[villalobos]

You managed to bring unemployment up to the levels your dad left it. Great job, really!

[Shaddim]

You left out the kudos for the Dem controlled congress. Both parties suck, haven't you figured that out yet?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You left out the kudos for the Dem controlled congress. Both parties suck, haven't you figured that out yet?

Economic experts are saying the recession started in 2006. That would have to be a fast acting Congress...

[chris v]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

You managed to bring unemployment up to the levels your dad left it. Great job, really!

Read along in the playbook: Not-Yet-President Obama future-did it!

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Economic experts are saying the recession started in 2006. That would have to be a fast acting Congress...

2006: they year of insane house value inflation and using your equity as ATM. Great year for the economy?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Economic experts are saying the recession started in 2006. That would have to be a fast acting Congress...

you guys saying that the Dems in congress had nothing to do with this mess? Really? Enjoying that kool-aid much?

I'm seeing that it started in Q4 of `07.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

you guys saying that the Dems in congress had nothing to do with this mess? Really? Enjoying that kool-aid much?

The do-nothing Democrats did something? Do tell!

[turtle777]

Barney Franks, pushing down houses people's throats through Fannie and Freddie, surely had nothing to do with it

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You left out the kudos for the Dem controlled congress. Both parties suck, haven't you figured that out yet?

You left out the 6 years of Republican controlled Congress.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Barney Franks, pushing down houses people's throats through Fannie and Freddie, surely had nothing to do with it

-t

Maybe if the Republicans didn't deregulate the lenders so much, so many people wouldn't be in debt and lose their house. Ironic that the Bush Administration and the Congress are now doing what ACORN wanted in the first place: adjust loans and interest to avoid foreclosure, and to not leave the lenders to push loans that hit 15%.

The Republicans (and many Democrats) saw how the speculators were inflating property values. You could give someone an incredibly horrible loan on the prospect that -- even if the person defaulted -- home price values would be rocketing it didn't matter if it went into foreclosure. Kick the people out, wait a year, then sell the house at a profit.

[turtle777]

I'm just glad that Obama has the magic bullet to battle this crisis: raising taxes will bring us back to prosperity

-t

[hyteckit]

Dude. 9/11.

Either that or it's the billions of dollars being spent on Iraq. I meant hundreds of billions spent with a few billion here and there missing. Well, at least Pres. Bush is a billionaire now.

[hyteckit]

Oh, and Pres. Bush buddies in Saudi Arabia made a killing during his presidency with $4/gal gas. Also, driving US companies to the ground also allow Pres. Bush buddies in Saudi Arabia to buy US companies for pennies on the dollar. After buying up the companies, we are fooled into bailing out these companies with tax payer money.

Wow, awesome scam.

How much did Citigroup get from the bailout? $300 billion? Nice. Saudi prince must be happy.

3 step scam:

1. Drive gas prices up.
2. Cause US companies to tank and buy them up for pennies on the dollar.
3. Get Americans to pay for the bailout of these companies.

Cha-ching!

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

you guys saying that the Dems in congress had nothing to do with this mess? Really? Enjoying that kool-aid much?

I'm seeing that it started in Q4 of `07.

You're assuming the Democrats could have passed laws that would have survived a veto. Regulate the financial industry? Bush is as likely to sign that anything with increased regulation as I'm as likely to vote Republican. Not gonna happen.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

You're assuming the Democrats could have passed laws that would have survived a veto. Regulate the financial industry? Bush is as likely to sign that anything with increased regulation as I'm as likely to vote Republican. Not gonna happen.

A regulatory overhaul bill was sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel (R) and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the Senate in July of '05. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it. Granted, this didn't make it past Senate Majority leader Frist (R), but it didn't have enough support among Democrats to have gotten anywhere anyway. Could the finger-pointing please stop now? The partisan blindness on this is absolutely confounding.

You may not in fact ever vote Republican, but not for any informed reasons apparently. This type of partisan mule-headedness is exactly the divisive crap that got us into these messes. I don't care how much of a "uniter" our President is, it simply won't matter.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

You managed to bring unemployment up to the levels your dad left it. Great job, really!

Congratulations are also in order for everyone who voted for him twice.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You left out the 6 years of Republican controlled Congress.

and you left out the both parties sucking part. The Dems haven't fixed a damned thing yet, and they've controlled the gov't for years. Hell, it's not like Bush would actually veto anything, for ****'s sake.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Dude. 9/11.

Either that or it's the billions of dollars being spent on Iraq. I meant hundreds of billions spent with a few billion here and there missing. Well, at least Pres. Bush is a billionaire now.

You think that any national politician walks away from the spotlight a poor man? Barry's already made a fortune in a few short years.

gullible fools.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You think that any national politician walks away from the spotlight a poor man? Barry's already made a fortune in a few short years.

gullible fools.

A poor politician is a bad politician.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by chris v 

A poor politician is a bad politician.

Exactly, they all pad their pockets.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A regulatory overhaul bill was sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel (R) and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the Senate in July of '05. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it. Granted, this didn't make it past Senate Majority leader Frist (R), but it didn't have enough support among Democrats to have gotten anywhere anyway.

Yeah, I pretty much have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you have a news link that provides context? Still, it doesn't prove anything. Republicans would never have supported a bill that called for increased regulation of the financial industry. Not in a million years.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Could the finger-pointing please stop now? The partisan blindness on this is absolutely confounding.

You may not in fact ever vote Republican, but not for any informed reasons apparently. This type of partisan mule-headedness is exactly the divisive crap that got us into these messes. I don't care how much of a "uniter" our President is, it simply won't matter.

Finger-pointing?

It's called taking (or determining) responsibility. But Republicans aren't that interested in governing anything, so of course they don't want to be blamed for their ineptitude. You guys believe in "personal responsibility" except when it comes to taking responsibility for governing anything.

Also, ebuddy, there is a difference between partisanship and divisiveness. I am a partisan of Democratic initiatives because those policies best represent my views. Similarly, I do not support Republican initiatives because they do not represent my views. And for the record, I'd say I do good job of keeping abreast of those differences, your characterization of my being "uninformed" notwithstanding.

Now, Democrats both in the campaign and in their policies stray from divisiveness. For Republicans, it's their entire platform (just ask Rove, Roger Stone, Pat Buchanan, Atwater, the Ghost of Nixon, etc). If you're really as concerned about divisiveness as you represent, then I think it's pretty clear who you should be voting for: Democratic politicians.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Now, Democrats both in the campaign and in their policies stray from divisiveness. For Republicans, it's their entire platform (just ask Rove, Roger Stone, Pat Buchanan, Atwater, the Ghost of Nixon, etc). If you're really as concerned about divisiveness as you represent, then I think it's pretty clear who you should be voting for: Democratic politicians.

Pfftt, they're all criminals, you just pick the scumbag that's most likely going to do what you want. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deeply deluded.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Yeah, I pretty much have no idea what you're talking about.

Right and that's why I've called you apparently uninformed.

Do you have a news link that provides context? Still, it doesn't prove anything. Republicans would never have supported a bill that called for increased regulation of the financial industry. Not in a million years.

sununusenate.gov

Here are some hearings from 2004 in which several prominent Republicans are calling for regulatory oversight of Mae and Mac and getting lambasted by Democrat opposition;
predicting the future of tax-payer bailouts

Finger-pointing?

Correction; shameless finger-pointing. Yeah.

It's called taking (or determining) responsibility.

If you read my post, you would've seen where I implicated both sides of the aisle and have consistently done so. I take issue with the partisan shilling that attempts to claim only Republicans are culpable for this mess when there are a wealth of players from both sides involved. That's what is called taking responsibility. What you're doing is entirely different and stems from being woefully uninformed.

But Republicans aren't that interested in governing anything, so of course they don't want to be blamed for their ineptitude.

Of course I haven't a clue what you're talking about now.

You guys believe in "personal responsibility" except when it comes to taking responsibility for governing anything.

"You guys"? "Personal responsibility"? This is exactly the kind of partisan nonsense I'm talking about. You've been hoodwinked by the finger-pointing and have forgotten that you and I are on the same side here. What I'm talking about is a government in general that has been unresponsive to you as the constituent regardless of party affiliation. I'm telling you a great deal of Democrats (as well as Republicans) are behind the market failure for which you and I are expected to pay. As far as "taking responsibility", it is apparent that one Republican in this debate is implicating both sides and one Democrat is suggesting it lies solely at the feet of Republicans. Is that indicative of what "you guys" do?

Also, ebuddy, there is a difference between partisanship and divisiveness. I am a partisan of Democratic initiatives because those policies best represent my views. Similarly, I do not support Republican initiatives because they do not represent my views. And for the record, I'd say I do good job of keeping abreast of those differences, your characterization of my being "uninformed" notwithstanding.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

Now, Democrats both in the campaign and in their policies stray from divisiveness. For Republicans, it's their entire platform (just ask Rove, Roger Stone, Pat Buchanan, Atwater, the Ghost of Nixon, etc). If you're really as concerned about divisiveness as you represent, then I think it's pretty clear who you should be voting for: Democratic politicians.

I have voted for Democratic politicians. I am not so rigid in my views that I'd say something like; "I'll never vote Republican" as you have. This shows a degree of immovable partisanship that does not allow for informed decision-making, it does not allow for "policies that best represent you". In fact there is no ideology behind it at all, only an (R) or a (D).

See, you might be placed in a position of having to choose between a moderate-liberal Republican and a moderate-conservative Democrat. When you say with regard to voting Republican; "never gonna happen", it is clear to me that you'd happily abandon any notions of ideological integrity for a party preference. This is blind partisanship. You think the Democrats were somehow afraid of partisan, divisive rhetoric? Hell, look at what Obama's running mate had to say about Obama during the primaries. Accusations of drug use, the whole "Muslim" scare tactic, etc... please, the Republicans didn't have to say a friggin' word. What Rove, Roger Stone, Atwater, et. al established is that if you want to ball it up with Democrats, you better be ready to manipulate demographics to your advantage and play rough. McCain's abysmal campaign and subsequent failure proved it.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

See, you might be placed in a position of having to choose between a moderate-liberal Republican and a moderate-conservative Democrat. When you say with regard to voting Republican; "never gonna happen", it is clear to me that you'd happily abandon any notions of ideological integrity for a party preference. This is blind partisanship.

Ideological integrity?

It's clear that you are uninformed. Right now the most conservative Democrat in Congress is more liberal than the most liberal Republican. The parties are perfectly sorted. There are no more Rockefeller Republicans where it would make sense to cross party lines. Now, if that were to change, I would certainly vote for the more liberal candidate. I didn't say I wouldn't, just that it's not very likely these days.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You think the Democrats were somehow afraid of partisan, divisive rhetoric? Hell, look at what Obama's running mate had to say about Obama during the primaries. Accusations of drug use, the whole "Muslim" scare tactic, etc... please, the Republicans didn't have to say a friggin' word. What Rove, Roger Stone, Atwater, et. al established is that if you want to ball it up with Democrats, you better be ready to manipulate demographics to your advantage and play rough. McCain's abysmal campaign and subsequent failure proved it.

You have got to be kidding me.

Those Republican operatives are *famous* for divisive tactics. To equate anything the Democrats have said to what the Republicans do is to abandon judgment. But that's kind of your mojo isn't it, just a more erudite, holier-than-thou version of "they're all crooks?" Sorry, but there are differences, whether you acknowledge them or not.

And, as a side note, for many to criticize the Obama campaign for calling out divisive tactics and to regard it as some sort of equivalency is nothing more than a retarded "South Park" theory of politics, which is that the victims of things like racism, sexism, and the like are more reprehensible than its purveyors.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You left out the kudos for the Dem controlled congress. Both parties suck, haven't you figured that out yet?

this line of argument reminds me of:

A: look at all the blood, the motive, the access, the mountain of evidence!

B: but mark furman said the N word!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

this line of argument reminds me of:

A: look at all the blood, the motive, the access, the mountain of evidence!

B: but mark furman said the N word!

Or, you could look at the legislation in the last several years and count the number of vetoes. Shouldn't take long. The Dem congress could have passed anything they wanted, but they never even bothered. Why is that?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Ideological integrity?

Is it sinking in or do you need more time?

It's clear that you are uninformed.

I know, those pesky little facts always get in the way of a good partisan talking point don't they.

Right now the most conservative Democrat in Congress is more liberal than the most liberal Republican. The parties are perfectly sorted. There are no more Rockefeller Republicans where it would make sense to cross party lines. Now, if that were to change, I would certainly vote for the more liberal candidate. I didn't say I wouldn't, just that it's not very likely these days.

I think you said; "not gonna happen". BTW, your sampling is among the most polarized Hill we've ever had. The face value of the data varies substantially by significant historical incidents like... war. After all, we live in very unique times. To say; "not gonna happen" is partisan foolery IMO and has little to do with the actual issues at play.

For example, had you been one of those who voted for a Democrat in 2006 as a mandate to;

- End the Iraq war with a deadline and decrease both funding and troop levels? Fail. You've been served by increased troop levels, increased and indefinite funding of this action, and no deadlines.
- Roll back the Bush tax cuts? Fail.
- Restore fiscal responsibility? Fail. In the last two years the Federal debt has increased by 1.5 trillion dollars. In case you're looking to apply your little optimal classification algorithm here, this means they've increased both the National Debt and annual deficits faster than Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress. Apologies. As it turns out, OC won't help you here at all.
- Pay-as-you-go legislation? The Federal debt has increased by seven trillion dollars in the last two years. Fail.
- Protect Social Security? Nope. The unfunded portion of Social Security has exploded over $200 million. While hundreds of billions of dollars continue to flow into this fund, none of it has been placed in a lock box, but has been repeatedly raided to pay off other Federal bills.
- Break lobbyists from legislators? Nope... just to name a few.

While there's been failure after abject failure, you're comfortable with the "edith" strategy of measuring a politician's ability to deliver?

You have got to be kidding me.

You took the words right off my monitor.

Those Republican operatives are *famous* for divisive tactics. To equate anything the Democrats have said to what the Republicans do is to abandon judgment. But that's kind of your mojo isn't it, just a more erudite, holier-than-thou version of "they're all crooks?" Sorry, but there are differences, whether you acknowledge them or not.

So... when it came to exploiting your vote and bending you over the counter, not enough "nay" votes among the left apparently?

And, as a side note, for many to criticize the Obama campaign for calling out divisive tactics and to regard it as some sort of equivalency is nothing more than a retarded "South Park" theory of politics, which is that the victims of things like racism, sexism, and the like are more reprehensible than its purveyors.

Naturally, I disagree. The criticisms I've seen often stem from how liberally the terms "racism", "sexism", and the like are thrown around. Exploiting real victims by marginalizing these for nothing more than your personal political gain only exacerbates the perceived problem and is indeed more reprehensible.

[The Crook]

Cut out the crap, so I don't have to when replying to your insult-full posts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

SNIP

I think you said; "not gonna happen". BTW, your sampling is among the most polarized Hill we've ever had. The face value of the data varies substantially by significant historical incidents like... war. After all, we live in very unique times. To say; "not gonna happen" is partisan foolery IMO and has little to do with the actual issues at play.

I think I've told you at least twice now that I don't mean never.

I very likely will not vote Republican. And that will only change if the Republican is more liberal than the Democrat. If the Democrat is incompetent, like many of the recent Republican candidates have been, I probably won't vote instead of casting my vote for someone whose policies I strongly disagree with.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For example, had you been one of those who voted for a Democrat in 2006 as a mandate to;

- End the Iraq war with a deadline and decrease both funding and troop levels? Fail. You've been served by increased troop levels, increased and indefinite funding of this action, and no deadlines.
- Roll back the Bush tax cuts? Fail.
- Restore fiscal responsibility? Fail. In the last two years the Federal debt has increased by 1.5 trillion dollars. In case you're looking to apply your little optimal classification algorithm here, this means they've increased both the National Debt and annual deficits faster than Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress. Apologies. As it turns out, OC won't help you here at all.
- Pay-as-you-go legislation? The Federal debt has increased by seven trillion dollars in the last two years. Fail.
- Protect Social Security? Nope. The unfunded portion of Social Security has exploded over $200 million. While hundreds of billions of dollars continue to flow into this fund, none of it has been placed in a lock box, but has been repeatedly raided to pay off other Federal bills.
- Break lobbyists from legislators? Nope... just to name a few.

While there's been failure after abject failure, you're comfortable with the "edith" strategy of measuring a politician's ability to deliver?

It's not brain surgery to figure out that Republicans blocked the Democratic agenda with veto threats, actual vetoes, and a record number of filibusters and filibuster threats. I blame Republicans in Congress for blocking the Democratic legislation. I'm not sure how that's controversial. With a Democratic president, Congress will have more success. I for one think they should invoke the nuclear option to be able to pass their agenda (although it will be hard since they argued for keeping it when Republicans wanted to invoke it).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

SNIP

Naturally, I disagree. The criticisms I've seen often stem from how liberally the terms "racism", "sexism", and the like are thrown around. Exploiting real victims by marginalizing these for nothing more than your personal political gain only exacerbates the perceived problem and is indeed more reprehensible.

I have no idea what you're referring to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Cut out the crap, so I don't have to when replying to your insult-full posts.

Don't get preachy. I've been no more insulting than you.

crap cut out
I probably won't vote instead of casting my vote for someone whose policies I strongly disagree with.

Very few "strongly disagree" on any one policy.

It's not brain surgery to figure out that Republicans blocked the Democratic agenda with veto threats, actual vetoes, and a record number of filibusters and filibuster threats.

Those blasted filibuster threats are a killer huh? For every filibuster/threat you produce, I'll give you a proposal littered with hostages.

I blame Republicans in Congress for blocking the Democratic legislation.

It seems likely you'd blame them if there were only two left.

I'm not sure how that's controversial. With a Democratic president, Congress will have more success. I for one think they should invoke the nuclear option to be able to pass their agenda (although it will be hard since they argued for keeping it when Republicans wanted to invoke it).

I would say Obama is hedging his strategy as much on protecting himself from this Congress as he is working with them on some politically lofty "agenda".

I have no idea what you're referring to.

nm

[The Crook]

I have no idea what a "proposal littered with hostages" is supposed to refer to.

There is nothing controversial about the fact that Republicans blocked (or threatened to block) the Democrats' agenda. If the Democrats were in the minority, I would want them to do everything in their power to block a Republican agenda I would likely strongly oppose. That's what an opposition party does, and one can do it especially well in our system of government (unlike others). And since you're all about bi/post/no partisanship, I'll gladly criticize the Democrats for not doing as good a job in blocking legislation as Republicans when the Democrats were in the minority.

As far as "protecting himself from this Congress" goes, I don't see anything he needs to protect himself from. Democrats just won increasingly large majorities in both Houses. That's not anything to back away from. I don't know if you're conservative, libertarian, lack any sort of coherent worldview or whatever the case may be, but I think Obama will work well with Congress to pass his liberal agenda. That's why so many of his staff appointments were geared more towards getting legislation passed (i.e. Tom Daschle, Rahm, etc.) The only thing I worry about is the Republican filibuster. There's no guarantee that on any given issue we'll have the 60 votes to defeat it.

[thechidz]

the fact that the country is screwed right now is the fault of many greedy, ignorant and self-righteous fools. but hey, I can see Russia from my house!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

I have no idea what a "proposal littered with hostages" is supposed to refer to.

I'm talking about a bill or proposal that is littered with measures that beg opposition. Why don't you give me some of those "blocked votes" you keep blathering on about and I'll show you exactly what I mean.