BT, I prefer to think of our founding fathers as being of higher character and having a greater sense of purpose amd able to embrace the need and concerns of all Americans and not of any special interests to which politicians on both sides are enslaved to today. Somehow you think the Democratic party is un-American and doesn't believe in the U.S. Constitution......and that's Limbauesque hogwash.
More distortions from you.....what I said was this, And now many of those same views you and others on the left describe as radical and that is having predictable and tragic consequences on our nation.....those views are not radical. They are uniquely American. Now with respect to the constitution, unlike our President, I'll let the Supreme Court make that call.....but there is evidence to suggest that they believe the Constitution is an afterthought and impediment to their governing objectives
You know I figured out that the GOP is like a casino. No guarantees but hey....you get the thrill of trying to increase your cash holdings and hit it big.....( the 1% ) If you lose.....too bad so sad......nothing for you. So they want us ( the 99% ) to have every opportunity to get into that 1% and hit it rich nut if we don't make it that's just tough....too bad so sad.....no safety net. The odds in the casino and with the GOP philosophy suck big time. We have a choice not to go into the casino and risk our money and we have a choice not to take those risks in government by not voting GOP. I do like the fact that Romney could possibly be a moderate but it's too risky because it could be that he has the "casino's" best interest at heart.
That is probably the most superficial, distorted and inaccurate view of the conservative political philosophy that I've ever heard.....and is not remotely close to the core of their beliefs. Therein lies part of the problem. Your mind has been hijacked by those liberal rags you rely on for "facts" and the concept of independent thought and common sense has left the building. Again no answer from you....let's try another way. So we can all understand a little better these "radical" views you speak of, exactly which elements of the conservative right viewpoint do you find most radical....give us 3 or 4 examples and tell us why you "hate them with every fiber"
I'll repeat. You would have to be totally dependent on entitlements or out of your mind to vote for Obama this time around.
The GOP wanted to gamble with....er....privatize social security. Now the far right would just like to get rid of it before funding it. The far right wants to keep the present healthcare system in place no matter that it bleeds the average American family dry and leaves millions upon millions without any healthcare at all and they think it's just fine that a business can hire someone at just the right amount of limited hours where they don't have to offer that employee healthcare at all. Tax subsidies for big corporations that cut jobs at home but increase hiring overseas are popular with the GOP. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-28/senate-republicans-block-tax-incentives-to-move-foreign-based-jobs-to-u-s-.html That vote was in 2010 and with more Republicans voting it would be even more lopsided today. The list is too long and I don't have that time today to keep debating it but the bottom line is that the GOP is all for the 1% and couldn't give a crap about the 99% and the mystery continues how the GOP voting base not in that 1% have deluded themselves into thinking they belong there even Though 99% of em have no chance in hell of ever getting there. I'll leave with this: Jan. 20, 1993 Dow closes 3241 Nasdaq at 697 Jan 20, 2001 Dow closes at 10,578 Nasdaq at 2757 Jan 20, 2009 Dow closes at 7949 Nasdaq at 1440 April 27 2012 Dow closes at 13,228 Nasdaq at 3050 IN LIGHT OF THOSE NUMBERS WHICH PARTY LOOKS LIKE THE FOOLISH ECONOMIC CHOICE?
Lift all boats <r>This article posted today captures some key points as to the wealth gap in America:<br/> <br/> <URL url="http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/income_distribution/"><LINK_TEXT text="http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... tribution/">http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/income_distribution/</LINK_TEXT></URL><br/> <br/> "During the 1973 to 2011 period, labor productivity rose 80.4 percent but real median hourly wage increased 4.0 percent, and the real median hourly compensation (including all wages and benefits) increased just 10.7 percent. ... If the real median hourly compensation had grown at the same rate as labor productivity over the period, it would have been $32.61 in 2011 (2011 dollars), considerably more than the actual $20.01 (2011 dollars). Consequently, the conventional notion that increased productivity is the mechanism by which living standards increases are produced must be revised to this: Productivity growth establishes the potential for living standards improvements and economic policy must work to reconnect pay and productivity."<br/> <br/> A rising economic tide needs to lift all boats.....not just the yachts.</r>
A lot of jobs aren't coming back, Dave. The work force lacks the skills. As far as social security goes, fund it with what? WE ARE BROKE!
Complete, totally distorted and unadulterated ********....... You'll believe anything they tell you. Another of the lemmings that put somebody in the White House when nothing in his background, experience nor skill set had prepared him for any job as chief executive of anything much less the world's largest most complex enterprise.....with predictable results and now in denial about why we're where we are......
Let's try a novel concept.....somebody qualified. Somebody that has actually run something, allocated scarce resources, assembled a management team capable of identifying issues, prioritizing them and developing options for their resolution, made tough decisions and solved them rather than politicizing everything, kicking the can down the road and campaigning yet again..... If by yacht lifter, you're suggesting that you'd rather have somebody as chief executive that has not been successful in their life???? You prefer somebody that reads a teleprompter well, makes you feel all warm and fuzzy but couldn't run a corner lemonade stand....well you got him. Congrats.....
Just somebody that can steer the Dow and Nasdaq to levels illustrated by the numbers I posted before and below in the 90s and in the recent recovery and not in those dismal years of 2001 through 2008: Jan. 20, 1993 Dow closes 3241 Nasdaq at 697 Jan 20, 2001 Dow closes at 10,578 Nasdaq at 2757 Jan 20, 2009 Dow closes at 7949 Nasdaq at 1440 April 27 2012 Dow closes at 13,228 Nasdaq at 3050
Funny that those Wall Street market measures are your barometers for success......and all along you have told us with great passion and vitriol that they were the enemy of anything good in the world. Excellent.... That is just not somewhere you want to go but if you do and end up looking like a jackass, don't say I didn't warn you..... carry on.
Thing is BT everything went to hell in a hand basket during the last 8 years of the GOP presidential reign and my internal logic says why would I think that would be the best course of action in this coming election? Chrysler and GM and several Wall Street firms went bankrupt.....millions lost their jobs including me and we had an economic catastrophe befall us as a nation.....supported by those Dow and Nasdaq numbers I posted and yet...I'm supposed to defy logic and just forget it ever happened. I see how the GOP keeps it's voting base....it's a "head in the sand" see no evil kind of memory at work.
Two issues of note here....1) April 2001, 3 months after his inauguration in his very first budget, 2) Budget! What a novel concept..... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LPSDnGMzIdo?rel=0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
This might help explain how things went to hell in a hand basket. Anyone who thinks they can refute this, take your best shot.... Factual accounting of why Bush appeared so bad at the end of his term. The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH Remember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES! Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
Nice use of cut and paste from a right wing blog George: http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/there-is-no-way-this-will-be-widely-publicized I'm pretty certain there is more to it than that but I am at work and those are a lot of allegations to respond to and as I say.....there always another side to the coin. The real estate bubble took years to develop and pop.......didn't happen from Jan 2007 to August 2008 just like that. Was the GOP congress and Bush sleeping at the wheel for 6 years......or complicit?