Obama did not inherit anything

[BobG]

Who died and left these problems to Obama? Obama spent 650 million dollars of other peoples' money to buy the presidency and all its problems. Therefore, he paid for it and now he owns it.

[Stuball]

Like Bush in 2000.......... yet Sean claaimed Bush inherited a recession

[Reform2009]

Bottom line is that BARAT OBAMA is absolutely clueless and is Pelosi`s pawn and Biden`s (PUPPETMASTER) PUPPET. A little example; moron wants to convert the White House bowling alley into a basketball court. Wants to convert the Lincoln room into an arcade.

[Stuball]

Bottom line is that BARAT OBAMA is absolutely clueless and is Pelosi`s pawn and Biden`s (PUPPETMASTER) PUPPET. A little example; moron wants to convert the White House bowling alley into a basketball court. Wants to convert the Lincoln room into an arcade.
link?

[RickRhetoric]

Obama did inherit this economic great depression, however it was self-inflicted.

He and his Democrats refused to let America drill, nuke and dig -- thus draining the country of its wealth. And the coup de grace was giving the all the nation's "poor" expensive homes, thus wrecking the housing industry.

He inherited it -- but he also created it.

[Reform2009]

Obama did inherit this economic great depression, however it was self-inflicted.

He and his Democrats refused to let America drill, nuke and dig -- thus draining the country of its wealth. And the coup de grace was giving the all the nation's "poor" expensive homes, thus wrecking the housing industry.

He inherited it -- but he also created it.

and he is alway igniting America`s problems like California wildfires. Obama is absolutely clueless. America does not operate like the city of Chicago with Future Felon Richard Daley.

[ChrisSpencer]

Who died and left these problems to Obama? Obama spent 650 million dollars of other peoples' money to buy the presidency and all its problems. Therefore, he paid for it and now he owns it.

:rolleyes:

Were you in a coma for the last 2 years?

[ChrisSpencer]

Obama did inherit this economic great depression, however it was self-inflicted.

He and his Democrats refused to let America drill, nuke and dig -- thus draining the country of its wealth. And the coup de grace was giving the all the nation's "poor" expensive homes, thus wrecking the housing industry.

He inherited it -- but he also created it.

Last I checked the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and all of the deregulation in lending that came thereof (bank holding firms, explosion in CDO leveraging) which created the bubble that we experienced was sponsored and widely supported, if not demanded by REPUBLICANS.

Laying the blame on Democrats entirely is an intellectually dishonest way of making this recession into a partisan bickering game. In reality no single party is to blame for what has happened. The only party that is at fault for anything here is the Democratic Party for allowing the recession to turn their focus into socialising and spending their way into obscure ideological goals - but that has nothing to do with the CAUSES of the problem.

[7426k]

Last I checked the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and all of the deregulation in lending that came thereof (bank holding firms, explosion in CDO leveraging) which created the bubble that we experienced was sponsored and widely supported, if not demanded by REPUBLICANS.

Laying the blame on Democrats entirely is an intellectually dishonest way of making this recession into a partisan bickering game. In reality no single party is to blame for what has happened. The only party that is at fault for anything here is the Democratic Party for allowing the recession to turn their focus into socialising and spending their way into obscure ideological goals - but that has nothing to do with the CAUSES of the problem.

It's almost as if the bill was sponsored by three Republicans or something....and you might even get the idea that the original bill passed the senate on a party-line vote or something.

[drshoo]

:rolleyes:

Were you in a coma for the last 2 years?

The spin by the WH on "INHERITED" will by said for the next 4 years, Obummer does not want to take responsibility for the Dow dropping 3 thousand points since Nov 4th, the unemployment rate increasing nor the 9000 Earmarks, accept the "inheritance" Mr President" it is your responsibility and the responsibility of your now "Chosen Cabinet".

[ChrisSpencer]

The spin by the WH on "INHERITED" will by said for the next 4 years, Obummer does not want to take responsibility for the Dow dropping 3 thousand points since Nov 4th, the unemployment rate increasing nor the 9000 Earmarks, accept the "inheritance" Mr President" it is your responsibility and the responsibility of your now "Chosen Cabinet".

Anyone whose taken even intro level courses in economics can see that the downward spiral started before Obama even entered the political arena for President. Granted, he hasn't done anything to make the situation better and after another year or so of observation we may be able to identify points where his plans have actually made things worse - but to assume that in the course of about 2 months a President can ruin an economy is simply ridiculous.

[RickRhetoric]

Last I checked the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and all of the deregulation in lending that came thereof (bank holding firms, explosion in CDO leveraging) which created the bubble that we experienced was sponsored and widely supported, if not demanded by REPUBLICANS.

Granted. (See, I'm a conservative that'll listen to reason.)

The Republicans were indeed lax in implementing and inflicting regulations on the private commercial sector. Not over-regulating business is and has always been a Republican forté. And in this instance, the Democrats took advantage of the vulnerable lax-regulation situation by sneaking in some bills to their own liking.

[ChrisSpencer]

Granted. (See, I'm a conservative that'll listen to reason.)

The Republicans were indeed lax in implementing and inflicting regulations on the private commercial sector. Not over-regulating business is and has always been a Republican forté. And in this instance, the Democrats took advantage of the vulnerable lax-regulation situation by sneaking in some bills to their own liking.

Agreed.

Believe it or not but I am extremely conservative. But I also call it how I see it and IMO the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the idiots in Phil Gramm's circle are far more to blame than any failure from the miserable Carter years and the CRA.

[Rohn]

The spin by the WH on "INHERITED" will by said for the next 4 years, Obummer does not want to take responsibility for the Dow dropping 3 thousand points since Nov 4th, the unemployment rate increasing nor the 9000 Earmarks, accept the "inheritance" Mr President" it is your responsibility and the responsibility of your now "Chosen Cabinet".Obama wasn't President until Jan 20th. What happened between Nov 4th and Jan 20th falls on President Bush. You're logic is a bit loose, if I dare say.:silenced:

[wildcat87]

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BD224460E-3C4F-49A2-8CE4-F11EAA4697BE%7D&siteid=mktw

The exotic loans have mushroomed in the past three years, going from less than 2% of loans in 2000 to more than a third in 2006, industry data show. In 2005, about half of the exotic loans sold nationally were originated in California.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. found that exotic loans were more prevalent in the housing markets with the biggest price increases, and suggested that the loans were both a cause of and a reaction to the housing boom.

"The greater availability of flexible mortgage structures probably allowed price increases to outstrip growth in incomes to a greater extent than would otherwise have been the case," said Sandra Thompson, acting director of supervision and consumer protection at the FDIC. But the popularity of the loans is also a response to the higher prices, she said.

The regulators testified that defaults and foreclosures on nontraditional loans remain very low, but they emphasized that it's too soon to tell what might happen if the economy slows, interest rates rise and housing prices stagnate.

Mortgage-industry representatives at the hearing insisted that they are merely responding to consumer demand. It's not up to the mortgage broker or banker to determine what's a "suitable" loan, said Robert Broeksmit of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

"I strongly believe that the market's success in making these nontraditional products available is a positive development, not a cause for alarm," Broeksmit said.

Consumer advocates, however, said the consequences could be devastating because many borrowers simply don't understand what they are buying and won't be able to afford the payments.


I wonder if those ARMs ever started resetting or if prices started stagnating...

[Celtic Pax]

Obama wasn't President until Jan 20th. What happened between Nov 4th and Jan 20th falls on President Bush. You're logic is a bit loose, if I dare say.:silenced: But you are forgetting the democratically controlled congress since 2006 that Obama was a part of as well. Obama IS part of the problem and did not inherit the recession as he was part of the decision making body that created the recession in the first place. Bush may have been president BUT it is the congress that ultimately passes legislation that sets the budget.

[ignacio71]

Everyone is missing the point with the Obama administration. The stock market is not a consideration for them. To them, the stock market and its interests are part of the "ownership class", which in his mind, is the enemy. In a marxist framework the stock market shouldn't even exist, and he is doing everything he can to eliminate its value. The only miscalculation they might have made is that, after 30 plus years of the democartization of capitalism, the population at large depends too much on the stock market (i.e. retirement, education, etc.) to be marginalized. The question is whether after the decimaiton of the stock market's value, will the population continue to believe in capitalism as the most effective vehicle to attain individual goals. Obama is counting on being able to dash those dreams and replace the government in its place.

[7426k]

Obama IS part of the problem and did not inherit the recession as he was part of the decision making body that created the recession in the first place.

^This belief that the government controls the economy and therefore creates recessions is both odd and frightening.

[Drive Business]

Bush may have been president BUT it is the congress that ultimately passes legislation that sets the budget.

And who signs the legislation.....

[Drive Business]

The recession started before Obama took office. There's no way to change that.

Arguing the problems with his social stimus spending would be more effective.

[wildcat87]

But you are forgetting the democratically controlled congress since 2006 that Obama was a part of as well. Obama IS part of the problem and did not inherit the recession as he was part of the decision making body that created the recession in the first place. Bush may have been president BUT it is the congress that ultimately passes legislation that sets the budget.

So I guess since the Repubs controlled congress for SIX of Clinton's admin that he's not to blame for anything?

Here's and idea- BOTH BIG PARTIES ARE FILTHY.

[gonavy]

So I guess since the Repubs controlled congress for SIX of Clinton's admin that he's not to blame for anything?

Here's and idea- BOTH BIG PARTIES ARE FILTHY.

And we have a winner!!!!:clap::clap::clap:

[trueamercian09]

I would assert that the Obama administration's lack of concern in the Market isn't due to some Marxist agenda but rather a solemn realization that the Market was over-inflated and must correct. Unfortunately, that necessary downward correction is eroding people's wealth but, realistically that wealth was never really there to begin with.

[wildcat87]

I would assert that the Obama administration's lack of concern in the Market isn't due to some Marxist agenda but rather a solemn realization that the Market was over-inflated and must correct. Unfortunately, that necessary downward correction is eroding people's wealth but, realistically that wealth was never really there to begin with.

Agree with BOLD 100%

[stoked]

Like Bush in 2000.......... yet Sean claaimed Bush inherited a recession

Bush never complained about it, did he? When Bush 'inherited' Clinton's disaster, the libbies screamed bloody murder, even though the stock market had already lost half its value BEFORE Bush came in. Now, they are quite as church mouses, aren't they? Yeah, liberals are liars.

[Celtic Pax]

^This belief that the government controls the economy and therefore creates recessions is both odd and frightening.Government regulations and laws DO affect the economy and can lead to a business atmosphere that discourages investment and a sense of security needed to conduct business. When that is missing, business is less likely to take the risked needed for economic activity. Anyone who does not believe that government affects the economy knows little about either.

[Celtic Pax]

The recession started before Obama took office. There's no way to change that.

Arguing the problems with his social stimus spending would be more effective.And theres no way to change the fact that Obama was a member of the legislative branch during the time the recession started. Both parties are part of the problem BUT Obama does not get off scott free from being part of the problem either just because he was not president.

[Celtic Pax]

Bush never complained about it, did he? When Bush 'inherited' Clinton's disaster, the libbies screamed bloody murder, even though the stock market had already lost half its value BEFORE Bush came in. Now, they are quite as church mouses, aren't they? Yeah, liberals are liars.Also, Bush was NOT part of the Senate or House in the 2 year start of the 2000 recession as Obama was leading up to the present recession.

[wildcat87]

And theres no way to change the fact that Obama was a member of the legislative branch during the time the recession started. Both parties are part of the problem BUT Obama does not get off scott free from being part of the problem either just because he was not president.

Indeed

[Drive Business]

And theres no way to change the fact that Obama was a member of the legislative branch during the time the recession started. Both parties are part of the problem BUT Obama does not get off scott free from being part of the problem either just because he was not president.

Obama will 'own' the ecomony soon enough. Between the stimulus and the budget, there is enough economic input to award him ownership. But the Obama spending has yet to hit the economy.

The rest is political hack bickering with little economic insight.

[7426k]

Government regulations and laws DO affect the economy and can lead to a business atmosphere that discourages investment and a sense of security needed to conduct business. When that is missing, business is less likely to take the risked needed for economic activity. Anyone who does not believe that government affects the economy knows little about either.

I had a course at the local junior college once, so I think I understand the topic.

Now, can you explain to me which steps the government took in 2007 to bring about the collapse of the stock exchange that started in October of that year, and which steps the government took to create the recession that started in december of that year?

[jrmarlin2000]

Who died and left these problems to Obama? Obama spent 650 million dollars of other peoples' money to buy the presidency and all its problems. Therefore, he paid for it and now he owns it.

I am elated that someone has FINALLY said hat I have been thinking since the beginning. I also think it shows very poor taste on Obama's part to even talk about Bush -- Bush didn't spend $1.5 Trillion :rolleyes: right out of the gate. In fact, NO PRESIDENT has ever had such audacity. Not even Clinton. (Imagine that -- he's probably ticked he didn't think about that one.):boohoo:

Obama is in way over his head and it will hopefully not take a "Complete Market Destruction" to make the people that voted for him to realize it, too. :arrow: Of course, people who voted for Obama also have to deal with economy getting worse everyday just like we do -- so I guess that's a little bit of justice in all this, too. :D

[distantshores51]

I am elated that someone has FINALLY said hat I have been thinking since the beginning. I also think it shows very poor taste on Obama's part to even talk about Bush -- Bush didn't spend $1.5 Trillion :rolleyes: right out of the gate. In fact, NO PRESIDENT has ever had such audacity. Not even Clinton. (Imagine that -- he's probably ticked he didn't think about that one.):boohoo:

Obama is in way over his head and it will hopefully not take a "Complete Market Destruction" to make the people that voted for him to realize it, too. :arrow: Of course, people who voted for Obama also have to deal with economy getting worse everyday just like we do -- so I guess that's a little bit of justice in all this, too. :D

The problem is not that bush spent money, but that he didnt do anything....seriously. he sat on his hands whille the economy went in the crapper. wait, he did have the stimulus tax refund thingy... and then did nothing. yeah, it worked great.

[ChrisSpencer]

But you are forgetting the democratically controlled congress since 2006 that Obama was a part of as well. Obama IS part of the problem and did not inherit the recession as he was part of the decision making body that created the recession in the first place. Bush may have been president BUT it is the congress that ultimately passes legislation that sets the budget.

You really think that the recession was the result of decisions made only after 2006?

The truth is that actions made both in the year 2000, and in the recovery from the 2001-2002 down periods are at fault for the recession. The most important period to note is 2003-2006.

[ChrisSpencer]

Anyone who does not believe that government affects the economy knows little about either.

Yes, government affects the economy.

Does government determine the direction of the economy? No.

Did Obama create the recession? No

Did Bush create the recession? No

Simple as that. Irrefutable.

[jrmarlin2000]

The problem is not that bush spent money, but that he didnt do anything....seriously. he sat on his hands whille the economy went in the crapper. wait, he did have the stimulus tax refund thingy... and then did nothing. yeah, it worked great.
If you really want to get parsnipity, actually it was Clinton that claimed everyone should be able to own a house and held the Federal Reserve over the banks' heads if they did not put more risky loans out there. That was a Clinton thing - not a Bush thing. Bush tried to get it overturned but Pelosi wouldn't have it -- nor would the other Democrats in the Senate and House -- so please, do some studying before saying something so crazy. The only reason Bush seemed to not do something is because hit roadblocks from Congress at EVERY turn when he tried to do something about the mortgage industry -- which in turn has poisoned a great deal of the system. But a $1.5 Trillion DOLLAR DEFICIT -- that is ridiculous -- and it is just another word for "It's expensive to implement socialism."

Just remember, because of Obama... yes, OBAMA, you now owe $80,000 for your household alone. Now, wouldn't you rather have that in your pocket than paying it out to Uncle Sam? Just remember that. That was NOT Bush. Hell, that wasn't even any other President in the history of this country. :idea::idea::idea:

[stoked]

The fix was in, they bought the election, so no, they did not inherit anything.

[jrmarlin2000]

The fix was in, they bought the election, so no, they did not inherit anything.
Thank you.

Our democracy has been bought and SOLD. It's rather unfortunate. Isn't it?

[ChrisSpencer]

The fix was in, they bought the election, so no, they did not inherit anything.

And how does that make any sense at all?

[wildcat87]

If you really want to get parsnipity, actually it was Clinton that claimed everyone should be able to own a house and held the Federal Reserve over the banks' heads if they did not put more risky loans out there. That was a Clinton thing - not a Bush thing. Bush tried to get it overturned but Pelosi wouldn't have it -- nor would the other Democrats in the Senate and House -- so please, do some studying before saying something so crazy. The only reason Bush seemed to not do something is because hit roadblocks from Congress at EVERY turn when he tried to do something about the mortgage industry -- which in turn has poisoned a great deal of the system. But a $1.5 Trillion DOLLAR DEFICIT -- that is ridiculous -- and it is just another word for "It's expensive to implement socialism."

Just remember, because of Obama... yes, OBAMA, you now owe $80,000 for your household alone. Now, wouldn't you rather have that in your pocket than paying it out to Uncle Sam? Just remember that. That was NOT Bush. Hell, that wasn't even any other President in the history of this country. :idea::idea::idea:

Clinton is definitely dirty in this, but Bush was just as big of a "homes for everyone" kinda guy:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020615.html

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060726.html

These are all his speeches verbatim from his own archive website. There are more.

[JerryN]

And how does that make any sense at all?

INHERIT is when your long lost uncle dies and you receive the deed to some property he owned in Alabama.

IF you go to Alabama and spend 2 years raising $200M and BUY some property ... you DIDN'T inherit it.

DOH!

[Drive Business]

INHERIT is when your long lost uncle dies and you receive the deed to some property he owned in Alabama.

IF you go to Alabama and spend 2 years raising $200M and BUY some property ... you DIDN'T inherit it.

DOH!

You do realize that 'owning' or 'inheriting' the economy are just figures of speech. He did not receive a deed for the US.
Your literal assertion that he spent money 'buying' the presidency, does not translate to him figuratively 'owning' or 'inheriting' the US or it's economy.

[JerryN]

You do realize that 'owning' or 'inheriting' the economy are just figures of speech. He did not receive a deed for the US.
Your literal assertion that he spent money 'buying' the presidency, does not translate to him figuratively 'owning' or 'inheriting' the US or it's economy.

I was not implying that he 'owned' anything.
Only pointing out that he made a MAJOR effort to attain the position he has.
To snivel about 'inheriting' some problems is rather disingenuous.

If he didn't want the job and all the responsibilities involved, he had ample opportunity to withdraw.

[Voxpopuli]

INHERIT is when your long lost uncle dies and you receive the deed to some property he owned in Alabama.

IF you go to Alabama and spend 2 years raising $200M and BUY some property ... you DIDN'T inherit it.

DOH!

That is deep.

[ChrisSpencer]

INHERIT is when your long lost uncle dies and you receive the deed to some property he owned in Alabama.

IF you go to Alabama and spend 2 years raising $200M and BUY some property ... you DIDN'T inherit it.

DOH!

And this relates to Obama how?

I'm trying to get you to explain your original statements that Obama didn't inherit anything. Ditch the obscure analogies.

[ChrisSpencer]

I was not implying that he 'owned' anything.
Only pointing out that he made a MAJOR effort to attain the position he has.
To snivel about 'inheriting' some problems is rather disingenuous.

If he didn't want the job and all the responsibilities involved, he had ample opportunity to withdraw.

So you're saying that since he wanted to be President he has no place now to state that these problems were created before he was President? Even when this crisis WAS created before he was President?

Would you rather him lie to you? I don't understand what your slant is here.

[Tigerdrafted]

The democrats are every bit as responsible with all their fillubuster hold outs to get their budget request during such times that the Republicans had the slimmist majority in the Senate.

Dannie Mae request another 30 billion.

[brinfan]

I'm quite tired of Obamas' post-election campaign speeches.
No one held a gun to his head to run for office. Concerning his 'inheritance'...when one voluntarily inherits a debt, one pays it. One does not just jump right in and increase it by billions!!!
This didn't all just happen over night and he knew it. The Dems latched on to him years ago. Someone 'raised' money for his college education, put him in the right places at the right time and oiled the Chicago 'machine'.
What he DID inherit is all the mone spending bills he's expected to sign. His choice now, is between his manhood and Nancy Pelosi.

Have a Day...-)

[ignacio71]

I'm quite tired of Obamas' post-election campaign speeches.
No one held a gun to his head to run for office. Concerning his 'inheritance'...when one voluntarily inherits a debt, one pays it. One does not just jump right in and increase it by billions!!!
This didn't all just happen over night and he knew it. The Dems latched on to him years ago. Someone 'raised' money for his college education, put him in the right places at the right time and oiled the Chicago 'machine'.
What he DID inherit is all the mone spending bills he's expected to sign. His choice now, is between his manhood and Nancy Pelosi.

Have a Day...-)

The hipocrisy of it is that he was in the senate while these supposed atrocities took place, and his voitng record reflects that he was more interested in shallow pandering, rather than addressing the difficult economic issues. OB just like most of his ilk, is doing what he knows best: playing the victim.

[FREE DON]

So Obsma has been telling the truth are you from another world!

[jmb6]

It's almost as if the bill was sponsored by three Republicans or something....and you might even get the idea that the original bill passed the senate on a party-line vote or something.

By that you mean 75% of democrats approved it, too?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png

Oh, and signed by a Democratic President.

Sorry, but it was a completely bi-partisan screw job.

[jmb6]

^This belief that the government controls the economy and therefore creates recessions is both odd and frightening.

I guess only in as much as you think the Federal Reserve Bank is part of the government.

[egs21]

The fix was in, they bought the election, so no, they did not inherit anything.

Is it just me or is it incredibly ironic for a Republican supporter to complain about "buying an election". Republicans have used their deep corporate sponsored pockets for years and now they want to cry foul when someone beats them at their own game. Let's not forget that the bulk of money Obama raised was from small donations from regular Americans. Obama used technology and an outstanding grass roots campaign to win. Get over it.

[kaydahl]

Let's also not forget that in 2007 Obama made a pledge to use public funds for the election. A promise that he abandoned when it became apparent that he would be able to raise more funds than his opponent. Yes, his tactics got results.


Is it just me or is it incredibly ironic for a Republican supporter to complain about "buying an election". Republicans have used their deep corporate sponsored pockets for years and now they want to cry foul when someone beats them at their own game. Let's not forget that the bulk of money Obama raised was from small donations from regular Americans. Obama used technology and an outstanding grass roots campaign to win. Get over it.

[PhantomPholly]

Last I checked the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and all of the deregulation in lending that came thereof (bank holding firms, explosion in CDO leveraging) which created the bubble that we experienced was sponsored and widely supported, if not demanded by REPUBLICANS.

Laying the blame on Democrats entirely is an intellectually dishonest way of making this recession into a partisan bickering game. In reality no single party is to blame for what has happened. The only party that is at fault for anything here is the Democratic Party for allowing the recession to turn their focus into socialising and spending their way into obscure ideological goals - but that has nothing to do with the CAUSES of the problem.

Well written. The lesson to learn from this is that Congressional "solutions" NEVER address real causes, even if (as sometimes happens) they accidentally address a REAL problem.

The question you have to ask yourself on each and every issue is, "Who do I trust my wallet with - myself, or the government?"

[egs21]

Let's also not forget that in 2007 Obama made a pledge to use public funds for the election. A promise that he abandoned when it became apparent that he would be able to raise more funds than his opponent. Yes, his tactics got results.

I actually didn't have a problem with that. I'm sure McCain would have done the same thing had he had the ability to raise money. The point is that Republicans for too long have always had the deep pockets and its amusing that they are now complaining when a Democrat beat them at their own game.

[unscum]

What would McCain have done to revive a US economy that fell off the cliff?

[egs21]

Who died and left these problems to Obama? Obama spent 650 million dollars of other peoples' money to buy the presidency and all its problems. Therefore, he paid for it and now he owns it.


A republican complaining about a democrat "buying the election". Priceless.

[egs21]

What would McCain have done to revive a US economy that fell off the cliff?


Well, considering if he said "he does not know much about the economy" I would imagine he would have continued the Bush economic policies. Thankfully Americans woke up and made the right choice in the election.

[Scot]

Well, all of you that voted for Obama, did you expect to get a leader, or a campaigner? The reason he keeps proclaiming the idea that he inhereted this recession is because he is a COWARD! He's afraid his programs are not going to work, and he doesn't have the courage to take responsiblity for the decisions he has made, nor does he have confidence in them to produce positive results. He is using this excuse as a preplanned 'OUT' so he can later tell us that he was forced into these decisions and really had no choice. He doesn't seem to care that he is dividing our country further apart instead of bringing it together.

Continually writing and delivering speaches aimed at duping the American people in an effort to maintain a popularity rating IS NOT LEADERSHIP.

BY THE WAY, BUSH IS GONE. CHANGE IS WHAT WAS PROMISED.

[egs21]

Well, all of you that voted for Obama, did you expect to get a leader, or a campaigner? The reason he keeps proclaiming the idea that he inhereted this recession is because he is a COWARD! He's afraid his programs are not going to work, and he doesn't have the courage to take responsiblity for the decisions he has made, nor does he have confidence in them to produce positive results. He is using this excuse as a preplanned 'OUT' so he can later tell us that he was forced into these decisions and really had no choice. He doesn't seem to care that he is dividing our country further apart instead of bringing it together.

Continually writing and delivering speaches aimed at duping the American people in an effort to maintain a popularity rating IS NOT LEADERSHIP.

BY THE WAY, BUSH IS GONE. CHANGE IS WHAT WAS PROMISED.


That's BS. A coward would shy away from problems and clearly Obama is tackling all the issues head on. I guaranty that he will take responsibility for his actions, but none of his programs and ideas have been in effect long enough at this point to make a clear conclusion if they had worked.

And he is not dividing the country, that is the most ridiculous statement I've heard. Republicans (and Rush Limbaugh) are the ones dividing the country by their desperate attacks to tear Obama down at every opportunity in a ploy to gain back political power that they rightfully lost after their dismal performance under Bush's era.

[7426k]

If the Federal Reserve had such control over the economy, you think we'd still be mired in this recession?
I guess only in as much as you think the Federal Reserve Bank is part of the government.

[rightwingrant]

If the Federal Reserve had such control over the economy, you think we'd still be mired in this recession?

The Fed is the main source of the boom/bust cycle, together with fractional reserve banking. The Fed is the planner of our economy. The boom economy is created when the Fed expands the money supply. When the Fed artificially reduces interest rates below the free market level, it sends a false message to entrepreneurs. Firms begin expanding as if consumers have increased their savings, but in fact they have reduced their savings due to the lower interest rates. The "boom" persists until firms realize there aren't enough real resources available to complete projects, and then the bust comes. The bust is the cure for the problems of the boom, but in steps the Fed to "save" us with even lower interest rates. This makes the correction take longer, if it is even allowed to run its course at all. The Fed was able to inflate us out of the dot com bust, which is undoubtedly why our current situation is so much worse now. In short, the very fact the Fed does have so much control is the reason why we are still in this recession.

[Scot]

That's BS. A coward would shy away from problems and clearly Obama is tackling all the issues head on. I guaranty that he will take responsibility for his actions, but none of his programs and ideas have been in effect long enough at this point to make a clear conclusion if they had worked.

And he is not dividing the country, that is the most ridiculous statement I've heard. Republicans (and Rush Limbaugh) are the ones dividing the country by their desperate attacks to tear Obama down at every opportunity in a ploy to gain back political power that they rightfully lost after their dismal performance under Bush's era.
This man had more popularity and more adoration coming into office than any President in my lifetime. We're like 82 days into his presidency and people are marching in tea parties all over the country. All these people are just idiots I guess.

He has laid blame on the previous administration, the corporations, the mortgage companies, the automakers and even radio talk show hosts. Give me a break. The only place he hasn't laid blame is where it belongs most. God forbid that any REGULAR AMERICAN PEOPLE acted irresponsibly and may carry some blame for the recession we're in right now. Obama won't say it because he's afraid of losing popularity, and that's all he's got.

Yeah, the people that bought a house that they knew they couldn't afford, cashed out of that house to buy a car or a boat they couldn't afford. Racked up a bunch of credit card bills they couldn't pay off. Lived beyond thier means with free money borrowed from an artificially inflated economy. You know these people, the ones that organizations like ACORN talk about. The ones that were duped by those predatory lenders who assured them that their incomes would increase by 20% and the value of their house would double in 5 years.

You know the people I'm talking about. The same people that are buying into Obama's predatory budget numbers. Borrowing and spending based on the HOPE of a rosey future is the core of our recession. Now, in pivotal economic times, Obama is using the same BS that those dispicable lenders used to tout his budget.

[egs21]

This man had more popularity and more adoration coming into office than any President in my lifetime. We're like 82 days into his presidency and people are marching in tea parties all over the country. All these people are just idiots I guess.

He has laid blame on the previous administration, the corporations, the mortgage companies, the automakers and even radio talk show hosts. Give me a break. The only place he hasn't laid blame is where it belongs most. God forbid that any REGULAR AMERICAN PEOPLE acted irresponsibly and may carry some blame for the recession we're in right now. Obama won't say it because he's afraid of losing popularity, and that's all he's got.

Yeah, the people that bought a house that they knew they couldn't afford, cashed out of that house to buy a car or a boat they couldn't afford. Racked up a bunch of credit card bills they couldn't pay off. Lived beyond thier means with free money borrowed from an artificially inflated economy. You know these people, the ones that organizations like ACORN talk about. The ones that were duped by those predatory lenders who assured them that their incomes would increase by 20% and the value of their house would double in 5 years.

You know the people I'm talking about. The same people that are buying into Obama's predatory budget numbers. Borrowing and spending based on the HOPE of a rosey future is the core of our recession. Now, in pivotal economic times, Obama is using the same BS that those dispicable lenders used to tout his budget.

You are crazy if you think Obama can change the course of 8 years of failed polices in just 82 days. Obviously there are people out there like you who have that unrealistic approach, so Obama has to remind everyone that the mess he inherited will take time to sort through.

Certainly regular Americans need to share in blame for this as well. I've never disputed that and Obama has recognized that several times in speeches he has made. Right now, it is time to unite as a country instead of trying to drag down an energetic and intelligent leader who is tackling many issues head on. He will not be perfect, but I do think he can help to guide us through many of the problems we face.

[Scot]

An unrealistic approach. Approving a $787 billion dollar spending bill WITHOUT READING it, by a man who has never even run a payroll?

I'm sorry, intelligent he may be in a studius kind of way, but experienced he certainly is not. This is just too much to manage at one time for any man. That's what is unrealistic. Unless he has an agenda that is a bit more sinister in mind. We'll have to see about that.

[Lego-Man]

Anyone whose taken even intro level courses in economics can see that the downward spiral started before Obama even entered the political arena for President. Granted, he hasn't done anything to make the situation better and after another year or so of observation we may be able to identify points where his plans have actually made things worse - but to assume that in the course of about 2 months a President can ruin an economy is simply ridiculous.

Where were you 8 years ago when Bush was blamed for the economy on Jan 21?

[egs21]

An unrealistic approach. Approving a $787 billion dollar spending bill WITHOUT READING it, by a man who has never even run a payroll?

I'm sorry, intelligent he may be in a studius kind of way, but experienced he certainly is not. This is just too much to manage at one time for any man. That's what is unrealistic. Unless he has an agenda that is a bit more sinister in mind. We'll have to see about that.

If you think everyone in Congress and Executive branches reads every single bill page by page, then you are not very well informed. Considering the immense size of all the bills and legislation, it would be impossible to accomplish that. That is why they have staff to help out.

It is a lot to manage for just one man and I don't think it all falls on him as President. Congress and other branches of government share much of the responsibility. I will say this again...he will not be perfect, nor will any President. But I think he his tackling the issues head on and we will have to see how successful he is as time goes on.

Your last statement of Obama possibly having a "sinister plan" clearly shows your bias. I don't know how anyone could ever take anything you say rationally because you appear to just be "Obama bashing" for the sake of doing it.

[Lego-Man]

An unrealistic approach. Approving a $787 billion dollar spending bill WITHOUT READING it, by a man who has never even run a payroll?

I'm sorry, intelligent he may be in a studius kind of way, but experienced he certainly is not. This is just too much to manage at one time for any man. That's what is unrealistic. Unless he has an agenda that is a bit more sinister in mind. We'll have to see about that.

Found in my Email

The AP is reporting that two days after he lifted President Bush's executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research on human embryos, President Obama signed a law that bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

What? You Say. He removes President Bush's Ban on federal funding of Stem Cell research and then signs a law that forbids federal funding of stem cell research. That doesn't make sense, how is this possible?

Well here is what happened folks. President Obama signed the omnibus appropriations bill into law on Wednesday not knowing that buried in the 465 page bill was what is know as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every year since 1996.

The amendment says, in part:

"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for-(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."



Found in Section 509 of Title V of the omnibus bill (at page 280 of the 465-page document), the federal funding ban not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to a human embryo, it also mandates that the government use an all-inclusive definition of "human embryo" that encompasses any nascent human life from the moment that life comes into being, even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other means.

"For the purposes of this section," says the law, "the term 'human embryo or embryos' includes any organism that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells."



At a widely publicized White House ceremony on Monday, President Obama signed his own executive order lifting an executive order that President Bush had signed in 2001.

"For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions," said the order that President Obama signed Monday.



"The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind."



The order went on to say:

"The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law."



However, thanks to President Obama signing the omnibus appropriations bill on Wednesday, he unknowingly signed the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill into law as well, which will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.

Which brings me to a couple of questions here, what happened to Obama's promise to wait and to not immediately sign into law, bills that came across his desk without reading them, and didn't he or someone on his staff read this bill before he signed it. Not that I'm complaining mind you because I supported President Bush's stand on this.

But can you just imagine what a field day the press would have had if this was Bush who had signed a bill that contradicted something he lifted. they would have been howling on how inept he is, etc.,etc..

Does Obama have a clue? It's certainly looks like he doesn't.

By not reading it or having staff read it, he will be signing conflicting laws into effect for his entire administration.

[Lego-Man]

If you think everyone in Congress and Executive branches reads every single bill page by page, then you are not very well informed. Considering the immense size of all the bills and legislation, it would be impossible to accomplish that. That is why they have staff to help out. [quote]Read me last post. This should show that the staff doesn't read it either.

[quote=egs21;52535471]It is a lot to manage for just one man and I don't think it all falls on him as President. Congress and other branches of government share much of the responsibility. I will say this again...he will not be perfect, nor will any President. But I think he his tackling the issues head on and we will have to see how successful he is as time goes on. Or unsuccessful. Maybe you should have lived in Illinois when he was in the state legislator. I did, and that's the biggest reason I wouldn't vote for him. His record is against him. As the saying goes, his reputation precedes him.

Your last statement of Obama possibly having a "sinister plan" clearly shows your bias. I don't know how anyone could ever take anything you say rationally because you appear to just be "Obama bashing" for the sake of doing it.Where were you for the 8 years of "Bush is a Nazi", "Bush is a Globalist", "Bush is a crime-lord", "The Bush crime-family", "Bush is only out to make his big-oil friends richer at the cost of the middle-class"?

Sorry, your last statement shows a bit of bias there on your part. Should we now never take anything you say rationally?

[Getty Girl]

And he is not dividing the country, that is the most ridiculous statement I've heard. Republicans (and Rush Limbaugh) are the ones dividing the country by their desperate attacks to tear Obama down at every opportunity in a ploy to gain back political power that they rightfully lost after their dismal performance under Bush's era.

Obama is absolutely dividing this country with his socialist agenda. He is creating a class war and to deny that is having your head in the sand.

[Getty Girl]

no disrespect egs21 but he does not fool me nor does he fool millions of others.

[Scot]

If you think everyone in Congress and Executive branches reads every single bill page by page, then you are not very well informed. Considering the immense size of all the bills and legislation, it would be impossible to accomplish that. That is why they have staff to help out.

It is a lot to manage for just one man and I don't think it all falls on him as President. Congress and other branches of government share much of the responsibility. I will say this again...he will not be perfect, nor will any President. But I think he his tackling the issues head on and we will have to see how successful he is as time goes on.

Your last statement of Obama possibly having a "sinister plan" clearly shows your bias. I don't know how anyone could ever take anything you say rationally because you appear to just be "Obama bashing" for the sake of doing it.
I certainly would not believe that the President and everyone else in Congress reads each and every page of a Bill, but I think you're already forgetting the speed at which he rushed that Bill through Congress.

Rationality. What do you really know about Obama? Did you know his mother? His Father? His mentors as a child? He did come from a broken home. Do you truely know what relieigion he is? Does he have a racial bias? (ex. Rev Wright) Do you really know what drives his political agenda? How much do you know about his wife?

Couple all of this with the fact that he has never even held down a real job and he is implementing radical spending programs on a dailey basis. My rationality tells me that the way of life I have grown accustomed to in this country may soon be in jeopardy.

[egs21]

Obama is absolutely dividing this country with his socialist agenda. He is creating a class war and to deny that is having your head in the sand.

I don't believe the whole "class war" argument. Obama is merely letting Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Using your logic, one could argue that Bush created "class war" by implemented the tax cuts in the first place.

[egs21]

I certainly would not believe that the President and everyone else in Congress reads each and every page of a Bill, but I think you're already forgetting the speed at which he rushed that Bill through Congress.

Rationality. What do you really know about Obama? Did you know his mother? His Father? His mentors as a child? He did come from a broken home. Do you truely know what relieigion he is? Does he have a racial bias? (ex. Rev Wright) Do you really know what drives his political agenda? How much do you know about his wife?

Couple all of this with the fact that he has never even held down a real job and he is implementing radical spending programs on a dailey basis. My rationality tells me that the way of life I have grown accustomed to in this country may soon be in jeopardy.


You are right, the bill was rushed through rather quickly due to the severity of the economic crisis. Bush did the same with the TARP bill last fall. Both those problems were time sensitive.

99% of the country is not going to know a potential President's family, so I don't get your point. We do know Obama is extremely bright. He could have gotten many high level jobs out of Harvard but instead went into community organizing. Bush never held down a real job either, he lived off the coattails of his father until he got into politics.

Let me ask you this...did you consider the massive deficit spending under Bush a "radical spending program"? I agree that spending is an issue, but I just want to see if you are just anti-Obama, or if you can recognize that spending was a problem for the previous Republican administration.

[Scot]

You are right, the bill was rushed through rather quickly due to the severity of the economic crisis. Bush did the same with the TARP bill last fall. Both those problems were time sensitive.

99% of the country is not going to know a potential President's family, so I don't get your point. We do know Obama is extremely bright. He could have gotten many high level jobs out of Harvard but instead went into community organizing. Bush never held down a real job either, he lived off the coattails of his father until he got into politics.

Let me ask you this...did you consider the massive deficit spending under Bush a "radical spending program"? I agree that spending is an issue, but I just want to see if you are just anti-Obama, or if you can recognize that spending was a problem for the previous Republican administration.
I'm not happy with the deficit incurred under the Bush adminstraion, That being said, are we to hold Obama to THE SAME standard as Bush? A man that most Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike feel was a bad President? If Bush was still in office and was enacting these exact same policies right now, are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't be outraged???

It's interesting how Obama supporters believe he is great man. Even God-Like. Yet, they are satisfied when he performs right at the level of a man they consider incompetant.

I may remind you that Bush did not run against Obama in the last election. You're as bad has he is when you keep comparing him to Bush.

[kaydahl]

You are right, the bill was rushed through rather quickly due to the severity of the economic crisis. Bush did the same with the TARP bill last fall. Both those problems were time sensitive.

99% of the country is not going to know a potential President's family, so I don't get your point. We do know Obama is extremely bright. He could have gotten many high level jobs out of Harvard but instead went into community organizing. Bush never held down a real job either, he lived off the coattails of his father until he got into politics.

Let me ask you this...did you consider the massive deficit spending under Bush a "radical spending program"? I agree that spending is an issue, but I just want to see if you are just anti-Obama, or if you can recognize that spending was a problem for the previous Republican administration.

Here is another example of your ongoing sheeple mantra chanting....."we know that Obama is extremely bright". I know that Obama supporters like to say this. But we have no measure of Obama's IQ. No college transcripts. No LSAT score. No SAT score. No IQ score.

Those of us who pay attention to him when he is not using the teleprompter have a different impression--example the bumbling performance after the G20. But public bumbling is not a measure, either.

[7426k]

The Fed is the main source of the boom/bust cycle, together with fractional reserve banking.

We had severe boom-bust cycles long before the Fed.

The Fed is the planner of our economy.

The Fed doesn't tell producers how much to produce, it doesn't tell innovators what to create, it doesn't tell retailers how much to charge and it doesn't tell consumers how much to buy. The Fed has, at best, a very limited ability to manage changes in future expectations.

The boom economy is created when the Fed expands the money supply.

Yet the monetary base barely budged throughout the period from 2001 to 2007.

[egs21]

Here is another example of your ongoing sheeple mantra chanting....."we know that Obama is extremely bright". I know that Obama supporters like to say this. But we have no measure of Obama's IQ. No college transcripts. No LSAT score. No SAT score. No IQ score.

Those of us who pay attention to him when he is not using the teleprompter have a different impression--example the bumbling performance after the G20. But public bumbling is not a measure, either.

Wow. He graduated from Harvard law school magna cum laude and was the President of the Harvard Law Review. I think we can reasonably assume he is a bright person, don't you think? Or does he have to be a Republican in your mind to be considered "bright"?

[Backgammon]

Is this the same Bush and Republican party who three years ago warned that Freddie & Fannie were a problem? From Maxine Waters to Franks himself, rants of the purity of Raines, and how dare the Republicans question the foundation of this house of cards.

[Polkfan]

So you're saying that since he wanted to be President he has no place now to state that these problems were created before he was President? Even when this crisis WAS created before he was President?

Would you rather him lie to you? I don't understand what your slant is here.

He'd rather blame Obama for anything that goes wrong.

[kaydahl]

Wow. He graduated from Harvard law school magna cum laude and was the President of the Harvard Law Review. I think we can reasonably assume he is a bright person, don't you think? Or does he have to be a Republican in your mind to be considered "bright"?

I'll give you "bright" subjectively. But not "extremely bright" without some kind of documentation. Because I don't see it. He is not able to articlulate logical thought patterns in his non-scripted speech. Maybe he was bright in years past and burnt himself out via the coke use. I don't know. I don't see any reason for an extremely bright person to hide their LSAT scores. And their SATs. And their magna cum laude transcripts.

[Scot]

Or their birth certificate.

[egs21]

I'll give you "bright" subjectively. But not "extremely bright" without some kind of documentation. Because I don't see it. He is not able to articlulate logical thought patterns in his non-scripted speech. Maybe he was bright in years past and burnt himself out via the coke use. I don't know. I don't see any reason for an extremely bright person to hide their LSAT scores. And their SATs. And their magna cum laude transcripts.

We can debate the difference between "extremely bright" and "bright" but it really does mean anything. If you want to argue over little things like that, feel free if it makes you feel like you are right. I used to think you had fairly rational responses, but your extreme anti-Obama bias is becoming more and more clear with the comment about coke use.

I have no idea why test scores were not revealed. Have past Presidents revealed this type of information? I honestly do not know.

[egs21]

I'm not happy with the deficit incurred under the Bush adminstraion, That being said, are we to hold Obama to THE SAME standard as Bush? A man that most Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike feel was a bad President? If Bush was still in office and was enacting these exact same policies right now, are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't be outraged???

It's interesting how Obama supporters believe he is great man. Even God-Like. Yet, they are satisfied when he performs right at the level of a man they consider incompetant.

I may remind you that Bush did not run against Obama in the last election. You're as bad has he is when you keep comparing him to Bush.

Its only natural to compare a new President to the previous one, so I don't know why you are all up in arms about that.

Obama is not preforming "right at the level" of Bush. Get real, he is doing much better. His popularity is sky high and most Americans like the job he is doing. Our allies across the world like the new attitude is he is portraying. Ultra right-wings would never admit he did a good job under any circumstances.

What I do recognize with Obama's spending is that he is trying to get the economy on track and he is also tackling domestic problems like healthcare, energy and education. It takes money to help to invest and fix those problems and I'm ok with that. Bush spent trillions and didn't do anything to solve any of those issues.

[what987]

Democrats and Republicans are responsible for creating this recession, but Obama did inherit the debt from the Iraq War (and the future money that must be spent to wrap it up and pull out). So there is a good bit of money that he has to spend that he shouldn't have to. However, considering that he voted "yes" on the bilouts the Bush administration passed, he is partially responsible for that amount of money spent too.

[egs21]

Democrats and Republicans are responsible for creating this recession, but Obama did inherit the debt from the Iraq War (and the future money that must be spent to wrap it up and pull out). So there is a good bit of money that he has to spend that he shouldn't have to. However, considering that he voted "yes" on the bilouts the Bush administration passed, he is partially responsible for that amount of money spent too.

That is a very well thought out post and very accurate. Obama did vote for the bailouts, so yes, he does have responsibility for them. And yes, did inherit the wary and the enormous amount of money needed to wrap it up along with its debt. LOL, I guess I just paraphrased what you said, couldn't help it, you hit the nail on the head.

[kaydahl]

We can debate the difference between "extremely bright" and "bright" but it really does mean anything. If you want to argue over little things like that, feel free if it makes you feel like you are right. I used to think you had fairly rational responses, but your extreme anti-Obama bias is becoming more and more clear with the comment about coke use.

I have no idea why test scores were not revealed. Have past Presidents revealed this type of information? I honestly do not know.

Obama has admitted his use of coke. I do not view illegal drug activity as a positive qualification for President, nor as something that contributes to optimum mental performance. Ditto for every other President who has engaged in the same.

We have a variety of records from past Presidents and candidates. Nobody is required to disclose them. Neither is Obama. And I haven't said he should. I have said that I don't observe that he is extremely bright and won't change that opinion unless I have some evidence. I also said that I don't know why an extremely bright and accomplished person would not want to demonstrate their achievements.

I am anti-Obama. Not personally, because I've never met the guy. But I disagree with nearly every opinion and action of his since he took to the public scene. Obviously you have similar feelings about Bush. Are you saying that both of us are wrong to think this way?

[egs21]

Obama has admitted his use of coke. I do not view illegal drug activity as a positive qualification for President, nor as something that contributes to optimum mental performance. Ditto for every other President who has engaged in the same.

We have a variety of records from past Presidents and candidates. Nobody is required to disclose them. Neither is Obama. And I haven't said he should. I have said that I don't observe that he is extremely bright and won't change that opinion unless I have some evidence. I also said that I don't know why an extremely bright and accomplished person would not want to demonstrate their achievements.

I am anti-Obama. Not personally, because I've never met the guy. But I disagree with nearly every opinion and action of his since he took to the public scene. Obviously you have similar feelings about Bush. Are you saying that both of us are wrong to think this way?

So what? George Bush admitted he was an alcoholic and you don't seem making statements that "Bush got dumb because he was an alcoholic". I'm sure Obama regrets trying drugs as most people do. We all make mistakes. No President will ever live up to your "optimum mental performance" standards.

How convenient that you refuse to admit Obama is not a bright person when every shred of evidence available points to the contrary. You are never going to see his test scores, so you will just continue to hold onto your believe that he is not bright (despite him graduating at the top of his class at the best law school in the country). Any reasonable person would admit that graduating from Harvard at the top of our class would mean you are a bright person.

I am not anti-Bush. I voted for him twice. (I am an independent). I think despite Bush's faults, he did a good job leading the country after 9/11 and I admire him for that. I am rational enough to be able to see both the good and bad in a person.

[Scot]

Its only natural to compare a new President to the previous one, so I don't know why you are all up in arms about that.

Obama is not preforming "right at the level" of Bush. Get real, he is doing much better. His popularity is sky high and most Americans like the job he is doing. Our allies across the world like the new attitude is he is portraying. Ultra right-wings would never admit he did a good job under any circumstances.

What I do recognize with Obama's spending is that he is trying to get the economy on track and he is also tackling domestic problems like healthcare, energy and education. It takes money to help to invest and fix those problems and I'm ok with that. Bush spent trillions and didn't do anything to solve any of those issues.
I could write an extremely long list of things Obama is doing wrong. I've already mentioned two big ones. What is more interesting to me is the love affair you have with this man. And you're certainly not the only one. You don't know this man from Adam. Virtually all of his policies are a Crap shoot. He has yet to make a valuable contribution to America, and you adore him. It erks you to no end to see him besmirched. Are you that needy?

I say this because it is sickening and I am ashamed to see so many Americans so woefull and sheepish. Expecting the Messiah to come save them from a 45 hour work week. This country doesn't need a Savior! It needs to get its BALLS BACK. And Obama certainly isn't about that.

[egs21]

I could write an extremely long list of things Obama is doing wrong. I've already mentioned two big ones. What is more interesting to me is the love affair you have with this man. And you're certainly not the only one. You don't know this man from Adam. Virtually all of his policies are a Crap shoot. He has yet to make a valuable contribution to America, and you adore him. It erks you to no end to see him besmirched. Are you that needy?

I say this because it is sickening and I am ashamed to see so many Americans so woefull and sheepish. Expecting the Messiah to come save them from a 45 hour work week. This country doesn't need a Savior! It needs to get its BALLS BACK. And Obama certainly isn't about that.

I am not in love with the guy. I do support him. I also supported Bush during most of his Presidency (and voted for him twice). Obama's ideas have barely even began to get going, so its way too early to judge them. If they don't work, then he did not have success and even I will admit that.

And I don't expect to be saved from having to work. I am successful and work hard at my job and I'm not expecting a handout. Maybe some people are, but don't lump me into some stereotype just because I support our President.

You don't know me either, so I don't get the attacks. I can't support our President w/ out being called "in love with him"?

[kaydahl]

So what? George Bush admitted he was an alcoholic and you don't seem making statements that "Bush got dumb because he was an alcoholic". I'm sure Obama regrets trying drugs as most people do. We all make mistakes. No President will ever live up to your "optimum mental performance" standards.

How convenient that you refuse to admit Obama is not a bright person when every shred of evidence available points to the contrary. You are never going to see his test scores, so you will just continue to hold onto your believe that he is not bright (despite him graduating at the top of his class at the best law school in the country). Any reasonable person would admit that graduating from Harvard at the top of our class would mean you are a bright person.

I am not anti-Bush. I voted for him twice. (I am an independent). I think despite Bush's faults, he did a good job leading the country after 9/11 and I admire him for that. I am rational enough to be able to see both the good and bad in a person.

Mitt Romney is my idea of optimum mental performance.

I don't think that GWB was extremely bright. Yes, I suspect his potential was diminished because of his alcoholism. One again, every shred of evidence does not point to Obama being extremely bright. Seriously...you ought to watch the post-G20 press conference if you want to see what I am talking about. The ineptitude was near alarming.

[Scot]

I am not in love with the guy. I do support him. I also supported Bush during most of his Presidency (and voted for him twice). Obama's ideas have barely even began to get going, so its way too early to judge them. If they don't work, then he did not have success and even I will admit that.

And I don't expect to be saved from having to work. I am successful and work hard at my job and I'm not expecting a handout. Maybe some people are, but don't lump me into some stereotype just because I support our President.

You don't know me either, so I don't get the attacks. I can't support our President w/ out being called "in love with him"?
C'mon, don't be embarrased. You can say it. You love him.

Have you ever defended anyone else you that you don't even know to this degree?

[Lego-Man]

Mitt Romney is my idea of optimum mental performance.

I don't think that GWB was extremely bright. Yes, I suspect his potential was diminished because of his alcoholism. One again, every shred of evidence does not point to Obama being extremely bright. Seriously...you ought to watch the post-G20 press conference if you want to see what I am talking about. The ineptitude was near alarming.

Oh? Did the teleprompter malfunction again?

[what987]

Oh? Did the teleprompter malfunction again?

HLS = Harvard Law School

If we assume that LSAT 163=IQ 130 and average LSAT at HLS is 173, then the average HLS student has an IQ of 145 or 146, since on the LSAT 10 points is one SD.

Actually I think average LSAT Obama's year was more like 170 or 171, so IQ = 140 is probably a reasonable estimate.

As an HLS grad, I can confirm that grading is largely blind, however the magna=top 10% rule was only established after Obama graduated. His year as I recall it was more like top 20%, and it varied year to year somewhat before it was changed from a minimum GPA standard to the top 10% rule.

Law Review has a few AA spots, and President of HLR is an elected position, so this means that the mainly white and very smart editors thought highly of him but does not speak directly to his intelligence.

All that said, even assuming the worst, that Obama just barely squeaked by in getting magna and was right at the top 20% and was an above average grade grubber, he still could not have graduated magna without having an IQ well in excess of 140.

HLS students are hardly slackers and the school is about 85% white or asian, so getting to the top 20% of that group is no easy task. I did know one guy who was somewhat less intelligent than the HLS average and got magna, but he studied insane amounts, more than 10 hours a day in addition to attending every class.

If Obama got his good grades this way, it speaks extremely well of his good character and work ethic in particular contrasting it with Bush, Gore, and Kerry with their gentleman's B- averages, McCain and his bottom 1% grades at the navel academy, Biden with his plagerism, and Palin with her long struggle to find a college and major easy enough to squeak by.

Also, comparing Harvard College and Harvard Law School IQs, only about 1/3 of HC students who apply to HLS are accepted, and many more probably don't even apply realizing they have no chance. I can't remember the source, but I read that the average LSAT for HC students is 163, which is tied for the highest in the USA, but still well below HLS's standards. There is a list floating around there somewhere.




just some mathematical reasoning on Obama's IQ, its more logical than all of the silly speculation here, and if you know how basic statistics work you'll understand it

[kaydahl]

what987....All we have is speculation. You've presented a "statistical argument". Others who have attempted the same include considerations you have elected not to address. I have observed behavior and formed a subjective, personal opinion. In the absence of any true measure, that's the way it's going to be.

[egs21]

C'mon, don't be embarrased. You can say it. You love him.

Have you ever defended anyone else you that you don't even know to this degree?

Have you ever critisized anyone else that you don't even know to this degree?

[egs21]

Mitt Romney is my idea of optimum mental performance.

I don't think that GWB was extremely bright. Yes, I suspect his potential was diminished because of his alcoholism. One again, every shred of evidence does not point to Obama being extremely bright. Seriously...you ought to watch the post-G20 press conference if you want to see what I am talking about. The ineptitude was near alarming.

I like Romney and would have considered voting for him had he been the Republican nominee.

One question...since Romney is your "idea of optimum mental performance" do you have his test scores to back that up?

[kaydahl]

I like Romney and would have considered voting for him had he been the Republican nominee.

One question...since Romney is your "idea of optimum mental performance" do you have his test scores to back that up?

No. My evaluation is subjective, just as with Obama, based on his speaking and history.

By the standards you are advocating, though, he would come out ahead of Obama since he graduated valedictorian from BYU and in the top 5% of Harvard Law and Business.

[egs21]

No. My evaluation is subjective, just as with Obama, based on his speaking and history.

By the standards you are advocating, though, he would come out ahead of Obama since he graduated valedictorian from BYU and in the top 5% of Harvard Law and Business.

I think Romney is very bright. Maybe even more so than Obama as you pointed out using your measure. If he wins the Republican nomination, he will provide a strong challenge to Obama. Its not a competition of "who is smarter" anyways.

I would guess that if Romney were a liberal (which he was at one time) your "subjective opinion" of his intelligence would change in a hurry.

[kaydahl]

I think Romney is very bright. Maybe even more so than Obama as you pointed out using your measure. If he wins the Republican nomination, he will provide a strong challenge to Obama. Its not a competition of "who is smarter" anyways.

I would guess that if Romney were a liberal (which he was at one time) your "subjective opinion" of his intelligence would change in a hurry.

No, it probably wouldn't. Folks who claim he was once liberal are pointing to his pre-governor softer stances on pro-choice and civil unions. I am for both of these.

[Scot]

Have you ever critisized anyone else that you don't even know to this degree?
That isn't a very well thought out response is it? I think most Americans would at the very least, Critisize someone who's bad decisions were impacting thier lives.

[egs21]

That isn't a very well thought out response is it? I think most Americans would at very least, Critisize someone who's bad decisions were impacting thier lives.

It is the same thing you said to me, just turned around on you. What decision has Obama made that has personally affected your life? If there is something, then I certainly don't blame you for being critical. Nothing he has done has impacted me personally in a negative way, so I have nothing bad to say at this point.

[egs21]

No, it probably wouldn't. Folks who claim he was once liberal are pointing to his pre-governor softer stances on pro-choice and civil unions. I am for both of these.

Wait a minute. In a different post, you said something to the effect that "you are against EVERY position Obama has taken". Obama is defintely pro-choice and I'm pretty sure he supports civil union.

[Scot]

It is the same thing you said to me, just turned around on you. What decision has Obama made that has personally affected your life? If there is something, then I certainly don't blame you for being critical. Nothing he has done has impacted me personally in a negative way, so I have nothing bad to say at this point.
His decision to provide a 3 month moratorium on foreclosures. has impacted my life as it is only delaying inevitable results and creating more uncertainty in a market that I have a vested interest in. To name ONE particular example.

I dislike the entire foundation his adminsitration is setting for doing business in this country. Your logic here is not rational either. The fact that you have rated his as well as Bush's job performance shows that you are interested / concerned with the policies of the President. You must know that actions he is taking right now will take years to materialize. I don't wait until I'm soaking wet before I come inside from the rain.

[egs21]

His decision to provide a 3 month moratorium on foreclosures. has impacted my life as it is only delaying inevitable results and creating more uncertainty in a market that I have a vested interest in. To name ONE particular example.

I dislike the entire foundation his adminsitration is setting for doing business in this country. Your logic here is not rational either. The fact that you have rated his as well as Bush's job performance shows that you are interested / concerned with the policies of the President. You must know that actions he is taking right now will take years to materialize. I don't wait until I'm soaking wet before I come inside from the rain.

So, you are upset that the 3 month moratorium on foreclosures is affecting you by creating uncertainty in the market. Ok, I can live with that even though I doubt that is directly impacting you on a day to day basis. I'm sure the people who are facing a possible foreclosure on their home due to a job loss really "feel" for you. The moratorium gives these types of people an opportunity to find other employment and possibily avoid a foreclosure. Plus, if they can avoid a foreclosure, that will help stabalize the RE market.

[kaydahl]

Wait a minute. In a different post, you said something to the effect that "you are against EVERY position Obama has taken". Obama is defintely pro-choice and I'm pretty sure he supports civil union.

There is a difference between your EVERY and the NEARLY EVERY descriptor that I actually used. I don't agree with all of Obama's abortion stances, but yes, we can both be labeled pro-choice. Yes, we both are OK with civil union. And somewhere in this forum I gave him a kudo for the resolution of the recent pirate situation. I also agree with him that education should be a top priority, particularly the reduction of the dropout rate. We disagree on how to attack the issue, though. I am happy that his approach to both Iraq/Afghanistan is more aligned with Bush principles than with his own campaign promises. There's a devil in absolutism, I try to avoid it as best I can.

[Scot]

So, you are upset that the 3 month moratorium on foreclosures is affecting you by creating uncertainty in the market. Ok, I can live with that even though I doubt that is directly impacting you on a day to day basis. I'm sure the people who are facing a possible foreclosure on their home due to a job loss really "feel" for you. The moratorium gives these types of people an opportunity to find other employment and possibily avoid a foreclosure. Plus, if they can avoid a foreclosure, that will help stabalize the RE market.
I'm not going to go off on a big tangent on this subject. Just know that I am involved with the real estate market, and most professionals agree that it is wasting time. Moreover, there is one foreclosure on my street. I know the whole situation there. It's a fact. They took advantage of the situation. Got an extra 3 free months on tax payers money.

Also, you asked me for ONE example so I gave you ONE and provided reasonable logic for further criticizm. Stay tuned. I don't have time right now, but I'll put together a list of serious issues with Obama.

By your own admission, Obama hasn't done anything yet. His policies have not had time to take effect. People like myself that are critcal of him see him as an evangelist type that has Americans mezmorized. When you're able to see through that, his agenda looks pretty scary.

[kaydahl]

It is the same thing you said to me, just turned around on you. What decision has Obama made that has personally affected your life? If there is something, then I certainly don't blame you for being critical. Nothing he has done has impacted me personally in a negative way, so I have nothing bad to say at this point.

He signed legislation that is going to cost me alot of money in new taxes. Therefore you should quit trying to debate me and instead start responding with posts that say, "kaydahl I don't blame you for being critical". :D

[egs21]

He signed legislation that is going to cost me alot of money in new taxes. Therefore you should quit trying to debate me and instead start responding with posts that say, "kaydahl I don't blame you for being critical". :D

You must make over $250,000 per year then. I don't feel sorry for you that you have to pay slightly higher taxes, especially after getting a tax break from Bush since 2003.

[kaydahl]

You must make over $250,000 per year then. I don't feel sorry for you that you have to pay slightly higher taxes, especially after getting a tax break from Bush since 2003.

Unless you are not earning an income, you've been getting a tax break compliments of Bush as well. The difference is that Obama is keeping yours in place.

You just got done saying you wouldn't blame anyone for being critical of Obama if they are personally affected. When I said that I was, you changed your tune.

If Obama was truly restoring the tax rates we had under Clinton there would be major uproar. Because most folks do only care about their own pocketbooks, not the principle of tax fairness.

[egs21]

Unless you are not earning an income, you've been getting a tax break compliments of Bush as well. The difference is that Obama is keeping yours in place.

You just got done saying you wouldn't blame anyone for being critical of Obama if they are personally affected. When I said that I was, you changed your tune.

If Obama was truly restoring the tax rates we had under Clinton there would be major uproar. Because most folks do only care about their own pocketbooks, not the principle of tax fairness.

You are correct, I should not be critical of you. I just find it hard to understand the selfishness of people who make really good money that complain they are getting a tax increase after having a tax cut since 2003. One of the big problems in our country is that eveyone is out for themselves. Its really sad.

[egs21]

There is a difference between your EVERY and the NEARLY EVERY descriptor that I actually used. I don't agree with all of Obama's abortion stances, but yes, we can both be labeled pro-choice. Yes, we both are OK with civil union. And somewhere in this forum I gave him a kudo for the resolution of the recent pirate situation. I also agree with him that education should be a top priority, particularly the reduction of the dropout rate. We disagree on how to attack the issue, though. I am happy that his approach to both Iraq/Afghanistan is more aligned with Bush principles than with his own campaign promises. There's a devil in absolutism, I try to avoid it as best I can.

Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that you align more with Obama on social issues? Yet, you call yourself "anti-Obama"?

[DemLass4Mccain/Palin]

The spin by the WH on "INHERITED" will by said for the next 4 years, Obummer does not want to take responsibility for the Dow dropping 3 thousand points since Nov 4th, the unemployment rate increasing nor the 9000 Earmarks, accept the "inheritance" Mr President" it is your responsibility and the responsibility of your now "Chosen Cabinet".


Yeah. and the stock market has YET to recover.. I had a friend who bought stock in a well-known company right after the election... Soon as the STIMULUS BILL was announced his stock plummeted 25% in one single week!

Yeah.. Obama is going to be SOOOO good for the economy! ROTFLOL... sure... what economy now, would that be?

The ones funding funeral homes, insane asylums and pyschiatric care? We got people shooting their families, other people, doing all kinds of crazy things since Obama took office.

You know what I think? That if Obama had left things alone.. the economy would probably have started to recover to some degree by now.. After all, our gas is now 50% of what it was before the election!
that was a large part of our problem... instead, now we gotta worry about funding trillions of dollars of debt! For what??? What good is this going to do? It's been almost 4 months since the election and I've not seen a single thing good that's happened to the economy since Obama's been elected..

If he was so much for change.. GOOD change, then things should of started happening for the positive by now... instead of all this lip service..
I wish when the digital tuners go off the air, somehow ABC news is taken off the air! I wouldn't miss them at all, they are the prime spreaders of all this Pro-Obama, how he's going to be so great for our country mantra.

Cuz Americans no longer seem that hopeful at all, since he took office.. Course the Obama maniacs sure are, but they sure aren't looking out the window at reality..
Their rose-coloured glasses are getting darker and darker..
Keep drinking that cool-aid man.. They do say Ignorance is Bliss..

As long as you claim to be unaware of all that's bad that's happenin in our country and to your fellow americans, then I'm sure you'll be blissfull for the next 4 years..
As long as we got a black man in the office, why worry we are losing our jobs, our houses, and our future?
Seriously.........:pray:

[kaydahl]

You are correct, I should not be critical of you. I just find it hard to understand the selfishness of people who make really good money that complain they are getting a tax increase after having a tax cut since 2003. One of the big problems in our country is that eveyone is out for themselves. Its really sad.

(My high income is recent. In 03 it was less than a third what it is now. I've put most of the gain into real estate and my kids' college. My 401k has been decimated, like everyone else's. And of course my real estate has declined in value as well.)

I'm not selfish. I give away alot to friends and family. One relative has been living rent free in an investment property for three years.

I think it is selfish of people to think that only a small percent of us should give up our 01/03 tax cuts when everybody got them.

[kaydahl]

Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that you align more with Obama on social issues? Yet, you call yourself "anti-Obama"?

No. Although we are both pro-choice and both OK with civil partnerships, our overall perspectives and philosophies on society are not at all the same. Obama does not hold, or at least does not communicate, the principles of self-reliance, self-responsibility, and responsibility toward contribution that I do. Last Father's Day he gave a speech talking to minority dads about the importance of being responsible to their kids. Hooray, I thought....until he promised them that he would make their child support payments tax deductible. We are not grounded in the same foundation.

[egs21]

(My high income is recent. In 03 it was less than a third what it is now. I've put most of the gain into real estate and my kids' college. My 401k has been decimated, like everyone else's. And of course my real estate has declined in value as well.)

I'm not selfish. I give away alot to friends and family. One relative has been living rent free in an investment property for three years.

I think it is selfish of people to think that only a small percent of us should give up our 01/03 tax cuts when everybody got them.

Congratulations on recently obtaining a higher income. Obviously that is a good thing for you and your family, especially given the current economic environment and even after you pay higher income taxes via the progressive tax bracket, you will still be in good shape. Plus, since you give away money to charity, you can save additionally on your taxes.

The Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. I think someone with an income over $250k annually can afford to give up their tax break more than someone with an average income, don't you? Plus, the wealthier people in the country received a bigger tax break with the capital gains tax reduction. You said something about being in real estate, so I'm sure you benefited from that.

[egs21]

No. Although we are both pro-choice and both OK with civil partnerships, our overall perspectives and philosophies on society are not at all the same. Obama does not hold, or at least does not communicate, the principles of self-reliance, self-responsibility, and responsibility toward contribution that I do. Last Father's Day he gave a speech talking to minority dads about the importance of being responsible to their kids. Hooray, I thought....until he promised them that he would make their child support payments tax deductible. We are not grounded in the same foundation.

I see. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just wanted more info as to why you were so anti-Obama.

[kaydahl]

Congratulations on recently obtaining a higher income. Obviously that is a good thing for you and your family, especially given the current economic environment and even after you pay higher income taxes via the progressive tax bracket, you will still be in good shape. Plus, since you give away money to charity, you can save additionally on your taxes.

The Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. I think someone with an income over $250k annually can afford to give up their tax break more than someone with an average income, don't you? Plus, the wealthier people in the country received a bigger tax break with the capital gains tax reduction. You said something about being in real estate, so I'm sure you benefited from that.

Giving money or free rent to friends and relatives is not tax-deductible. But that's how I prefer to give money away and that's what I would like the government continue to let me do.

No, I haven't paid any capital gains taxes, except for short term stock trading which has always been at a different rate.

It seems that you have little trouble deciding what others should and shouldn't do with their money or determining whether they will experience hardship as a result of your decisions. I haven't heard you mention how you are contributing to the well-being of our country.

[egs21]

Giving money or free rent to friends and relatives is not tax-deductible. But that's how I prefer to give money away and that's what I would like the government continue to let me do.

No, I haven't paid any capital gains taxes, except for short term stock trading which has always been at a different rate.

It seems that you have little trouble deciding what others should and shouldn't do with their money or determining whether they will experience hardship as a result of your decisions. I haven't heard you mention how you are contributing to the well-being of our country.

Kaydahl,

Ok. You say you give money to friends and family (if that is true, then that's great and I applaud you for helping them out). I've helped out friends and family on a regular basis for years. I do not make more than $250k per year, so I'm sure you do "more" than me, so congratulations. I also don't have an investment property to let a family member live in for free and I think its great that you do that. I'm a regular working guy with a middle class income. But I'm happy with that and it helps to give me perspective as to how average Americans struggle amidst the current economic problems today. And if I were to suddenly make $250k+ tomorrow, I would have no issue with paying taxes in a higher income bracket because I know I would still be much better off than the average American. Really, I would have virtually no room to complain if I were making that kind of income when people are being laid off, having income cut and experiencing flat wages.

[rightwingrant]

We had severe boom-bust cycles long before the Fed.

As I have already told you before, fractional reserve banking spurred booms and led to busts before the Fed (don't forget the 1st and 2nd Banks of the US either). The Fed exacerbates the problems of fractional reserve banking by encouraging bad behavior from banks.

The Fed doesn't tell producers how much to produce, it doesn't tell innovators what to create, it doesn't tell retailers how much to charge and it doesn't tell consumers how much to buy. The Fed has, at best, a very limited ability to manage changes in future expectations.

No, it doesn't TELL people and companies those things, it influences them. The easy money policies of the Fed send the wrong signals to producers, making them think it is ok to expand and produce more when the capital and resources really aren't there to finish the job. Retailers raise and lower their prices based on the effects of the Fed's monetary policy. Consumers, encouraged by the easy money policy of the Fed (don't forget the housing boom consequent bust) get amazing loans for items they really didn't need and could not afford. You have to look beyond your nose when you discuss these things.

Yet the monetary base barely budged throughout the period from 2001 to 2007.

What? It expanded the money supply by almost $5 trillion. Think about it. You can't have the housing boom we had and not expand the money supply.

[egs21]

Kaydahl,

Ok. You say you give money to friends and family (if that is true, then that's great and I applaud you for helping them out). I've helped out friends and family on a regular basis for years. I do not make more than $250k per year, so I'm sure you do "more" than me, so congratulations. I also don't have an investment property to let a family member live in for free and I think its great that you do that. I'm a regular working guy with a middle class income. But I'm happy with that and it helps to give me perspective as to how average Americans struggle amidst the current economic problems today. And if I were to suddenly make $250k+ tomorrow, I would have no issue with paying taxes in a higher income bracket because I know I would still be much better off than the average American. Really, I would have virtually no room to complain if I were making that kind of income when people are being laid off, having income cut and experiencing flat wages.

Kaydahl--no response to this post? Usually you are on top of these, so I'm not sure if you missed this one or not.

[kaydahl]

Kaydahl--no response to this post? Usually you are on top of these, so I'm not sure if you missed this one or not.

Yes, I missed this and I apologize. I need to quit posting on too many threads.

Yes, I have come from nothing to something, lost it through the criminal act of another person, built again, lost it through my own stupidity via a misjudgment of another person, built again to where I am now.

I have been responsible with my money and most importantly with my debt load. I've invested poorly and learned from mistakes so that I have acquired the ability to make money from money itself.

Now I am one of the top few percent without whose support our government would fail. I subsidize the lower incomes of many people through my taxes and of some people through my private giving. I never cheat on my tax obligation. Not a penny.

Our government has exceeded its Constitutional scope--even by Keynes standard. Spends too much. Wastes too much. Now I am expected to buy into the rhetoric that the way to resolve an economic crisis to to spend more and increase debt to a level that would put any consumer or business into bankruptcy. And the increase in that misguided spending is to come from me and those like me---the ones who are characterized as enemies of the people rather than folks whose successes make government possible.

I am branded as selfish and uncaring. I have no vote in proportion to my contribution and in office at present is a man who has pandered to the masses by offering them my money in trade for their votes. I have no voice in the government that is disproportionaly dependent on me--as the Dems have been saying, "you lost, so shut up".

When was the last time you heard a politician acknowledge the few who provide so much as anything other than enemies of the people or similar.

[egs21]

Yes, I missed this and I apologize. I need to quit posting on too many threads.

Yes, I have come from nothing to something, lost it through the criminal act of another person, built again, lost it through my own stupidity via a misjudgment of another person, built again to where I am now.

I have been responsible with my money and most importantly with my debt load. I've invested poorly and learned from mistakes so that I have acquired the ability to make money from money itself.

Now I am one of the top few percent without whose support our government would fail. I subsidize the lower incomes of many people through my taxes and of some people through my private giving. I never cheat on my tax obligation. Not a penny.

Our government has exceeded its Constitutional scope--even by Keynes standard. Spends too much. Wastes too much. Now I am expected to buy into the rhetoric that the way to resolve an economic crisis to to spend more and increase debt to a level that would put any consumer or business into bankruptcy. And the increase in that misguided spending is to come from me and those like me---the ones who are characterized as enemies of the people rather than folks whose successes make government possible.

I am branded as selfish and uncaring. I have no vote in proportion to my contribution and in office at present is a man who has pandered to the masses by offering them my money in trade for their votes. I have no voice in the government that is disproportionaly dependent on me--as the Dems have been saying, "you lost, so shut up".

When was the last time you heard a politician acknowledge the few who provide so much as anything other than enemies of the people or similar.

I certainly respect your story. To build yourself up from nothing into a wealth person is very admireable. I don't think you "selfish and uncaring". I'm sure you care a lot, as evidenced by you stating you help out family, ect. I think people with average incomes just have a hard time understanding how people who make a top 5% income can complain about their taxes going back to the normal rate based on our progressive tax tables.

Democracy is not based on who pays the most money in taxes. We all have an equal voice and that is what is great for America. The last 8 years have been ruled by a Republican led White House that was more pro-wealthy than pro-middle to lower class. With the last election, the balance shifted and that is pretty normal. I'm sorry that your taxes will be going up, but I'm sure you can understand that you will still be much better off than the average family as they would gladly switch places with you.

Lastly, I am not critisizing you for being successful financially. Your story is inspiring and I'm happy that you got to where you are. I'm also confident that you will be just fine even when your tax breaks expire in 2011. And keep in mind that we all pay taxes, not just the wealthy. While you may pay more due to your higher level of income, I'm sure you still coming out way ahead compared to the average American with a median income. Instead of looking at the negativety of having to pay taxes, why not count your blessings that you are a financially succesful person?

[Scot]

Some of us feel that taxes are ALREADY too high. You're subscribing to the idea that just because somebody has wealth, they should be okay with giving it to the government. I would like to see taxes REDUCED. This definatley won't happen probably EVER under the current budget.

Four years from now, it's likely we'll be arguing the same issue again, only on a higher scale. The goal should be to reduce the size of government. Not to simply take money from people because they can.

Don't blame people that are doing well because the government that you are in favor of expanding is doing a poor job and can't support itself.

[egs21]

Some of us feel that taxes are ALREADY too high. You're subscribing to the idea that just because somebody has wealth, they should be okay with giving it to the government. I would like to see taxes REDUCED. This definatley won't happen probably EVER under the current budget.

Four years from now, it's likely we'll arguing the same issue again, only on a higher scale. The goal should be to reduce the size of government. Not to simply take money from people because they can.

I understand your point on taxes. No one likes paying taxes.

Here is my point regarding the wealthy. It is really hard to feel sorry for someone with an excellent income who has to pay a higher tax rate.

[Scot]

Why isn't the answer to cut the salaries of our politicians. We all agree they haven't done a good job. That's not part of the budget somehow.

When did things come down to who feels sorry for whom? I see this argument all over the board. People have a Patriotic duty to take care of themselves and the children they bring into this world. Until I see personal accountability being called for by government and accepted by Americans, my position on this is not going to change.

Problem is it's too unpopular for Politicians to ask for this. It's sounds better when the promise to help everyone, even if they know it won't do any good.

[egs21]

Why isn't the answer to cut the salaries of our politicians. We all agree they haven't done a good job. That's not part of the budget somehow.

When did things come down to who feels sorry for whom? I see this argument all over the board. People have a Patriotic duty to take care of themselves and the children they bring into this world. Until I see personal accountability being called for by government and accepted by Americans, my position on this is not going to change.

Problem is it's too unpopular for Politicians to ask for this. It's sounds better when the promise to help everyone, even if they know it won't do any good.

Cutting political salaries is a way to go. Although I would argue that any President is underpaid based on what they put up. But the job isn't really about money anyways.

Its not really about "who feels sorry for whom". The point I was making is that the everday American with an average income is not going to "feel sorry" for someone who has an income in the top 5% and is facing higher taxes when Bush's tax cuts expire. I guaranty any average Amercian would gladly trade places with the wealthy person facing higher taxes.

[kaydahl]

Egs, sorry, but I don't buy that the previous administration was pro-wealthy and the current is pro-middle to lower. And I will bet you $100 that you will not see positive outcome changes for the lower to middle class during Obama's administration that were as good as during Bush.

You don't credit the wealthy for paying for most of government? Or for providing jobs for most Americans? Or for the private spending and investment that fuels the economy? Or for the millions in charitable giving above and beyond their tax requirements? The best you can come up with is that you don't feel sorry for them when taxes go up?

Another point you seem to have missed is the broader issue beyond taxes going up. It is that taxes are taken and then wasted. On foolish debt escalation. On programs that don't meet their goals. On inefficiency. Waste. And unethical behavior. My attitude would be different if I observed my money being spent wisely.

[Scot]

I guaranty any average Amercian would gladly trade places with the wealthy person facing higher taxes.
Let me compare your view on this to the guys that sit around drinking beer eating potato chips and watching a championship boxing match. As soon as they tell you that the challenger is going to make X,000,000, half of these guys say, "I'd get in the ring with him for that". Maybe so.

But ,would you comitt 5, 10, 15 years of your life training, taking shots to the head, dieting, weight cutting, fighting the other 20 or 30 bad asses as you struggle to POSSIBLY get your shot at the champ. Well, we know the answer to that question too.

This is the way that it needs to be looked at.

Also, it's a lot of average Americans that need to go through a TRUE hardship to really see how it feels. And what America is experiencing right now is NO hardship. We may be headed for one. We'll have to wait and see.

[egs21]

Egs, sorry, but I don't buy that the previous administration was pro-wealthy and the current is pro-middle to lower. And I will bet you $100 that you will not see positive outcome changes for the lower to middle class during Obama's administration that were as good as during Bush.

You don't credit the wealthy for paying for most of government? Or for providing jobs for most Americans? Or for the private spending and investment that fuels the economy? Or for the millions in charitable giving above and beyond their tax requirements? The best you can come up with is that you don't feel sorry for them when taxes go up?

Another point you seem to have missed is the broader issue beyond taxes going up. It is that taxes are taken and then wasted. On foolish debt escalation. On programs that don't meet their goals. On inefficiency. Waste. And unethical behavior. My attitude would be different if I observed my money being spent wisely.

Time will only tell whether Obama's policies are successful. Like I have said before, if by 2012 he does not do a good job, then he can be voted out.

Mathematically the rich pay more. That is no surprise and I'm not arguing that. We all invest money into the economy via our 401ks. It is not an exclusive club for the wealthy. Much of this money goes into private investments that help grow the economy and create jobs. You are forgetting that wealthy people are not the only people who spend money and help keep the economy moving and create jobs. The middle class is a huge group of population and their spending is a major catalyst for helping our economy grow and creating jobs. If their income remains flat, they have less disposable income to spend which directly supports millions of businesses and jobs. Every citizen directly impacts the economy and jobs one way or the other, not just the wealthy.

You talk about tax money being wasted. It is really a waste for us to revamp our broken healthcare system? Or to help move us to getting away from our addiction to foreign oil? Or to help us improve our educational system? These are all domestic problems that have been neglected for years. If you want to see tax payer waste, look no further than the last 8 years under Bush and Republican leadership.

[kaydahl]

Time will only tell whether Obama's policies are successful. Like I have said before, if by 2012 he does not do a good job, then he can be voted out.

Mathematically the rich pay more. That is no surprise and I'm not arguing that. We all invest money into the economy via our 401ks. It is not an exclusive club for the wealthy. Much of this money goes into private investments that help grow the economy and create jobs. You are forgetting that wealthy people are not the only people who spend money and help keep the economy moving and create jobs. The middle class is a huge group of population and their spending is a major catalyst for helping our economy grow and creating jobs. If their income remains flat, they have less disposable income to spend which directly supports millions of businesses and jobs. Every citizen directly impacts the economy and jobs one way or the other, not just the wealthy.

You talk about tax money being wasted. It is really a waste for us to revamp our broken healthcare system? Or to help move us to getting away from our addiction to foreign oil? Or to help us improve our educational system? These are all domestic problems that have been neglected for years. If you want to see tax payer waste, look no further than the last 8 years under Bush and Republican leadership.

Your second paragraph is a good argument as to why taxes should not be increased on anyone. It is a good argument why taxes should be cut.

It is a waste to give more money to a government that doesn't manage it well. For example, telling taxpayers that they need to pony up because it would be unacceptable for automakers to go into bankruptcy proceedings. Then after they spend the money, telling GM they have to go into bankruptcy.

[egs21]

Your second paragraph is a good argument as to why taxes should not be increased on anyone. It is a good argument why taxes should be cut.

It is a waste to give more money to a government that doesn't manage it well. For example, telling taxpayers that they need to pony up because it would be unacceptable for automakers to go into bankruptcy proceedings. Then after they spend the money, telling GM they have to go into bankruptcy.


But the private sector has not shown the ability to create affordable healthcare and move away from our addiction to oil. Much of this is related to greed as doctors, insurance companies and oil companies are in no hurry to change when they make record profits each year. I would be all for the private sector to reform these areas, but unfortunately that will not happen as long as there is big money to be made. We need to think about the long-term instead of holding out for short-term gains and quick profits.

[kaydahl]

But the private sector has not shown the ability to create affordable healthcare and move away from our addiction to oil. Much of this is related to greed as doctors, insurance companies and oil companies are in no hurry to change when they make record profits each year. I would be all for the private sector to reform these areas, but unfortunately that will not happen as long as there is big money to be made. We need to think about the long-term instead of holding out for short-term gains and quick profits.

Why do you think conservatives opposed TARP and stimulus? Because we know the current crisis is caused by greed and over-spending and we know that the best remedy is for companies and individuals to face the consequences of their greed and overspending rather than being given government money as a reward for their greed and overspending.

The government is reponsible for refusing to allow expansion of domestic oil production and the use of nuclear power, both of which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

We already spend enough on healthcare. You and I have discussed that. It is not being spent wisely. Obama wants to put $634 billion into a system where adequate money is already being spent.

We gave the auto companies 24 billion because politicians said we can't let them go into bankruptcy. We spent 24 billion and now tell them to go into bankruptcy anyhow. 24 billion has been wasted. At 24k per year, that amount of money could have paid for 250,000 college educations.

[egs21]

Why do you think conservatives opposed TARP and stimulus? Because we know the current crisis is caused by greed and over-spending and we know that the best remedy is for companies and individuals to face the consequences of their greed and overspending rather than being given government money as a reward for their greed and overspending.

The government is reponsible for refusing to allow expansion of domestic oil production and the use of nuclear power, both of which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

We already spend enough on healthcare. You and I have discussed that. It is not being spent wisely. Obama wants to put $634 billion into a system where adequate money is already being spent.

We gave the auto companies 24 billion because politicians said we can't let them go into bankruptcy. We spent 24 billion and now tell them to go into bankruptcy anyhow. 24 billion has been wasted. At 24k per year, that amount of money could have paid for 250,000 college educations.

I agree on the GM thing. I would have prefered to see them enter bankruptcy a long time ago.

Republicans came up with the TARP plan. Member of both parties voted on it. But the actual plan was devised by Paulson with support from Bush. At the time, it appeared to be neccessary because the finanical system was nearing a collapse. Of course, we will never know what would have happened had we done nothing.

I like the idea of nuclear energy. But it has to be done in a safe way so that we don't have a Chernobyl. That is the only thing holding it up. We need real energy reform, not more drilling. I would be ok with additional drilling in the short-term as long as there was a long-term plan in place to reduce the dependence on oil.

The $634 billion is going to be used to reform healthcare. Adequate money is not being spent if millions of Americans can no longer afford reasonable healthcare and coverage.

[kaydahl]

I agree on the GM thing. I would have prefered to see them enter bankruptcy a long time ago.

Republicans came up with the TARP plan. Member of both parties voted on it. But the actual plan was devised by Paulson with support from Bush. At the time, it appeared to be neccessary because the finanical system was nearing a collapse. Of course, we will never know what would have happened had we done nothing.

I like the idea of nuclear energy. But it has to be done in a safe way so that we don't have a Chernobyl. That is the only thing holding it up. We need real energy reform, not more drilling. I would be ok with additional drilling in the short-term as long as there was a long-term plan in place to reduce the dependence on oil.

The $634 billion is going to be used to reform healthcare. Adequate money is not being spent if millions of Americans can no longer afford reasonable healthcare and coverage.

I don't care which party devised TARP. I was against it, along with the members of Congress who voted no.

Chernobyl happened 23 years ago and nuclear plants have been operating safely throughout the world since them. Obviously it is already possible.

You're not willing to make the first step toward oil independence without contingency.

We've discussed the healthcare issue. We pay more than any other country. We are ranked 37th in outcome. No more money needs to be spent. We need to better allocate what we currently spend.

[egs21]

I don't care which party devised TARP. I was against it, along with the members of Congress who voted no.

Chernobyl happened 23 years ago and nuclear plants have been operating safely throughout the world since them. Obviously it is already possible.

You're not willing to make the first step toward oil independence without contingency.

We've discussed the healthcare issue. We pay more than any other country. We are ranked 37th in outcome. No more money needs to be spent. We need to better allocate what we currently spend.

Republicans = Conservatives in nearly every case (unless you are a libertarian or something). Unless you can show me a "conservative" who is a Democrat.

Well, there must be something you don't know about nuclear technology, otherwise it would have been implemented a long time ago. Again, I think nuclear could be a good route to go, I was merely pointing out that there are people out there who question its safety.

Drilling more oil without having a long-term plan to reduce and eventually eliminate our reliance on it is not "oil independence". Oil is a finite resource and whether we use our own oil or a foreign countries oil, eventually it will run out and we need to start preparing for that possibilty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we talked about healthcare in a different thread, didn't you say that we ranked first in money spent on healthcare, but not first as a % of our GDP and population? I cannot remember exactly how that went.

[kaydahl]

Republicans = Conservatives in nearly every case (unless you are a libertarian or something). Unless you can show me a "conservative" who is a Democrat.

Well, there must be something you don't know about nuclear technology, otherwise it would have been implemented a long time ago. Again, I think nuclear could be a good route to go, I was merely pointing out that there are people out there who question its safety.

Drilling more oil without having a long-term plan to reduce and eventually eliminate our reliance on it is not "oil independence". Oil is a finite resource and whether we use our own oil or a foreign countries oil, eventually it will run out and we need to start preparing for that possibilty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we talked about healthcare in a different thread, didn't you say that we ranked first in money spent on healthcare, but not first as a % of our GDP and population? I cannot remember exactly how that went.

Research Blue Dog Democrats. There were Republicans who voted for TARP and those who voted against it. My positions are based on my evaluation of individual issues, regardless of party or degree of liberalism versus conservatism. My votes are based on selecting the candidate who best represents what I think it important---I don't always agree 100% with a person who gets my vote. I voted for Obama in his US Senate run because his Republican opponent was totally unacceptable to me.

Goals are met one step at a time. Offshore drilling is a step in the right direction and so should be taken. Sometimes a fault of youth is their expectation that goals should only require one step.

Do a little research on who is blocking nuclear energy in this country and why. When you find a reason that has not been proven invalid in a country that utilizes nuclear energy, let me know.

The US spends a greater percent of GDP (ie "more money") on healthcare than any other nation in the world yet ranks 37th in outcome, according to a WHO study.

[egs21]

Research Blue Dog Democrats. There were Republicans who voted for TARP and those who voted against it. My positions are based on my evaluation of individual issues, regardless of party or degree of liberalism versus conservatism. My votes are based on selecting the candidate who best represents what I think it important---I don't always agree 100% with a person who gets my vote. I voted for Obama in his US Senate run because his Republican opponent was totally unacceptable to me.

Goals are met one step at a time. Offshore drilling is a step in the right direction and so should be taken. Sometimes a fault of youth is their expectation that goals should only require one step.

Do a little research on who is blocking nuclear energy in this country and why. When you find a reason that has not been proven invalid in a country that utilizes nuclear energy, let me know.

The US spends a greater percent of GDP (ie "more money") on healthcare than any other nation in the world yet ranks 37th in outcome, according to a WHO study.

Thanks for the info.

I have heard about the blue dog democrats and some of their positions are valid.

I also did not agree 100% with all of Obama's positions. But I found myself agreeing much more with him than I did with McCain, so therefore as an independent voter, I voted for the person I aligned most closely with.

Again, I do not know much about nuclear energy and the pros and cons. But I think it is a valid idea that we should look into.

[kaydahl]

Thanks for the info.

I have heard about the blue dog democrats and some of their positions are valid.

I also did not agree 100% with all of Obama's positions. But I found myself agreeing much more with him than I did with McCain, so therefore as an independent voter, I voted for the person I aligned most closely with.

Again, I do not know much about nuclear energy and the pros and cons. But I think it is a valid idea that we should look into.

Yes, there are valid positions on both sides of center. And you and I both have acknowledged that we can see that.

[egs21]

Yes, there are valid positions on both sides of center. And you and I both have acknowledged that we can see that.

Ok. Well, I'm glad we have found some common ground.