President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[donnaplease]

The government became somewhat less centralized under Reagan, but no Republican has reduced the size of the Federal government since Eisenhauer. However, Obama's policies will actually reduce the number of Federal employees, and Clinton slashed the work force by over 40%.

I don't understand the GOP's obsession with non-obstructionist nationalization when it comes to programs that help those less fortunate then them, improve health care, or educate the unemployable.

And it seems the finger-wagging is usually just a method of mass distraction. I haven't heard the GOP put a workable and forthright policy forward since the middle of the Clinton Administration. Simply voting "no" is not a matter of voting one's conscience, or even what best represents one's constituency. For instance, how do you explain that 80% of the populace polled in Massachusetts approves of their state-funded universal health care, and yet attempt to claim they voted for Brown in protest of Obama's health care proposal? It simply doesn't jibe, and isn't logical.

It speaks volumes about the Democrats - positively in that they are more malleable and willing to compromise and negatively in that they have no backbones - that since 1980 the likelihood of a Republican legislative proposal has been about four times as likely to poss through the Executive branch and become law than one initiated by the Democrats, even though it is without doubt that left-central economic policy is far more successful than the thoroughly disproven trickle-down theory so haughtily embraced by Reaganites and Dittoheads.

From what I've read, a large number of that workforce that was cut by Clinton were military. I was a Navy wife during part of the Clinton years, and I remember watching bases close down in San Diego. Whether or not that was a good thing is still debatable.

As for the GOP just voting 'no', it seems that they haven't had much choice in the past year or so, given that from what I understand, they are basically being shut out of the discussions. BO's 'I won, so it's my way or the highway' mentality hasn't given them much choice othere than to 'just say no'.

Regarding the Massachusetts vote, perhaps that could best be explained in that the Massachusetts govt established their plan for the people of Massacusetts, whereas the backdoor deals concocted in order to try to get this thing passed will hurt the state of Massachusetts because their citizens will be paying for the healthcare of people in Nebraska. If the deal were done correctly and honestly (without the bribes) perhaps more people would be behind it. Then again, probably not, because it took those bribes in order to get it to pass.

Let's face it, neither side is doing much for the 'good of the people' these days.

[RedWingFan]

Did anyone else see the smack down President Obama gave the GOP yesterday? He was amazing.
Here's a link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/2 ... 42213.html

There's links within that story for the video and transcript.

He kicked their asses and took names!

Absolutely he did. I would love one of these Cons who post here to come in here and say otherwise, because they simply can't. This was a one sided ass beating.

Obama and the dems can have all the credit for the disaster they're fostering. Republicans are doing an excellent job of keeping the Bamster from claiming the disasterous policies are "bipartisan". You break it, you buy it!

[RedWingFan]

This is irrefutable data and cannot be manipulated.

You mean like your global warming hockey stick? Fool!

[The_Noble_Cause]

As for the GOP just voting 'no', it seems that they haven't had much choice in the past year or so, given that from what I understand, they are basically being shut out of the discussions. BO's 'I won, so it's my way or the highway' mentality hasn't given them much choice othere than to 'just say no'.

Bullshit.
The healthcare legislation already contains a total of 170 GOP amendments.
They may not be as far-reaching as the GOP would like, but, hey, elections have consequences.
You guys lost.
If Obama and the Dems were half as ballsy as you pretend, they would've passed the bill already via reconcilliation - the exact same way Bush passed his deficit ballooning tax cuts when you said NOTHING.
Wait. Wait. I know..."That was Bush. This is now. Stop living in the past."
As if libs are to simply gloss over the fact that EVERY President throughout history has blamed their immediate predessor.
Tell ya what, I'll quit bringing up Bush as soon as the GOP gets over Carter, Clinton's cock, and hoping for Obama to fail.
Sound good?

Let's face it, neither side is doing much for the 'good of the people'c these days.

Not sure what you're talking about...
At least under the Dems, regulatory reform is back on the table.
Last I checked, no Dem is secretly undoing overtime pay, blowing taxpayer money on naked evangelical pandering with "federal marriage iniatives", or weaking USDA beef standards.
Best of all, nobody is launching bullshit wars financed on chinese credit; or trying to make social security dependent on the fluctuations of the dow, right before the market takes a historic dive.
Obama may be delivering reform while also greasing the pockets of private interests, but hey, at least he's trying.

[7 Wishes]

Not one bit of 7's long post addressed HIS OWN remark (which I refuted), that Obama's policies will actually reduce the number of Federal employees, just sayin'. Try again 7 and stay on point.

.

What I did was is COMPLETELY shoot your ENTIRE defense of Republican economic policy full of holes.

Donna, the numbers don't lie. Clinton, like Obama, is vilified not because of his rather moderate (and proven) economic policy, but simply because he was a Democrat and Republicans are stone-headed troglodytes.

You guys are wrong, again. Good try with the diversionary tactics, but alas, to no avail.

Again, I reiterate: the aforementioned numbers don't lie. The GOP has NO IDEA how to run a country or implement successful economic policy. The only think your side is good at is creating illegal and unnecessary wars in order to divert attention away from the train wreck your Presidents and (occasional) Congressional majorities cause.

[RossValoryRocks]

Not one bit of 7's long post addressed HIS OWN remark (which I refuted), that Obama's policies will actually reduce the number of Federal employees, just sayin'. Try again 7 and stay on point.

.

What I did was is COMPLETELY shoot your ENTIRE defense of Republican economic policy full of holes.

Donna, the numbers don't lie. Clinton, like Obama, is vilified not because of his rather moderate (and proven) economic policy, but simply because he was a Democrat and Republicans are stone-headed troglodytes.

You guys are wrong, again. Good try with the diversionary tactics, but alas, to no avail.

Again, I reiterate: the aforementioned numbers don't lie. The GOP has NO IDEA how to run a country or implement successful economic policy. The only think your side is good at is creating illegal and unnecessary wars in order to divert attention away from the train wreck your Presidents and (occasional) Congressional majorities cause.

A BLOG ON BLOGSPOT???? SLATE? An opinon piece in the Washington Post??? You have GOT to be kidding...none of those is a reputable source...what you did is the equivalent of say FF or Hoagiepete citing Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly as sources for something.

You look like an IDIOT, go cite sources from peer reviewd literature or just shut your pie hole. The again I should expect that of you, since you go right along with the global warming folks who also cherry pick and manipulate data in order to back their false assertions as well.

[7 Wishes]

Dude, the DATA is factual. Look it up.

Sorry, the "source" discreditation is NOT going to work here, because this is pure fact. Sorry, Stu.

You guys CONSTANTLY quote articles written by right-wing nut jobs. Whether or not the articles were written by left-leaning writers and reporters is NOT relevant, since the FACTS are not in dispute. Those numbers are REAL, and they PROVE Republican economic policy has been, is, and always will be a failure.

[S2M]

No different than when religious nutz look to the bible for true accounts....and FACT.

[7 Wishes]

Dude, information that is readily accessible that was compiled by the Department of Treasury is NOT comparable to King James biblical passages.

DATA.

FACTS.

Irrefutable and undeniable. FACT.

[S2M]

Dude, information that is readily accessible that was compiled by the Department of Treasury is NOT comparable to King James biblical passages.

DATA.

FACTS.

Irrefutable and undeniable. FACT.

To the faithful, the bible IS fact.....that's my point.

[Monker]

Dude, information that is readily accessible that was compiled by the Department of Treasury is NOT comparable to King James biblical passages.

DATA.

FACTS.

Irrefutable and undeniable. FACT.

To the faithful, the bible IS fact.....that's my point.

That is a contradiction. To be faithful is to believe in something....ignoring all 'facts' given - because they are not needed.

[S2M]

Dude, information that is readily accessible that was compiled by the Department of Treasury is NOT comparable to King James biblical passages.

DATA.

FACTS.

Irrefutable and undeniable. FACT.

To the faithful, the bible IS fact.....that's my point.

That is a contradiction. To be faithful is to believe in something....ignoring all 'facts' given - because they are not needed.

Actually, it is not.....to the faithful, the fact that they believe in something that isn't supported by actual fact, is FACT.....It is kinda like deciding where to go for your information. Some go to blogs, some to cable news, others go to the fishwrap, and still others go to network news outlets.....FACT/knowledge is a topic in which I'm well-versed....being a philosophy major(degree in hand).....Epistemology, and Metaphysics not withstanding.

A fact is only a fact until another fact comes around to displace it. i.e. a better technology.

[slucero]

Not sure what you're talking about...
At least under the Dems, regulatory reform is back on the table.
Last I checked, no Dem is secretly undoing overtime pay, blowing taxpayer money on naked evangelical pandering with "federal marriage iniatives", or weaking USDA beef standards.
Best of all, nobody is launching bullshit wars financed on chinese credit; or trying to make social security dependent on the fluctuations of the dow, right before the market takes a historic dive.
Obama may be delivering reform while also greasing the pockets of private interests, but hey, at least he's trying.

You wouldn't be talking about regulatory reform, enacted in 1933 in a direct response to the malfeasance on Wall Street that led to the 1929 crash, that was repealed in 1999 by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President?


We are where we are because a Republican Congress and a Democratic President passed the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies.

The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company.
...sound familiar?

investment banks - Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, Citi, Merril Lynch..
insurance companies - AIG




The blame for this lies squarely with the 1999 565-member CONGRESS and The President... Who repealed what was already LAW and would have PREVENTED what has happened... pretty good decision making on the part of Clinton... and both sides of the isle in Congress...


And just in case anyone thinks President Clinton was strong armed into signing it...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...2000409948.htm

MARIA BARTIROMO: Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do you regret that decision?

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. (yup.. that happened... )But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.

MARIA BARTIROMO: Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and until recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods?

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You wouldn't be talking about regulatory reform, enacted in 1933 in a direct response to the malfeasance on Wall Street that led to the 1929 crash, that was repealed in 1999 by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President?

That's an example of de-regulatory legislation, not regulatory.
And more than anything, the repeal of FDR's banking firewalls, just serves to demonstrate how far to the right Clinton truly was.
As with NAFTA and his Telecomm Act, Clinton's policies have much more in common with Reagan Republicanism than the Democratic Party of FDR or JFK.
In the words of fellow right wing zealot, Alan Greenspan - “I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”
The worst part of it is, for all his shameless concessions to the right, Clinton was still called every Marxist synonym under the sun.

Volcker is currently pushing hard for the very type of commercial/investment division that Clinton idiotically repealed.
I bet you can count the number of Republicans who vote in favor of it on one hand.

[slucero]

You wouldn't be talking about regulatory reform, enacted in 1933 in a direct response to the malfeasance on Wall Street that led to the 1929 crash, that was repealed in 1999 by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President?

That's an example of de-regulatory legislation, not regulatory.
And more than anything, the repeal of FDR's banking firewalls, just serves to demonstrate how far to the right Clinton truly was.
As with NAFTA and his Telecomm Act, Clinton's policies have much more in common with Reagan Republicanism than the Democratic Party of FDR or JFK.
In the words of fellow right wing zealot, Alan Greenspan - “I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”
The worst part of it is, for all his shameless concessions to the right, Clinton was still called every Marxist synonym under the sun.

Volcker is currently pushing hard for the very type of commercial/investment division that Clinton idiotically repealed.
I bet you can count the number of Republicans who vote in favor of it on one hand.

I never said it was "regulatory"... I said they (Clinton and a Republican Congress) knowingly removed the protections of a previous act (Glass-Steagall) that was designed to protect the economy from Wall Street.

Painting Clinton as a Republican really really makes ZERO sense... especially since he was called "America's First Black President"... He ran as a Democrat.. he won as a Democrat.. his legacy is as a Democrat... and he is revered by his own party... You might as well call Obama a Republican for all the money he's spending.. make up your mind...

I said a DEMOCRATIC President and a REPUBLICAN Congress for a reason... because I think they are all culpable for our current economic state. I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, or Martian. My point had nothing to do with parties.. other than to point out that both parties had to come together to pass Gramm-Leah-Billey and repeal Glass-Steagall..... These aren't stupid people... for Gods sake Clinton is a fucking Rhodes Scholar!!. and I'd bet that some of the 565 members of Congress at least made it past high school...

Bottom line.. they knew what they were doing.. what it would cause.. AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY.

As far as Volker goes.. he's a bit late to the party with his idea... looks like there already was a bi-partisan effort to repair the damage done.

In mid-December of 2009, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State jointly proposed re-enacting the Glass-Steagall Act, to re-impose the separation of commercial and investment banking that had been in effect from the original Act in 1933, to the time of its initial repeal in 1999.[21] Legislation to re-enact parts of Glass-Steagall was also introduced into the House of Representatives. Banks such as Bank of America have strongly opposed the proposed re-enactment.[22]

[The_Noble_Cause]

I never said it was "regulatory"... I said they (Clinton and a Republican Congress) knowingly removed the protections of a previous act (Glass-Steagall) that was designed to protect the economy from Wall Street.

Ok. That’s true…
And I said with the election of a Democratic president, regulation is back at the forefront, after being conspicuously absent during the Bush years, and in some cases, even having been actively undermined - (with the exception of maybe Sarbanes Oxley).
You talk as if the actions of one corporate sell-out, Bill Clinton, are symbolic of the Democratic Party as a whole.
In the shadow of Reagan, both Clinton and the GOP were guided by “freeing up the markets”, but the Democrats have been the champions of strongly regulated capitalism since the turn of the 20th century.
Are you seriously under the illusion that Dems are branded as "socialists" and "commies" because of their unwavering support for laissez-faire industry or something?
I mean, c'mon, let's get real.

Painting Clinton as a Republican really really makes ZERO sense... especially since he was called "America's First Black President"... He ran as a Democrat.. he won as a Democrat.. his legacy is as a Democrat...

You’re throwing around empty slogans.
What does the “first black president” mean substantively? - besides Clinton being from the South, loving jazz, pussy, and fried foods?
I’m talking about legislation.
The crown jewels of the Clinton administration - the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Telecomm Act, NAFTA, welfare reform - this is all deregulatory Republican trash.

…and he is revered by his own party...

Not in the circles I travel.
He may be a popular ex-president, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he governed as Reagan-lite.
Clinton had left the base so disaffected that by 2000, many party loyalists threw their support to Nader.

You might as well call Obama a Republican for all the money he's spending.. make up your mind...

When it comes to his corrupt Goldman Sachs financial team, I have. Often.
Too early to tell where he will fall on the spectrum of Democratic presidents.
His endorsement of Volcker’s plan is a good start.
I hope he shows more anti-establishment spine like that from here forward.

I said a DEMOCRATIC President and a REPUBLICAN Congress for a reason... because I think they are all culpable for our current economic state. I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, or Martian. My point had nothing to do with parties.. other than to point out that both parties had to come together to pass Gramm-Leah-Billey and repeal Glass-Steagall..... These aren't stupid people... for Gods sake Clinton is a fucking Rhodes Scholar!!. and I'd bet that some of the 565 members of Congress at least made it past high school...

Bottom line.. they knew what they were doing.. what it would cause.. AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY.

Nobody is denying that both parties’ played a role in our current economic situation.
However, if you’re trying to conflate the Democratic Party’s historical role as the party of reform, with the Republicans’, who have opposed reform for the better part of a century, try again.
At the time it was abolished, Glass-Steagall was characterized as just more meddlesome government red tape preventing the markets from working their special magic.
If that sounds in any way familiar, it’s because the GOP is still playing the same old sad broken song.

As far as Volker goes.. he's a bit late to the party with his idea... looks like there already was a bi-partisan effort to repair the damage done.

Please.
The idea of reinstating Glass-Steagall has been kicking around FOR YEARS ever since it was repealed.
If it somehow makes you feel better that a Republican proposed the idea to re-introduce Democratic reform legislation, go right ahead, and take that consolation booby prize.
I’m just glad it’s being re-instated. Period.

[slucero]

I never said it was "regulatory"... I said they (Clinton and a Republican Congress) knowingly removed the protections of a previous act (Glass-Steagall) that was designed to protect the economy from Wall Street.

Ok. That’s true…
And I said with the election of a Democratic president, regulation is back at the forefront, after being conspicuously absent during the Bush years, and in some cases, even having been actively undermined - (with the exception of maybe Sarbanes Oxley).
You talk as if the actions of one corporate sell-out, Bill Clinton, are symbolic of the Democratic Party as a whole.
In the shadow of Reagan, both Clinton and the GOP were guided by “freeing up the markets”, but the Democrats have been the champions of strongly regulated capitalism since the turn of the 20th century.
Are you seriously under the illusion that Dems are branded as "socialists" and "commies" because of their unwavering support for laissez-faire industry or something?
I mean, c'mon, let's get real.

Painting Clinton as a Republican really really makes ZERO sense... especially since he was called "America's First Black President"... He ran as a Democrat.. he won as a Democrat.. his legacy is as a Democrat...

You’re throwing around empty slogans.
What does the “first black president” mean substantively? - besides Clinton being from the South, loving jazz, pussy, and fried foods?
I’m talking about legislation.
The crown jewels of the Clinton administration - the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Telecomm Act, NAFTA, welfare reform - this is all deregulatory Republican trash.

…and he is revered by his own party...

Not in the circles I travel.
He may be a popular ex-president, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he governed as Reagan-lite.
Clinton had left the base so disaffected that by 2000, many party loyalists threw their support to Nader.

You might as well call Obama a Republican for all the money he's spending.. make up your mind...

When it comes to his corrupt Goldman Sachs financial team, I have. Often.
Too early to tell where he will fall on the spectrum of Democratic presidents.
His endorsement of Volcker’s plan is a good start.
I hope he shows more anti-establishment spine like that from here forward.

I said a DEMOCRATIC President and a REPUBLICAN Congress for a reason... because I think they are all culpable for our current economic state. I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, or Martian. My point had nothing to do with parties.. other than to point out that both parties had to come together to pass Gramm-Leah-Billey and repeal Glass-Steagall..... These aren't stupid people... for Gods sake Clinton is a fucking Rhodes Scholar!!. and I'd bet that some of the 565 members of Congress at least made it past high school...

Bottom line.. they knew what they were doing.. what it would cause.. AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY.

Nobody is denying that both parties’ played a role in our current economic situation.
However, if you’re trying to conflate the Democratic Party’s historical role as the party of reform, with the Republicans’, who have opposed reform for the better part of a century, try again.
At the time it was abolished, Glass-Steagall was characterized as just more meddlesome government red tape preventing the markets from working their special magic.
If that sounds in any way familiar, it’s because the GOP is still playing the same old sad broken song.

As far as Volker goes.. he's a bit late to the party with his idea... looks like there already was a bi-partisan effort to repair the damage done.

Please.
The idea of reinstating Glass-Steagall has been kicking around FOR YEARS ever since it was repealed.
If it somehow makes you feel better that a Republican proposed the idea to re-introduce Democratic reform legislation, go right ahead, and take that consolation booby prize.
I’m just glad it’s being re-instated. Period.

They're ALL corporate sell outs..

I don't care about either party.... Dems and Reps are the same.... and they are all to blame because they are morally corrupt...

Why would something that has been as you say "kicked around for years" (but not on Bush's watch), that gets re-proposed (in a bi-partisan way no less) the year after Wall Street melts down.. suddenly get passed just because Obama is President??

Nothing is gonna be reinstalled, cause after the midterms congress is gonna be gridlocked...

and again... I don't care about parties... they are all the same... Demlicans, Repurocrats...

[The_Noble_Cause]

Why would something that has been as you say "kicked around for years" (but not on Bush's watch),…

Those economists and reformers that wanted the act re-instated all along never went away under Bush, they just didn’t have the president’s ear.
Bush was honed in like a laser on uprooting FDR protections (namely, social security), not reinforcing them.

...that gets re-proposed (in a bi-partisan way no less) the year after Wall Street melts down..

Good on McCain for having a moment of lucidity, even if his righteous action is probably motivated by an upcoming tough primary fight.
However, with moderate rockefeller Republicans, like McCain, rapidly going the way of the Dodo, what makes you so sure one will always be around to help push progressive policies?

…suddenly get passed just because Obama is President??

For the same reason it took electing a Democrat in 2008 to enforce labor laws, or to sign the Lilly LedBetter Fair Pay Act, or to push for Net Neutrality, or to take on the credit cards’ usorious interest rates and deceptive practices.
As broken as the two party system is, and as corrupt as the Democrats are, of the two parties, they remain the only legitimate avenue of change.

...and again... I don't care about parties... they are all the same... Demlicans, Repurocrats...

Your cynicism is well-deserved and, for the most part, I agree with it.
But what’s your answer? - sit at home and don’t vote?
That form of civic nihlisim will get you exactly nowhere.

[Rockindeano]

Jesus Christ, looks to me that the Cons just got annihilated with a force called the truth and facts. Kind of hard to argue facts isn't it guys? Seriously, what 7 Wishes posted is not fuzzy math or typos. The Republican presidents did an absolutely dreadful job compared to the Democratic presidents.

How long until a long windbag copy and paste letter from the National Review comes from FF as a diversionary tactic criticizing Obama for not wearing an American flag lapel or something like stupid like looking arrogant during the SOTU?

[lights1961]

Jesus Christ, looks to me that the Cons just got annihilated with a force called the truth and facts. Kind of hard to argue facts isn't it guys? Seriously, what 7 Wishes posted is not fuzzy math or typos. The Republican presidents did an absolutely dreadful job compared to the Democratic presidents.

How long til a long windbag copy and paste letter from the National Review comes from FF as a diversionary tactic?

so I guess 1977-1980 doesnt count, in the lousy dreadful jobs as president...

[Rockindeano]

Jesus Christ, looks to me that the Cons just got annihilated with a force called the truth and facts. Kind of hard to argue facts isn't it guys? Seriously, what 7 Wishes posted is not fuzzy math or typos. The Republican presidents did an absolutely dreadful job compared to the Democratic presidents.

How long til a long windbag copy and paste letter from the National Review comes from FF as a diversionary tactic?

so I guess 1977-1980 doesnt count, in the lousy dreadful jobs as president...

Didn't you read the stats? Carter still did better with economic growth than every republican president.

[separate_wayz]

As broken as the two party system is, and as corrupt as the Democrats are, of the two parties, they remain the only legitimate avenue of change.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one. Take a look at who chairs these important House committees (and when they first took office) and ask yourself when's the last time they entertained a new idea:

Appropriations: David Obey (1969)
Education and Labor: George Miller (1975)
Energy and Commerce: Henry Waxman (1975)
Financial Services: Barney Frank (1975)
Judiciary: John Conyers (1965)
Transportation and Infrastructure: James Oberstar (1975)
Ways and Means: Charles Rangel (1971)
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: Ed Markey (1976)

Talk about ossified, encrusted fossils. I don't think any of these guys have entertained a new idea or have been open to real government reform since the Jurassic Era (or the 1970s, whichever came first).

[separate_wayz]

Jesus Christ, looks to me that the Cons just got annihilated with a force called the truth and facts. Kind of hard to argue facts isn't it guys? Seriously, what 7 Wishes posted is not fuzzy math or typos. The Republican presidents did an absolutely dreadful job compared to the Democratic presidents.

How long til a long windbag copy and paste letter from the National Review comes from FF as a diversionary tactic?

so I guess 1977-1980 doesnt count, in the lousy dreadful jobs as president...

Didn't you read the stats? Carter still did better with economic growth than every republican president.

Really? "Carter ... did better with economic growth than every republican president" [your words]?

I'd like to see the inflation-adjusted GDP figures to justify that one. (You do know that you're supposed to adjust nominal GDP for inflation to arrive at real GDP, don't you?)

FYI: I'd love to see the Democrats run on that theme this fall: "We're Bringing You Back the Carter Economy!". Good luck with that one .....

[Rockindeano]

Jesus Christ, looks to me that the Cons just got annihilated with a force called the truth and facts. Kind of hard to argue facts isn't it guys? Seriously, what 7 Wishes posted is not fuzzy math or typos. The Republican presidents did an absolutely dreadful job compared to the Democratic presidents.

How long til a long windbag copy and paste letter from the National Review comes from FF as a diversionary tactic?

so I guess 1977-1980 doesnt count, in the lousy dreadful jobs as president...

Didn't you read the stats? Carter still did better with economic growth than every republican president.

Really? "Carter ... did better with economic growth than every republican president" [your words]?

I'd like to see the inflation-adjusted GDP figures to justify that one. (You do know that you're supposed to adjust nominal GDP for inflation to arrive at real GDP, don't you?)

FYI: I'd love to see the Democrats run on that theme this fall: "We're Bringing You Back the Carter Economy!". Good luck with that one .....

Again, more diversion. You can't read the FACTS? Carter sucked big time, in a lot of areas, but again, economic growth under Carter was still higher than every republican president and at least he was in the black...two of your guys were -1 and minus 9 respectively. Pathetic.

[separate_wayz]

Jesus Christ, looks to me that the Cons just got annihilated with a force called the truth and facts. Kind of hard to argue facts isn't it guys? Seriously, what 7 Wishes posted is not fuzzy math or typos. The Republican presidents did an absolutely dreadful job compared to the Democratic presidents.

How long til a long windbag copy and paste letter from the National Review comes from FF as a diversionary tactic?

so I guess 1977-1980 doesnt count, in the lousy dreadful jobs as president...

Didn't you read the stats? Carter still did better with economic growth than every republican president.

Really? "Carter ... did better with economic growth than every republican president" [your words]?

I'd like to see the inflation-adjusted GDP figures to justify that one. (You do know that you're supposed to adjust nominal GDP for inflation to arrive at real GDP, don't you?)

FYI: I'd love to see the Democrats run on that theme this fall: "We're Bringing You Back the Carter Economy!". Good luck with that one .....

Again, more diversion. You can't read the FACTS? Carter sucked big time, in a lot of areas, but again, economic growth under Carter was still higher than every republican president and at least he was in the black...two of your guys were -1 and minus 9 respectively. Pathetic.

You can't read your own posts (or mine apparently). Real economic growth (GDP adjusted for inflation) was negative under Carter and was obviously a major factor in his defeat in 1980. Just as a reminder ....

1978 7.7% inflation, 6.0% unemployment
1979 11.3% inflation, 5.8% unemployment
1980 13.5% inflation, 7.0% unemployment

Real personal income growth (i.e., income adjusted for inflation) was -3.25% in 1980 -- an absolutely horrid number. That figure is worse than Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush. Bottom of the heap, in other words.

Obviously the Carter/Democrat economic record dragged into the early 1980s before marginal tax rates and the regulatory burden were cut in a somewhat bi-partisan fashion to spur economic growth.

Trying to resuscitate Carter's zombie economy is a hopeless cause. But I still encourage all you Democrats to do it anyway during the autumn 2010 elections.

[Rockindeano]

I don't know why I even brought up Carter as he was one of the worst presidents ever. Ok ok, wipe him out. Pick another Democratic president and we'll argue this further. So excuse me, you took our worst guy and won an argument. Take another of our guys and we'll beat you every time.

[Rockindeano]

Trying to resuscitate Carter's zombie economy is a hopeless cause. But I still encourage all you Democrats to do it anyway during the autumn 2010 elections.

Dude, I know how elections work. The party out of power usually wins the next mid term. The Pubbies will win some seats, but I really don't think it will be as big as you think it will or even as big as the Dems victory was in 2006. The Dems will still have majorities in BOTH houses and of course the pretty big white one too. You have a ways to go to get back any shred of power. Obama reached out and tried to engage you dimwits Friday at the GOP meeting. If he continues to do this, you will have a problem, because as we all saw from Friday, he wiped the floor with all the people who say "no." Until you become creative and can offer up anything, the American people will see through that shit and the losses will be at a minimum come November. Better hope Obama doesn't get on message as it looks as if he is...the guy is very effective when on his game.

[separate_wayz]

Trying to resuscitate Carter's zombie economy is a hopeless cause. But I still encourage all you Democrats to do it anyway during the autumn 2010 elections.

Dude, I know how elections work. The party out of power usually wins the next mid term. The Pubbies will win some seats, but I really don't think it will be as big as you think it will or even as big as the Dems victory was in 2006. The Dems will still have majorities in BOTH houses and of course the pretty big white one too. You have a ways to go to get back any shred of power. Obama reached out and tried to engage you dimwits Friday at the GOP meeting. If he continues to do this, you will have a problem, because as we all saw from Friday, he wiped the floor with all the people who say "no." Until you become creative and can offer up anything, the American people will see through that shit and the losses will be at a minimum come November. Better hope Obama doesn't get on message as it looks as if he is...the guy is very effective when on his game.

Who knows what will happen on November 2, 2010. Nine months is a lifetime in politics. But the winds don't seem to be blowing too well for the Democrats at the moment, to say the least. Notable to me is the performance of independents in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts -- a very hard swing toward the GOP, with 60-66% going for the GOP candidates. These are horrible numbers for the Democrats, even if they moderate a bit in the next 9 months.

You mention "those who say no". Hate to say it, but the American people are saying "yes" to "those who say no". The polling is looking godawful, even for Democrats in fairly safe seats/states. Unbelievably, even Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer are looking vulnerable.

As far as last Friday goes, I think Obama fared well enough to rally his supporters (to the extent that many people even noticed the broadcast on Friday, which I'd guess was largely insider baseball). But I suspect Obama did nothing to move independents -- and that's where the Democrats' problem is. Polling after his State of the Union speech showed that Obama rallied Democrats a few percentage points, but did nothing with Republicans or independents. Obama seemed to me on Friday (at the GOP retreat) to be more interested in winning the argument than in appearing conciliatory.

I'll repeat my earlier prediction -- post-2010 election, the GOP will have 48 seats in the U.S. Senate (up from 41 currently), and 213 seats in the U.S House (up from 178 currently). So, yes, if my prediction holds true, you'll be right: the Democrats will still control both houses of Congress. But they will have essentially ungovernable majorities.

[RedWingFan]

Obama bows to Tampa mayor!!!! What an idiot!!!

[The_Noble_Cause]

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one. Take a look at who chairs these important House committees (and when they first took office) and ask yourself when's the last time they entertained a new idea:

Appropriations: David Obey (1969)
Education and Labor: George Miller (1975)
Energy and Commerce: Henry Waxman (1975)
Financial Services: Barney Frank (1975)
Judiciary: John Conyers (1965)
Transportation and Infrastructure: James Oberstar (1975)
Ways and Means: Charles Rangel (1971)
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: Ed Markey (1976)

Talk about ossified, encrusted fossils. I don't think any of these guys have entertained a new idea or have been open to real government reform since the Jurassic Era (or the 1970s, whichever came first).

Meaningless.
In my post, I listed reforms that have been signed into law, or are currently making their way through committee.
Like I said, when the Volcker plan comes up for a vote, get out your scoreboard, and watch and see which party means business...

Personally, I’ll take stale geriatric farts who believe in regulation, over supply-side fundamentalists, who leave everything up to the "inerrant" gods of the market.
For fuck's sake, even Greenspan has thrown himself in front of congress and humbly admitted the error of his no-oversight ways.
When will you guys wake up?