President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Memorex]

By the way - if we raise taxes, we will raise spending. In fact, the new taxes will barely keep up with the rate of spending. So I do not think the deficit will fall by much.

You could make that same "Patriotic" argument of lowering the deficit by stopping all the insane spending.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/26/128778100/obama-hits-republicans-for-opposing-disclose-act

Gee, I wonder why the rethugs would be so afraid of this bill? Oh yeah, that's right, swiftboating is their favorite sport.

Why is he even talking about this? What happened to his "laser-like focus on jobs"?
Bush wasn't all that great....but he's a thousand times better than his bad joke!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfBZnyJg0Bw

[slucero]

In a nutshell....

How did we get into this mess? ----------------------------> "Too much spending and too much debt"

How is the government trying to solve this? --------------> "MORE spending and MORE debt"

[RocknRoll]

This latest report from the CBO just keeps getting scarier. I'm sure those in the administration and congress are smarter than our own CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11659

Summary
Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly—to the point that, compared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions.

Further increases in federal debt relative to the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP) almost certainly lie ahead if current policies remain in place. The aging of the population and rising costs for health care will push federal spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, well above the levels experienced in recent decades. Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.

Although deficits during or shortly after a recession generally hasten economic recovery, persistent deficits and continually mounting debt would have several negative economic consequences for the United States. Some of those consequences would arise gradually: A growing portion of people’s savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that “crowding out” of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur. In addition, if the payment of interest on the extra debt was financed by imposing higher marginal tax rates, those rates would discourage work and saving and further reduce output. Rising interest costs might also force reductions in spending on important government programs. Moreover, rising debt would increasingly restrict the ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or international crises.
Beyond those gradual consequences, a growing level of federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. It is possible that interest rates would rise gradually as investors’ confidence declined, giving legislators advance warning of the worsening situation and sufficient time to make policy choices that could avert a crisis. But as other countries’ experiences show, it is also possible that investors would lose confidence abruptly and interest rates on government debt would rise sharply. The exact point at which such a crisis might occur for the United States is unknown, in part because the ratio of federal debt to GDP is climbing into unfamiliar territory and in part because the risk of a crisis is influenced by a number of other factors, including the government’s long-term budget outlook, its near-term borrowing needs, and the health of the economy. When fiscal crises do occur, they often happen during an economic downturn, which amplifies the difficulties of adjusting fiscal policy in response.

If the United States encountered a fiscal crisis, the abrupt rise in interest rates would reflect investors’ fears that the government would renege on the terms of its existing debt or that it would increase the supply of money to finance its activities or pay creditors and thereby boost inflation. To restore investors’ confidence, policymakers would probably need to enact spending cuts or tax increases more drastic and painful than those that would have been necessary had the adjustments come sooner.

[slucero]

Well done Congress..

How Wall Street Will Beat the New Financial Regulations
Published: Wednesday, 28 Jul 2010 | 10:15 AM ET
By: Jeff Cox
CNBC.com Staff Writer


Weep not for Wall Street: Even though the nation's big financial institutions will get hit by the new financial reform regulations, they already have begun figuring out ways around them and are setting the path for more profitability in the future.


The new law establishes tighter requirements for capital and restricts risk-taking. It also contains a significant consumer watchdog component and seeks to prohibit banks from becoming too big too fail.

But crafty financial veterans already are finding loopholes in the law and banks likely will profit both in spite of and because of the reforms.


"What the law did was force the banks to rethink their business lines, their pricing strategies, their methodology for maintaining their balance sheet," banking analyst Dick Bove of Rochdale Securities said in an interview. "When they rethink it all, they will be able to offset all of the costs of this bill."

The banks' course of action likely will break down into four strategies:

1. Outfox the foxes

A harsh critic of the law, Bove is among the analysts who nevertheless believe banks will thrive. One big reason is because he thinks industry executives will show that they're smarter than the legislators who crafted financial reform, also known as FinReg.

"If you had anyone who knew anything about the financial industry writing this law, that's one thing," said Bove, who has called the law one of the worst in US history. "But if you have a bunch of hysterics who were looking for political gain, you get something that was an abortion. All it did was increase the cost of banking in the United States relative to the cost of banking in other countries."


One of the loopholes will be challenging the government to decide what is "proprietary trading." Normally considered that trading which institutions do for their own benefit rather than their customers, observers have speculated the government will have a tough time enforcing an exact definition.

The same could go for the much-touted Volcker Rule—named after White House economic adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker—which restricts to 3 percent of Tier 1 capital the amount banks can hedge or put into private equity.

But Bove said banks like Goldman Sachs [GS 147.20 -0.03 (-0.02%) ] can sell private equity funds to a third party and then establish a management contract in which Goldman would run those funds and take a percentage of the increase in value "which presumably would be equal to the profit you were getting for holding the funds in the first place."

"Although banks will be limited in how much they can invest in the funds along side with investors, managing the fund is still expected to garner meaningful management and incentive income," analysts at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods wrote of the 3 percent restriction.

2. Going Overseas

As Bove stated, Congress enacted FinReg unilaterally—foreign banks don't have to abide by the US rules, and US banks doing business overseas also can skirt FinReg in certain instances.

"The US is the world's largest economy and has the largest and deepest capital markets. There's no way for any big bank to avoid the US," said Doug Landy, banking partner at Allen and Overy in New York. "But I think people are re-looking at what business they do here and what business they do elsewhere."

While banks will have to be cautious not to cross regulatory restrictions, Bove said there are plenty of ways for financial companies to take their business outside the US.

Under the new rules, "You run the risk of the Federal Reserve saying, 'You're interconnected, we're going to regulate you,'" he said. "Or you can do it through a consolidated subsidiary in Switzerland. Nobody sees it, so there's no regulation. So why should you do it here?"

3. Take it Out on the Customers

This is what Bove considers the most odious part of FinReg—the increased costs through regulation and restrictions will simply, he said, be passed onto customers.

Free checking will not exist anymore and customers likely will have to pay $10 to $12 a month to maintain their accounts, he said, meaning some on lower incomes may be forced to close their accounts.

He used Wells Fargo as an example of how banks will find numerous ways to pass costs onto customers.

"We have no doubt that the banks are actively looking at the best possible ways to rework their current business models to take advantage of inconsistencies in this legislation."

Doug Landy
Partner, Allen and Overy law firm
"Wells Fargo claims they have 86 specific businesses. That means there are about 80 businesses that they can increase prices and charges on, which they've already done" Bove said. "Wells Fargo has not been slow to make adjustments to its costs in order to make sure customers bear the burden of increases in regulatory costs."

A host of large banks already have warned that there earnings could be impacted by the new law.

"They're going to find more ways to make it. They're going to put more fees on customers," said Andrew Neale, partner at Fogel Neale Partners in New York. "That's obviously the first line of defense."

4. Be Big

Perhaps the great irony is that a bill designed to prevent banks from becoming too big to fail— a la Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns—almost ensures the future of behemoth banks.

Banks that lack the capital to survive will be absorbed by their larger brethren, as has already happened 103 times in 2010. The financial crisis provided plenty of templates: JPMorgan Chase swallowed Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual; Bank of America took in Merrill Lynch; Wells Fargo ate up Wachovia.

"One unforeseen victor is banks are actually much bigger than they were five years ago. Rather than being broken apart, they're bigger and stronger," said Landy, of Allen and Overy. "What it leaves is a situation where you have six huge banks, a bunch of regional banks and thousands of small banks."

FinReg provides a resolution mechanism to seize and blow up banks that become too big to fail. But Wall Street is betting it stays at least a step ahead of the Washington regulators.

"We have no doubt that the banks are actively looking at the best possible ways to rework their current business models to take advantage of inconsistencies in this legislation," Landy said. "That's their job and that's what they're good at."

[RedWingFan]

Obama's "woe as me" example of someone who's unemployment is about to run out is invited to the White House.
Turns out she's got a record and drug charges!
I swear I would love Obama if he didn't have the power to destroy the nation.

[donnaplease]

Obama's "woe as me" example of someone who's unemployment is about to run out is invited to the White House.
Turns out she's got a record and drug charges!
I swear I would love Obama if he didn't have the power to destroy the nation.

When asked whether there was a background check before her White House appearance, Gibbs said, "I don't know the specifics. Again, it's safe to say that had we known it, she wouldn't have been on stage."

The Secret Service suggested Macko was subjected to a background check but declined to offer specifics.

"We do not comment or confirm the existence of anyone's criminal history or lack thereof," agency spokesman Malcom Wiley said in a written statement. "Anyone who is granted access to the White House or any venue that we protect does so only after an assessment of dangerousness is made."

It looks like someone is lying. Either the SS didn't do a background check, or the Obummer administration did know about the convictions. I can't believe the repeated blunders by this bunch. They are making the office of the presidency look like a running joke. It's so sad.

[Rockindeano]

It looks like someone is lying. Either the SS didn't do a background check, or the Obummer administration did know about the convictions.

I thought Conservatives were above name calling?

I can't believe the repeated blunders by this bunch. They are making the office of the presidency look like a running joke. It's so sad.

Fair enough. They have definitely made their fair share of blunders and there is no defending it nor should there even be an attempt at it. However, isn't also fair to say that the Bush Administration had it's share of blunders, yet I never heard this type of comment from you while they were in the White House. Care to comment? The really sad thing is Obama is still learning the intracacies of presidential politics, and should get better as time goes on. What was Bush's excuse, eight years into the game, he was still making a complete ass of himself and his administration was the ultimate description of "Joke." Seriously, if you want, I am sure Obama and Biden could out a few CIA agents, fire a shitload of District Attorney's and start up a war or two based on some made up intelligence. Is that the type of stuff that you miss? Is that the type of stuff that makes the Office of the President proud? Is that the kind of stuff that makes you proud to respect your president?

I'll do you a favor and change the topic ever so slightly. Blunders aside, what is your game plan now that the economy has grown by. 2.4% for the 2nd Q, and is slowly strengthening overall, without zero help from YOUR party. Granted, 2.4% is below predictions, but it is still positive. What kind of tactic will the GOP try to employ to slow down the economy enough so they may get the House back? And if they don't, and I now don't think they will, what will the plan be for the next two years until 2012? Say 'no' again and again? Block more unemployment benefits legislation? Block the jobs bill again? What if Reid keeps them in Congress to get the Jobs bill done? What will the conservatives do? I mentioned to TNC a couple of weeks ago that why do the republicans even bother to show up to the Senate? They just vote no anyway. If Reid keeps them in DC, I can see republicans just leaving and going home to campaign. I am telling you, if the GOP was in the Dems shoes right now, they would kick ass. They would drive bills trough with or without the Dems help. The Dems need a backbone. If they ever develop one, the GOP is really going to be screwed.

I am interested in your comments donna.

[Angel]

I'm glad to see your keyboard is working better today.

[donnaplease]

It looks like someone is lying. Either the SS didn't do a background check, or the Obummer administration did know about the convictions.

I thought Conservatives were above name calling?

Well, if I'd have said 'that motherfucking murdering asshole, his cumdumpster wife, and their 2 retarded kids', then I would've been somewhat close to the namecalling I've seen not only leveled at the politicians, but also to some of the posters here. I saw it posted elsewhere and thought it was cute, so I lifted it. Nice try, though.

I can't believe the repeated blunders by this bunch. They are making the office of the presidency look like a running joke. It's so sad.

Fair enough. They have definitely made their fair share of blunders and there is no defending it nor should there even be an attempt at it. However, isn't also fair to say that the Bush Administration had it's share of blunders, yet I never heard this type of comment from you while they were in the White House. Care to comment? The really sad thing is Obama is still learning the intracacies of presidential politics, and should get better as time goes on. What was Bush's excuse, eight years into the game, he was still making a complete ass of himself and his administration was the ultimate description of "Joke."

I'll do you a favor and change the topic ever so slightly. Blunders aside, what is your game plan now that the economy has grown by. 2.4% for the 2nd Q, and is slowly strengthening overall, without zero help from YOUR party. Granted, 2.4% is below predictions, but it is still positive. What kind of tactic will the GOP try to employ to slow down the economy enough so they may get the House back? And if they don't, and I now don't think they will, what will the plan be for the next two years until 2012? Say 'no' again and again? Block more unemployment benefits legislation? Block the jobs bill again? What if Reid keeps them in Congress to get the Jobs bill done? What will the conservatives do? I mentioned to TNC a couple of weeks ago that why do the republicans even bother to show up to the Senate? They just vote no anyway. If Reid keeps them in DC, I can see republicans just leaving and going home to campaign. I am telling you, if the GOP was in the Dems shoes right now, they would kick ass. They would drive bills trough with or without the Dems help. The Dems need a backbone. If they ever develop one, the GOP is really going to be screwed.

I am interested in your comments donna.

Oh, I have no doubt they did. I can't speak to specific blunders nor how/why I did or didn't respond though, because I can't really recall anything like this happening. And honestly, it doesn't really mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, it's just another indicator to ME that this guy has character issues, something I have said repeatedly since he began his presidential campaign. Your comment about Obummer 'still learning the intracacies of presidential politics' both makes me chuckle and scares me at the same time. While no one can know exactly what is expected of a president until they put on those shoes, these are issues that you or I should know... don't parade someone out into public and use them to gain political points if they have anything in their background that could come back to bite you. That has to be in politics 101.

I have no game plan, Dean. I don't have the least idea what to suggest, I'm not a politican or an economist. Do you think someone fired from their job after being convicted for prescription fraud is deserving of unemployment benefits? (Disclaimer: there are conflicting reports as to why she was let go from her job, but it came a month after her conviction and the health club fought her request for unemployment benefits. If she were 'laid off' they would have no reason to do that). As for the GOP saying 'no'... I guess that's up to them, and ultimately they will have to defend their voting record, just as the dems are gonna need to defend theirs in the coming months. The dems in Congress don't need a backbone, they have no problem standing up for their perspective, and calling out whoever is standing in their way. What they need is courage of their convictions. I don't believe they will 'grow' a backbone because they spend so much time attacking their opponents that that's all they know how to do. Obummer only knows how to campaign, and that's all he's done since January, 2009. He is no leader. He's a community organizer, a little boy wearing his daddy's shoes and playing grown up. Every day he's proving that he is just that little boy, though, and not prepared for the real world.

Now, let me ask you something... How do YOU defend the idea that July is now known as the deadliest month in the history of the Afghanistan War? Even worse than all those months when Bush "took his eye off the main prize" and ignored the 'legitimate' war. A few months ago we heard a similar thing about the casualties. Perhaps our commander in chief should worry more about that than his trips to The View to chat with Joy Behar.

One more thought... I have determined that Obummer's contention that he has "created or saved" jobs is pretty much equivalent to Bush saying "What do you mean I didn't do more to prevent 9/11? My actions prevented or saved thousands more from being killed. It could've been worse." Maybe he should just take credit for the plane going in Pennsylvania too. Never mind that it had nothing to do with him but instead those great heroes that actually did it, he should just take credit for it anyway. Created or saved my ass...

OK, your volley...

[slucero]

Hold on to your hat Deano...

Here's some economic reality, I took todays BEA GDP report, reformatted it so its more readable and added "change from previous Quarter column)

LOOK AT THE RATE OF CHANGE...

See that POP in "Motor Vehicle Output" for 2009:Q3.. thats Cash for Clunkers... the "complaint" as I recall it was "we're simply bring forward future demand"... well now is the future and where is demand?.... GONE

Look at Person Consumption (PCE) numbers. These relate to real consumer spending and are indicative of consumer confidence... GONE

Lastly.. LOoK AT THE GDP TREND ITSELF........ 1.6............5.0 (thats due to the previous quarters Cash for Clunkers program?)........ 3.7...... 2.4



There is no growth.. the governments' OWN NUMBERS bear this out...

[Rockindeano]

Donna, it's becoming increasingly more and more difficult to debate you for a number of reasons. I don't know if you are just being evasive, acting stupid, or just being a good talking points republican. Let me show you what I mean.

On 'blunders' and crimes/lies made by the Bush White House-

I can't speak to specific blunders nor how/why I did or didn't respond though, because I can't really recall anything like this happening.

Now, are you trying to tell me/us, you have no recollect of Valerie Plame being outed by Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby?
I asked you if you preferred to go back to the previous administration and it's corrupt ways of dealing with things or people that get in their way or dare to disagree with their POV. Donna, do yourself a favor and go read the story on Valerie Plame Wilson. The short version:

Joe Wilson was an ambassador and did a report on Iraq, enriched uranium and yellowcake and filed a report that the Administration didn't want to hear. So in retaliation, the White House outed his wife, Valerie Plame and ruined her career. By the way, this is a felonious crime, punishable by jail...long term jail. it was also a time when Bush famously proclaimed, "Anybody in my Administration breaks the law, they'll be fired." Uh huh, ok.

So what are you telling me. You A) didn't know about this? B)You are defending the participants. C) why can't you admit any fault whatsoever when your guys do something wrong? It's unbelievable trying to talk to you sometimes.

And honestly, it doesn't really mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, it's just another indicator to ME that this guy has character issues, something I have said repeatedly since he began his presidential campaign.

Evasiveness. I was talking about the Bush administration and it's ways of dealing with 'problems' and you say it doesn't matter. WTF? Ok, So I'll play along. How does the lack of a background check equate to the character of the President?

Your comment about Obummer 'still learning the intracacies of presidential politics' both makes me chuckle and scares me at the same time. While no one can know exactly what is expected of a president until they put on those shoes, these are issues that you or I should know... don't parade someone out into public and use them to gain political points if they have anything in their background that could come back to bite you. That has to be in politics 101.

Makes you chuckle? You really should think twice about posting in this thread. Either that or go take Poly Sci 101 at your local Community College. Every president gets better at 'politics' as their time goes by. Bill Clinton and Ronld Reagan are two excellent examples. Both struggled early on, and then they learned the small stuff, as well as their staff, and they got really good t what they did. They both had horrible polling numbers early on, and when they exited, both had high departure numbers, despite having issues(Iran Contra and the Blow Job). As for issues you or I should know, are you saying the president should have reviewed the guests and made sure they all had their proper BG checks? When do propose he does this? Between bites of his sandwich at lunch? Yes, it was probably Rahm Emanuel's responsibility, to oversee this, but a lower aide definitely dropped the ball. How you associate this with the president is beyond me.

I have no game plan, Dean. I don't have the least idea what to suggest, I'm not a politican or an economist.

Muddy up the waters. I asked you about the current day economy, and situations and such. I don't expect you to be a politician, but I do expect you to think for yourself and have an idea. Are you saying you can't comment on the republicans voting 'no' no and no because you aren't a politician? Jesus Christ. So I am right, you get your ideas and arguments from Fox News.

The dems in Congress don't need a backbone, they have no problem standing up for their perspective, and calling out whoever is standing in their way. What they need is courage of their convictions. I don't believe they will 'grow' a backbone because they spend so much time attacking their opponents that that's all they know how to do.

Courage in their convictions? Are you being serious? What do you call making a historic, yet unpopular vote on Health Care? Courage. What do you call voting to extend UI for hard working Americans? Courage and conviction. Let me ask you, what do you call it, when all you do is vote "no?" LOL, Take your time, I'll wait. This should be good.

Obummer only knows how to campaign, and that's all he's done since January, 2009. He is no leader. He's a community organizer, a little boy wearing his daddy's shoes and playing grown up. Every day he's proving that he is just that little boy, though, and not prepared for the real world.

You really do sound stupid with your Obummer smack, but hey, it's free country. As for the rest of your paragraph, it seems as though you wrote it for George W Bush, not president Obama. The guy came from a broken home, no father, poor mother, raised by his grandmother. He is now the president of the United States. Contrast that to George W Bush, who was given everything in the world on a silver platter, it's clear who the real leader is. One guy worked his ass off in school and the Congress, and the other one was given the presidency, which he promptly fucked up. It was America's single greatest mistake, electing that retard in the first place.

Now, let me ask you something... How do YOU defend the idea that July is now known as the deadliest month in the history of the Afghanistan War? Even worse than all those months when Bush "took his eye off the main prize" and ignored the 'legitimate' war. A few months ago we heard a similar thing about the casualties. Perhaps our commander in chief should worry more about that than his trips to The View to chat with Joy Behar.

If you follow the Afghn war, you'd know we had upped the ante, and increased the offensive. It's necessary and it's war. Shit happens. As for the View, so what? it's good politics. It's great way to reach millions of citizens while on the road. It's politics 2010. The way of doing things have changed.

One more thought... I have determined that Obummer's contention that he has "created or saved" jobs is pretty much equivalent to Bush saying "What do you mean I didn't do more to prevent 9/11? My actions prevented or saved thousands more from being killed. It could've been worse." Maybe he should just take credit for the plane going in Pennsylvania too. Never mind that it had nothing to do with him but instead those great heroes that actually did it, he should just take credit for it anyway. Created or saved my ass...

If you were in my Poly Sci class I would flunk you for writing this. I can't even respond to such garbage. You're comparing jobs to terrorism.

[donnaplease]

Blah, blah, blah...

What else you got? Nanny-nanny boo-boo...?

I know who Valerie Plame is, and I remember some of what happened. And I said here not so long ago that I thought Scooter Libby got thrown under the bus in that whole deal. If it was done in retaliation for her husband (or intentionally for any other reason), shame on anyone who was involved. If 'your' side is so concerned about it, then perhaps they should have gone after the REAL bad guy for it. Why didn't they? Either they're not good enough, or don't care enough. Do you have any others, because you've beaten that horse enough? You keep asking me to admit fault, yet you obviously don't read what I do say. As for slamming Bush just for the sake of it, or agreeing with you about what a slimeball he is, I'm not gonna do it just to appease you. I have read here for years the slanderous comments aimed at him, and I'm not gonna participate in them. If I have something to say, I'll say it. But I'm not gonna pile on just for shits and giggles.

If you equate things like healthcare to the libs having the courage of their convictions, I don't need to say anymore. They pushed it through, alright, although a majority of Americans are against it. Way to take care of the people. Their poll numbers are reflecting just what the people think of it, too. You of all people have no room to talk about anything regarding convictions. You have repeatedly said here that the democratic congress should just "ram it through" and not try to have bipartisanship in passing legislation. That concept isn't working out too good for your party, but if they want to continue to do so, be my guest. It's your funeral.

My 'it doesn't matter' had to do with the scandal surrounding Leslie whateverhernameis, and you know it. How it relates to Obummer (Knowing that it irritates you makes me smile It's also just a wee bit hypocritical from the person who penned the term "Faux News" ) is simple. He doesn't care who he has to use to prove a point. He is no better than those Acorn workers who got caught telling supposed prostitutes how to scam the government. He has the most powerful position in the world, a background check should be done on EVERYONE getting that close to him, and if he's going to parade her out there, then she should be clean and without skeletons, ESPECIALLY when her conviction potentially was related to the reason she was unemployed in the first place.

Dropped the ball, huh? Somebody's always dropping the ball in this administration. I'm gonna give you a big 'duh' to your comments about presidents getting better with experience. It's that way with everything in life in case you didn't know it. How many background blunders is it gonna take, Dean? But instead of taking the trips to the golf course or daytime television perhaps he should be confirming that his staff is doing their job. Just a thought.

What does it matter if the republicans vote no or not, YOUR party has the votes to 'ram it through'. How about Senator Obummer's votes of "present" instead of yes or no, that's when he bothered to show up at all. There's courage, I gotta tell ya. As for my ideas, you don't want my ideas. You just want me to agree with you. My ideas aren't the same as yours, therefore mine aren't as credible. Typical lib-speak with the accusations about Fox News talking points. Just not very creative. If I were to give you my thoughts on the economy or legislative votes, I would be parroting though, because as I said I don't have the first effin clue about that stuff. You can ridicule me all you want, but I won't pretend (unlike many here) to know something when I don't. I know this economy stinks and people are still losing their homes. I know I don't like the idea of wealth redistribution - I prefer charity for those TRULY in need, not welfare.

So, someone has to come from a broken home to be a leader? And you say that I sound stupid. Ooookaaaay.

And "shit happens" is your war slogan? Nice.

"So what?" So what that Obummer is out playing with Whoopi instead of working on jobs? His own party thinks he's an ass for doing it. So what.

You'd flunk anyone who disagreed with the ultra-liberal party line. I had a professor that would've LOVED to do just that (he was a left-wing kook too), only he couldn't. Straight A's, baby!

OK, your turn. Tell me again how stupid I am. I can take it.

[RedWingFan]

Blah, blah, blah...

What else you got? Nanny-nanny boo-boo...?

I know who Valerie Plame is, and I remember some of what happened.

I love how Dean continues to cry in his Count Chocula about Valerie Plame. It's like the space between his ears and piehole is the Bermuda Triangle when it comes to the name of Richard Armatage, the one who actually leaked her name. Never let the facts get in the way Dean!

[conversationpc]

You of all people have no room to talk about anything regarding convictions. You have repeatedly said here that the democratic congress should just "ram it through" and not try to have bipartisanship in passing legislation.

Reminds me of what he said to me back in March of this year...

Whatever it takes. It's a bloody game. Turn about is fair play. You had 8 of the most corrupt years ever. Now you get to watch as karma comes back to bite your asses. Pelosi will get her votes.

I don't EVER want legislation to be passed in this manner. If it can't be passed legitimately, it shouldn't be passed at all. Typically, that means it probably wasn't all that good a bill in the first place. It doesn't matter to me if the Repubs or Dems do it. See, the problem is, when the party in power does business this way, they end up getting bitten in the ass because the other party will inevitably come to power again and do the exact same thing in return. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. When the Repubs take power back in November or whenever it happens, I don't want to hear the libs who've been cheering the Dems on crying about it unless they had the cojones to stand against it now.

[Rockindeano]

You of all people have no room to talk about anything regarding convictions. You have repeatedly said here that the democratic congress should just "ram it through" and not try to have bipartisanship in passing legislation.

Reminds me of what he said to me back in March of this year...

Whatever it takes. It's a bloody game. Turn about is fair play. You had 8 of the most corrupt years ever. Now you get to watch as karma comes back to bite your asses. Pelosi will get her votes.

I don't EVER want legislation to be passed in this manner. If it can't be passed legitimately, it shouldn't be passed at all. Typically, that means it probably wasn't all that good a bill in the first place. It doesn't matter to me if the Repubs or Dems do it. See, the problem is, when the party in power does business this way, they end up getting bitten in the ass because the other party will inevitably come to power again and do the exact same thing in return. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. When the Repubs take power back in November or whenever it happens, I don't want to hear the libs who've been cheering the Dems on crying about it unless they had the cojones to stand against it now.

And I was dead on 100% correct too wasn't I?

I stand firmly behind the Healthcare bill and how it was passed. Ram it through. Hey, the Dems tried, and tried, and tried to get GOP interest and input, but when all they heard was 'no' no and no, it became clear that they couldn't be counted on, except the two Maine republicans(Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe). The GOP has NO intention of ever joining in on bi partisan legislation. Hell, they can't wait to repeal everything. So, screw you. Elections have consequences.

By the way Dave, LOL, you aren't getting power back anytime soon. There's no way the GOP can win 38-39 seats back in order to take back the House. Good luck with that.

Please Dave, explain to me how legislation passed in the H/C bill was in a manner you don't see as legit? Scoreboard. You lost, get over it.

[slucero]

.. at the rate this economy is slowing, come the end of Q3 (September), if we see no improvement in the reported GDP numbers... you might be eatin' yer words my friend..

[portland]

I usually stay out of this thread....but my Hospital is laying people off....and it's the first time in a LONG time...we are the ONLY level one trauma center north of Boston....and we are laying off Nurses.


Now mind you it is in the non-essential units...birth center and pediatrics.....but still WE don't lay people off.

??????

[conversationpc]

I stand firmly behind the Healthcare bill and how it was passed. Ram it through. Hey, the Dems tried, and tried, and tried to get GOP interest and input, but when all they heard was 'no' no and no, it became clear that they couldn't be counted on, except the two Maine republicans(Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe). The GOP has NO intention of ever joining in on bi partisan legislation. Hell, they can't wait to repeal everything. So, screw you. Elections have consequences.

...Please Dave, explain to me how legislation passed in the H/C bill was in a manner you don't see as legit? Scoreboard. You lost, get over it.

What are you talking about? I didn't even mention the healthcare bill. What I WAS talking about was your "ram it through" or "whatever it takes" attitude. Like I said...It's a vicious cycle and it will come back to bite you in the ass eventually.

By the way Dave, LOL, you aren't getting power back anytime soon. There's no way the GOP can win 38-39 seats back in order to take back the House. Good luck with that.

Enough of this "you" and "your party" garbage...As if the Republican party even represents me. Actually, the last time I voted, I voted Democrat. How do you like them crackers?

[conversationpc]

BTW...What numbskull is causing the page to stretch? I really hate having to use a scrollbar to read a post.

[Rockindeano]

BTW...What numbskull is causing the page to stretch? I really hate having to use a scrollbar to read a post.

1- Sorry. I misunderstood your question/comment. I agree ramming it through is not always the best course of action.

2- I think it is your avatar that is causing the stretch. Delete it and see if it fixes itself.

[conversationpc]

2- I think it is your avatar that is causing the stretch. Delete it and see if it fixes itself.

Ha ha.

[Rockindeano]

No seriously, it is the biggest one here..has to be yours.

[portland]

Someone fix it.....it's annoying!!!


I know Dean....shut up and something about a belt buckle???

[AlteredDNA]

slucero's chart is causing the stretching...

[slucero]

hmmm lemme reformat it


ok.. its smaller now.. that work?

[conversationpc]

No seriously, it is the biggest one here..has to be yours.

It was Slucero's chart. Actually, AlteredDNA's av is wider than mine.

[donnaplease]

No seriously, it is the biggest one here..has to be yours.

It was Slucero's chart. Actually, AlteredDNA's av is wider than mine.

Oh my, here we go...

"Mine is bigger than yours is..."

[conversationpc]

No seriously, it is the biggest one here..has to be yours.

It was Slucero's chart. Actually, AlteredDNA's av is wider than mine.

Oh my, here we go...

"Mine is bigger than yours is..."

Bah, that doesn't matter to me. I don't have to argue...I already KNOW mine is bigger.

[donnaplease]

No seriously, it is the biggest one here..has to be yours.

It was Slucero's chart. Actually, AlteredDNA's av is wider than mine.

Oh my, here we go...

"Mine is bigger than yours is..."

Bah, that doesn't matter to me. I don't have to argue...I already KNOW mine is bigger.

But apparently not wider. Soooo....