUNDAMENTALS OF OUR ECONOMY ARE STRONG when the walls are really crumbling down it's either ignorance, incompetence, deceit or some combination of all the above. He is responsible for what he says.

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.
Merriam Webster defines fundamentals as "one of the minimum constituents without which a thing or a system would not be what it is"
What part of the economy, which upon the removal of would make the economy unidentifiable, needs to be reformed?

These are first hand accounts, reports and books from people in the Bush administrations inner circle not some tabloid fodder guesswork. And I see no lawsuits coming for liable or slander do you?

So because I don't care about these books I must be okay with them? Lets see you sue whoever wrote that Obamination book which makes the man out as a terrorist.

We had no right to invade period.

Hussein had no right to gas Kurdish people for disagreeing with him or denying UN inspectors complete access to his country. We had legitimate concerns for our security riding on the invasion, so we had every right to invade.

The people (other than the ones we put into power) there hate us much more than they did Hussein.

Thats simply ridiculous. The new democratic government has been greeted as liberation by some. The fact that others have been bred to irrationally hate America is far from substantiating as absurd of a claim that the US is hated worse than Hussein.

And oil was a component. Bush/Cheney hoped to secure another US friendly oil source.

The United States gets its oil from Canada and Mexico. Shipping in oil from the Middle East would be much too expensive.

This wasn't as major as the fact Bush had an ax to grind about Hussein threatening his father Bush #41... but it attributed.

Wow. Just Wow. You think that Bush has staged this entire war for his father? Are You Kidding Me?

 

[top gun]

Alexithymia;81856]Honestly there never really is much incentive to change anything. Even when, what was it, 60% of the country wanted to start drilling for oil congress refused. Furthermore, Republican control of the government for 6 years hardly changed a thing. (With that in mind though, I'm not sure why everyone is convinced all of our problems are their fault.)

I'll grant ya some of that. It is very hard to create change in politics. But I'll say this. This cycle there was some signs of not just going for the gimmick. For instance "gas tax hiliday"... come on what a joke. And to a much greater extent not just falling into the "we can drill our way out of this" gimmick.

There had to be someone to push us in another direction even if it was a little uncomfortable. Alternative fuels and power sources... higher mileage standards.

So no everything wasn't the Republicans fault. But the Democrats won BIG twice and they deserve a fair shot to implement some of their ideas. No one can say that the Republicans didn't get their chance.

I never cared for it at all, but it was supported by democrats.

We're on a roll! We agree again. I didn't like most of the Patriot Act from the start but almost all the politicians did including the Democrats.

Well I'm glad you have 20/20 hindsight.

That's a fair statement... there probably is some hindsight in my thinking on this. But it did pretty much turn out the way I suspected it would. And I don't really put a lot of blame on either Party for passing it... it was a very tense time.

I just hope to see the Patriot Act revisited now and corrected.

Good luck with that. There are a few things Obama could be good for, but again I'm skeptic that we're going to get the "change" he promised.

Everything the man has done no one thought he'd have a chance of achieving. Yet on the 20th day of January 2009 he'll be President of the United States of America!

Everything he's done from the way he moved up the ranks so quickly... to the way he overtook the Hillary campaign... to the way he ran a completely new style state of the art campaign... to the way he's basically taken over early and set his agenda and organized top notch key players for day one... tells me this guy is a GET IT DONE kind of guy!

I'm very confident we're going to see some good things and we're going to see a lot of movement.

Well the economy was overall "better" during Clinton's presidency, but thats not to say that the issues and legislation that lead to our current predicament weren't already in place. Furthermore, correlation doesn't equal causation.

If we remember Clinton came in on a just absolutely TERRIBLE ECONOMY. I remember it so well listening to it every night on the news after work. I actually think they talked about it almost as much as they talk about our current state of economic affairs.

Clinton did what he did... Bush did what he did... now it's President Obama's turn. I'm sincerely hoping for a more Clinton type era!

You are absolutely correct, but I didn't mean that Clinton was directly preceded by Regan, just that Regan before him had started the process of cutting spending. Bush did the same (granted, I wasn't alive at the time), but it is my impression that Clinton balanced the budget by increasing taxes. Thats not a problem or anything, but if cutting spending hadn't been in the works, those taxes would have been beastly.

Reagan both cut... and raised taxes. I don't know if you are aware but when Regan started the top tax bracket paid 70%! So cutting from that wasn't all that hard. The top bracket under Clinton was 39%.

Reagan also almost bankrupted us with his astronomical military projects escalation... things like his "Star Wars" project. His economic policies "trickle down also called supply side economics were not sound". But you are able to run on credit for a couple terms and make things look pretty good while doing it. Then the debt catches you and you get a Bush #41 economy.

I will say this in defense of Reagan. His overspending did bankrupt the USSR trying to keep up and that was a good thing... still not good economic policy but a good sidebar outcome.

The key point here is that the kind of blame you are trying to assign needs to be spread out much more than you are doing so.

There are plenty of people in here that will energetically endorse the other side... I'm the hard line guy for MY side. And I occasionally still point out something I see as a mistake by the Dems... not often I'll grant you... but I've done it.

Excuse me, a "mere" 12 percent? The kind of money that comprises this "mere" statistic is unfathomable. We can't just discard this sort of detail, the lesson is clear, keep government out of business.

I'm saying you can't blame a total and utter collapse on 12%. The company I work for has had several 12 point swings in all it's years... if everything else is set up correctly there's no reason 12 points kills your entire company.

And what was missing here was there was no one watching the store. Regulation is the counter balance to corporate greed like it or not. Both can be a problem at times but in this case it was all greed and virtually no regulation.

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.
Merriam Webster defines fundamentals as "one of the minimum constituents without which a thing or a system would not be what it is"
What part of the economy, which upon the removal of would make the economy unidentifiable, needs to be reformed?

This isn't a "Webster" moment and I think you know it.

That's like saying the patient isn't going to die and have a big celebration.................... when what the whole truth was the patient is a brain dead vegetable on a ventilator.

A President's explanation matters.

Hussein had no right to gas Kurdish people for disagreeing with him or denying UN inspectors complete access to his country. We had legitimate concerns for our security riding on the invasion, so we had every right to invade.

We have the right to defend America from an attack or defend an Allie that's been attacked. Iraq was a sovereign nation that had no WMD's just as Hussein had said. If the tables were turned and Russia said we had some new super heinous weapon they shouldn't be allowed to force inspectors in over here. Especially if we really don't even have them.

It's up to the people of a country to rise up against a bad leadership themselves... just like we did in the American Revolution... just like the Russian people did against the former Soviets. Nation Building and world police... not our job under the Constitution.

Thats simply ridiculous. The new democratic government has been greeted as liberation by some. The fact that others have been bred to irrationally hate America is far from substantiating as absurd of a claim that the US is hated worse than Hussein.

OK Dick Cheney! If you think the Iraqis want us there you have poor insight. The group in power tolerates us as we were their unpaid body guards but make no mistake America is not "liked" in Iraq.

The United States gets its oil from Canada and Mexico. Shipping in oil from the Middle East would be much too expensive.

You don't fully understand the oil market do you? All oil from every country is actually one big commodity. The more that's pumped in the cheaper the price gets. If Iraq pumped at full tilt it could help offset other factors keeping prices lower.

Wow. Just Wow. You think that Bush has staged this entire war for his father? Are You Kidding Me?

I didn't say that. I said Bush had an ax to grind... and that was no big secret. And I'm saying Bush wanted to go into Iraq before 9-11 another documented fact. And the Bush administration continued to try and publicly make connections between 9-11 and Iraq EVEN AFTER they knew that intel was false.

As I said before I truly believe the bulk of the decision to go into Iraq was Bush felt impotent for not even getting close to catching or killing Bin Laden and this was his big saber rattling move for that region.

Anyway we look at it... it was F'd up thinking.