[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Rush Limbaugh, a radio talk show host can hope for what he sees as the most socialist agenda in the past 30 years to fail and this is reprehensible and unpatriotic. While the expenditure on this stimulus will dwarf the cost of Iraq and likewise has no exit strategy; how dare you question it? Unpatriotic? Wishing America to fail? Racist? This is how you regard dissent now? Boy and to think of how fashionable dissent was just a few years ago.

This is exactly why Rush Limbaugh is the biggest asshat on radio given how many times Republicans accused people of being "unpatriotic" or "hating America" because they were against the war in Iraq in the first place.

When the tables are turned and Limbaugh's patriotism questioned, it's suddenly outrageous and unconscionable; as if the last 8 years of accusing anti-war proponents of siding with terrorism never happened.

[hyteckit]

I still think the Iraq War was a bad decision.

I still think the Iraq War is a failure. Many lives lost, close to a trillion dollars wasted. No WMD.

I hope our American soldiers return home safely and allow the Iraqi citizens to run their own country. I wish both American soldiers and Iraqi citizens well.

[hyteckit]

RUSH LIMBAUGH:

I hope Obama's policies would not pass.

I hope Obama's policies are a failure and that the US economy tanks and hundreds of millions of Americans suffer.

That would teach Obama a lesson as vmarks has put it. Let the family business fail and the whole family suffer, just to prove that Obama is wrong. That's the conservative spirit. That's what loving the family means.

Cause daddy Rush Limbaugh knows best and everyone who goes against my ways is wrong.

[shifuimam]

It's not about proving Obama wrong.

The American population needs to feel some serious pain. We've collectively been living in a dream world since the 80s, where people buy things they can't afford, spend money they don't have, and generally don't plan for the future. It's finally biting us in the ass. Providing bailouts and handouts and free money from the government is only delaying the inevitable.

People in general have gotten dumber over the years when it comes to stuff that should be common sense. If you can't afford more than a 5% down payment on the house, then you can't afford the house. Instead of seeing things that way, we just try to delay the finance charges and the debt so that we can have what we want now, instead of waiting and working for it.

Sure, it sucks that people are going to have to move into apartments or sell the second car or stop spending $400 a month eating out. But it seems like that kind of "pain" is the only way we're going to learn our lesson for good.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Yours is a bizarre and ridiculous hypothetical - Mr. Obama is not the son of Mr. Limbaugh.

Back in the real world, there are very appropriate times when parents hope their children fail. Failure is how we learn. If we do not fail, then we do not have the mistakes from which to learn.

Additionally, parents sometimes leave their children in jail for a weekend rather than leaping to bail them out. Sometimes, children have to experience the severity of their mistakes rather than be rescued from them in order to learn. That's one of the most difficult choices a parent may have to make, finding that balance.

Nothing wrong with getting your child to acknowledge their mistakes and let them set in jail for the weekend.

I. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Iraq War.

II. Nothing wrong with acknowledge the Iraq War was a mistake and that it was badly mishandled for many years. That's how to correct the mistakes. Get rid of loser Rumsfield and increase the number of troops in Iraq.

III. It's wrong to hope and wish American soldiers suffer and die in Iraq War just to prove it was a mistake.


Disagreeing
Acknowledging
Hoping


What idiot hopes Obama's economic policies would fail and hundreds of millions of Americans to suffer through the economic turmoil?

If you don't support the Iraq War and your child decides to fight in the war anyway, do you hope your child losses a leg in the war just to prove that you are right not to want him to go? That would teach him a lesson?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

stop spending $400 a month eating out.

$400 a month? I spent $400 on one meal last weekend
Granted it was AUD. For our anniversary. But still…

[stumblinmike]

I want to party with you Eric! You know how to live large! Let's put the meal on the credit card, and just never pay the bill. Stickin it to the man, oh yeah!!!

[ironknee]

what parent wants their child to fail?

so who is the leader of the republicans?

don't you want the economy to get better so we can all buy new macbook pros?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

what parent wants their child to fail?

Any parent who understands that they can't always be there to protect their kid and that, therefore, said kid needs to learn how to be independent and, at times, accept failure.

[hyteckit]

Maybe I'm brought up with non "conservative values".

My parents would disagree with me on my decisions in life.
My parents want me to acknowledge when I've made a mistake with my decisions.
My parents would never wish or hope I would fail in life even if they disagree with my decisions.

Maybe conservatives have different values? If their child goes against their "core values", they hope their child fails in life.

Son, you want to marriage a man!? I hope you go to hell and fail miserably in marriage and in life.
Son, you don't want to be a Christian? You want to be a Muslim? Well, I hope you go to hell and fail miserably in life.
Son, you want to be a liberal Democrat? Well, I hope you rot in jail and fail in life for having liberal ideas.
Son, I hope you fail, cause you need to learn a lesson - not to go against my "core values".

Maybe those are conservative values.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Any parent who understands that they can't always be there to protect their kid and that, therefore, said kid needs to learn how to be independent and, at times, accept failure.

i would want my kids to learn to be independent, learn from their mistakes but i would never think i hope they fail at their school or their friendships or their dreams.

if they do fail at these (and they will sometimes) i will be there to support them but i would never WANT them to fail. come on

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Sadly, it sounds like the parents of both of you have already let you fail on several fronts, mainly: comprehension, and logic.

Nothing you're spouting on about has anything to do with conservative values, it's just a part of a warped liberal view demonizing conservative values without any attempt at an actual understanding. Typical kneejerk stuff. "Everyone who I disagree with is racist, homophobic, etc. etc, blah de blah", typical leftist 'non-think'.

You both pretty much demonstrated you failed to understand even the basic point, and that 'failure' in the example doesn't equate to 'failing at life'.

[stupendousman]

All which is pretty much irrelevant.

As I said, this strategy is pretty much a dog, just as it was back when they tried it during the Clinton administration (anyone remember "FAIR" and Al Franken's weak effort)? Didn't really do that much to Limbaugh or Republicans, but it did make the people who already hate them have a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

The problem for people like Begala and Carville is that this is an "old dog" and these guys have problems learning new tricks. This trick worked ONCE because the guy in question was forbidden by law from defending himself and the goal was just to win a PR war, not an election or pass law. That's simply not the case with the Limbaugh situation, and all it will provide is short term distraction. It gives the media something to report on so that they don't feel so guilty not reporting on all of Obama's major f-up's.

Trust me. When people have to choose next election between the guy who has been voting for all the stuff that is hurting their pocketbook, or the guy who probably belongs to the same party as Rush Limbaugh, the "Limbaugh" factor isn't going to be all that compelling of a reason to vote for the other guy. Especially when these people decided to listen to Limbaugh after all the controversy and see that these bozos have been pretty much lying and distorting what Limbaugh has said and means. Between that and hearing (maybe for the first time, since the media will not do their job in regards to their comrade Obama) Limbaugh illustrate all the serial dishonesty Obama has been engaging in over the past several years, I hope they DO continue with this strategy. It means a likely sure gain by Republicans in 2010.

[ironknee]

again who is the leader of the republicans if not rush?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i would want my kids to learn to be independent, learn from their mistakes but i would never think i hope they fail at their school or their friendships or their dreams.

Where did I say that I would want my kids to fail at school, friendships, or dreams? Nowhere.

However everyone will fail at something at some point in their life. If they aren't equipped to recognize and accept that fact, they'll never move past that failure. Parents, therefore, should be instilling realisitic beliefs in their children about the nature of life (and no, I'm not suggesting that we should be berrating small children for their unrealistic outlook on life).

[besson3c]

Isn't McCain supposed to be the leader as his party's nominee?

[hyteckit]

Sad to see all these conservative who fail all sense of logic and comprehension.

They can't tell the difference between

Disagreeing
Acknowledging
Hoping


Conservative think disagreeing with the President on the Iraq War means you want the President to fail.
Conservative think acknowledging the Iraq War isn't going well and needs to change directions means you want the President to fail.

Conservative think that wanting your child to acknowledge the mistakes they have made and learn from it is the same as hoping you child would fail.


Then again, conservatives like spacefreak can't acknowledge that there was no WMD in Iraq still to this day. Conservatives can't acknowledge that we weren't greeted as liberators by the Iraqi citizens. Conservatives like Donald Rumsfield can't acknowledge the Iraq War wasn't going well and we needed more troops. President Bush can't acknowledge he has made any mistakes. Dick Cheney can't acknowledge he has made any mistakes.

Maybe that's why conservatives never learn from their mistakes? They never acknowledge them. They never grow up. They keep to the "core values' and old stubborn ways.

conservatives - we love our "core values" and stubborn ways.

[BadKosh]

Ah yes, mis-characterizing events and other, opposing viewpoints is the liberal strong suit.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Where did I say that I would want my kids to fail at school, friendships, or dreams? Nowhere.

However everyone will fail at something at some point in their life. If they aren't equipped to recognize and accept that fact, they'll never move past that failure. Parents, therefore, should be instilling realisitic beliefs in their children about the nature of life (and no, I'm not suggesting that we should be berrating small children for their unrealistic outlook on life).

what you just wrote does NOT imply you would want them to fail


give me a real world example of how a parent would want their kids to fail?

if my daughter is dating a guy i don't approve, i WISH that she gets raped so she can learn????

if my son is gay and i don't approve, i WISH he gats aids so he can learn???

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

what you just wrote does NOT imply you would want them to fail


give me a real world example of how a parent would want their kids to fail?

if my daughter is dating a guy i don't approve, i WISH that she gets raped so she can learn????

if my son is gay and i don't approve, i WISH he gats aids so he can learn???

Amazingly there are different levels of goodness and badness of things. Somethings are worse than others. It's possible to fail in a way that aren't nearly as bad as getting raped ro contracting AIDS. It's a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, I know.

Perhaps saying that parents would want their kids to fail isn't exactly the right phrasing. Saying that they would refrain from protecting their kids from failure might be better. So while you're right that any reasonable person wouldn't want their daughter to get raped or their son to contract AIDS and would and should do everything in their power to present that (not that either of these things are equivalent to failing at dating or at being gay, so really I don't understand where you got these examples in the first place), they should still allow their kids to fail at some things. Asking a girl to a dance and getting turned down is a good example. Yes it sucks, but it doesn't ruin your life. Little failures like these are what allow us to grow as people and learn to understand and take advantage of our potential. Without some amount of failure in our lives we're unlikely to ever accomplish anythig of value.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Amazingly there are different levels of goodness and badness of things. Somethings are worse than others. It's possible to fail in a way that aren't nearly as bad as getting raped ro contracting AIDS. It's a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, I know.

Perhaps saying that parents would want their kids to fail isn't exactly the right phrasing. Saying that they would refrain from protecting their kids from failure might be better. So while you're right that any reasonable person wouldn't want their daughter to get raped or their son to contract AIDS and would and should do everything in their power to present that (not that either of these things are equivalent to failing at dating or at being gay, so really I don't understand where you got these examples in the first place), they should still allow their kids to fail at some things. Asking a girl to a dance and getting turned down is a good example. Yes it sucks, but it doesn't ruin your life. Little failures like these are what allow us to grow as people and learn to understand and take advantage of our potential. Without some amount of failure in our lives we're unlikely to ever accomplish anythig of value.

so my son has a crush on the head cheerleader. he is thinking of asking her to the prom.

as a parent, i say good for you and good luck but know if she turns him down it won't be the end of the world.

BUT i don't hope she turns him down... i don't hope he fails... as a parent i would think my son is the best thing ever and if she turns him down it's her lost.

so this analogy of rush wanting the president to fail and parents wanting their kids to fail ...fails

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

This is exactly why Rush Limbaugh is the biggest asshat on radio given how many times Republicans accused people of being "unpatriotic" or "hating America" because they were against the war in Iraq in the first place.

Cite for me where Rush Limbaugh called anyone unpatriotic or "hating America" because they opposed the action in Iraq. You can't because you haven't the faintest idea what Rush Limbaugh actually says. You're getting your information on him from David Letterman.

The Republicans who called people unpatriotic or "America haters" were expressing their anger at those who wished failure upon a military action we had already committed our men and women to. Hoping for military failure = immediate death to our soldiers fighting and a severely weakened US geopolitical position. A failed stimulus package full to the brim with measures that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy means much needed market correction. If you can't make sense of the differences in scenarios here, you have no sense at all. Period.

When the tables are turned and Limbaugh's patriotism questioned, it's suddenly outrageous and unconscionable; as if the last 8 years of accusing anti-war proponents of siding with terrorism never happened.

The problem with this comparison is that those opposed to the war in Iraq were siding with terrorists who were likewise against the war in Iraq. The only difference is the terrorists knew why they opposed action in Iraq and what was at stake for them in the region while the others here were just being naive, ideological Mooreons. The statement is true whether you like to hear it or not.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

again who is the leader of the republicans if not rush?

Well, Glen Beck is certainly doing his best to cement his place as "The Nuttiest WingNut". There is no shortage of whackjobs willing to dethrone the king!

[waxcrash]

This is from the actor Alec Baldwin:

I am an actor and someone employed in the entertainment business. I have my own opinions about how this government should be run and how disgracefully it has been run by both parties. I want to give it as hard as I can to those who willingly seek political roles and disgrace their office and, conversely, commend those who, in my opinion, behave commendably. I express those opinions un-self-consciously while never believing for one minute that they will influence anyone or anything. I do it as an American. For me, it's an American thing.

I am not the head of my Party.

Rush Limbaugh is an uneducated, marginally talented, overbearing, recovering drug addict who was, at least according to Wikipedia, ineligible for the draft because he had cysts on his ass.

I have dear friends of mine who represent real Republicans. Goldwater Republicans. Strong on defense. Tough on immigration. Fiscal conservatives. Not the bullshit Reagan wing of the party which, along with Clinton killing Glass-Steagall, brought us to where we are today.

My friends who are these real Republicans (not hypocritical evangelicals who are too lazy to raise their own children properly so, therefore, insist that all public institutions and policies bend to their will to make that job easier) do not listen to Limbaugh. They don't care what he says. They think he is an amusing entertainer. Like most progressives I know are well aware how hit-and-miss Michael Moore can be and, ultimately view him as an entertainer and don't give a damn what he says.

Until Limbaugh gets real, weans himself off the big salary and runs for office, he will always be nothing more than a poorly educated, marginally talented buffoon who has developed a real talent for manipulating the G-spot of the neocon consciousness and massaging the hate gland of so many economically displaced white voters in America.

I hope to God the GOP gets its act together soon and finds a real leader for their Party. Rush Limbaugh as the spokesperson for the GOP? 2010, I can't wait.

Manipulating the G-spot of the neocons...ha ha ha that is pretty funny.

[ebuddy]

Who is this Rush Limbaugh that Alec Baldwin speaks of?

Better that he would verbally abuse Rush Limbaugh than his own 11 year old daughter.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

again who is the leader of the republicans if not rush?

There are a number of people who you could choose from before you got to Rush.

John Boehner

Micheal Steele

Those are two right off the top of my head.

Rush Limbaugh has been elected to lead no one.

This is all distraction to take our focus off the one guy who was elected to lead us all, who is failing MISERABLY at doing so.

Sorry to bust your bubble.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This is all distraction to take our focus off the one guy who was elected to lead us all, who is failing MISERABLY at doing so.

Yep!

[stupendousman]

Yeah, the Baldwin rant was very entertaining if for nothing other than it's surely unintentional ironic value.

Baldwin criticizing Republicans on parenting....

He's a comedic genius, that one!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are a number of people who you could choose from before you got to Rush.

John Boehner

Micheal Steele

Those are two right off the top of my head.

Rush Limbaugh has been elected to lead no one.

This is all distraction to take our focus off the one guy who was elected to lead us all, who is failing MISERABLY at doing so.

Sorry to bust your bubble.

how is the president failing? exactly please.

keep in mind bush approved a $700 BILLION dollar bailout back in september of 2008.

not to mention the recession started back in december 0f 2007.

bubble?

i was just asking who is the real leader of the republican party... apparently, you republicans are saying rush is NOT the leader.

mr. steele bowed down to rush by saying, i'm sorry... right?

come on!


edit: extra extra!

rush, "Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy memorial health care bill,"

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

keep in mind bush approved a $700 BILLION dollar bailout back in september of 2008.

One act of stupidity justifies another? I can't believe you're willing to compare His Majesty to Shrub the Wonder Chimp. They're both failures, and they're both going to be responsible for sinking Western civilization to the lowest point since the dark ages.

Ok, that was probably a bit of hyperbole, but it's going to get a lot worse. We, as a society, are going to feel the repercussions of these actions for generations.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

how is the president failing? exactly please.

Here's one example, with explanation better than I can give myself:

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama Is Moving Us Toward a European-Style Social Welfare State and Long-Run Economic Stagnation - WSJ.com

keep in mind bush approved a $700 BILLION dollar bailout back in september of 2008.

...which was a rushed, bad idea. What happened to all that money? Where did it go? Who was responsible for overseeing it's dispersal. If you are under the impression that I think that Bush can do no wrong, you're mistaken.

not to mention the recession started back in december 0f 2007.

Cyclical. Just as we had a recession at the end of Clinton's last term which Bush kept pretty short, despite a major terrorist attack on American soil which could have resulted in panic and disruption of the markets. Our major problems now where foreseen back in 2004 and Bush has not controlled the "purse strings" and congressional oversight for the past 2 years. When warning signs went up, politics ensured that nothing would be done. Though I do blame Bush for not fighting hard enough when he saw it coming. The fact is, Democrats fought additional regulation that may have lessoned the current economic crisis tooth and nail.

Rush Limbaugh played no part in the current economic crisis. George Bush is no longer an elected official. We can't "vote him out" due to anything he's done.

On the other hand, Obama is at the top after lying through his teeth about his intentions on governing so he'd appear to be a moderate like John McCain, did nothing to stop the crisis when given an opportunity in 2004 (unlike McCain) and in fact supported an organization whose goal it is to get MORE bad loans into the marketplace, then decided to engage in policies that are sinking the economy further into the toliet.

But yeah, let's take a look at that talk show host Limbaugh. THAT'S what is important!

...you guys crack me up!

i was just asking who is the real leader of the republican party... apparently, you republicans are saying rush is NOT the leader.

mr. steele bowed down to rush by saying, i'm sorry... right?

Who was the party leader when the Democrats where a minority in Congress and didn't have a President in office?

I can't name a single person who acted as "defacto leader" for them either. Was it Bill Ayers? John Stewart? Who was it that the media looked to as official spokesperson for the Democrat party? No one that I can recall. But of course this isn't about precedent or "leadership", it's about distraction. Distraction only lasts so long. Especially when people's wallets are getting emptied. If this is the best the Obama administration can do to defend it's policies, they aren't going to do very well come 2010, I assure you. People are going to vote out the folks in charge. Rush Limbaugh will be nowhere on the ballot which is why this is a terribly flawed and sure to fail strategy just as it was back in the early nineties when it didn't work either.

[BadKosh]

The Democrats who came back in power in Congress in 2007 were responsible for the mess we are in now. its not like the evidence is out there, its just the MSM(from where much of the evidence is from) would cover that fact, or the congressional record which shows Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as the main congressional intimidators of the Morgage and banking industries. The Dems have been doing whatever they could to get more loans for those who couldn't afford it to satisfy campaign promises. 0bama himself was a shakedown artist who sued mortgage companies, saying they were biased against blacks in giving the loans -and using a 'study' as proof. The author of that study later stated that the study was bogus and never actually done. Too Late however as 0bama had already bilked BILLIONS from them.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's one example, with explanation better than I can give myself:

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama Is Moving Us Toward a European-Style Social Welfare State and Long-Run Economic Stagnation - WSJ.com

ok let me ask again, what would you have wanted either president bush or presdident obama to have done?

with president bush who is a small government, tax cuts, free market guy to all of the sudden - when the sh!t hit the fan-reversed his principles and did a "socialist" act.

why?

wasn't there a conservative act he could have done?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...which was a rushed, bad idea. What happened to all that money? Where did it go? Who was responsible for overseeing it's dispersal. If you are under the impression that I think that Bush can do no wrong, you're mistaken.

yes, what happened to all the money? where was the oversight?

you say it was a bad idea...what would you have wanted him to do instead?

let the banks die...let ford gm and chrysler die?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Cyclical. Just as we had a recession at the end of Clinton's last term which Bush kept pretty short, despite a major terrorist attack on American soil which could have resulted in panic and disruption of the markets. Our major problems now where foreseen back in 2004 and Bush has not controlled the "purse strings" and congressional oversight for the past 2 years. When warning signs went up, politics ensured that nothing would be done. Though I do blame Bush for not fighting hard enough when he saw it coming. The fact is, Democrats fought additional regulation that may have lessoned the current economic crisis tooth and nail.

regulations are the liberal's mantra right? deregulations is the conservative mantra

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Rush Limbaugh played no part in the current economic crisis. George Bush is no longer an elected official. We can't "vote him out" due to anything he's done.

agreed. but no one ever suggested rush played a part.

and yes bush is out of office so let's all dump on obama?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

On the other hand, Obama is at the top after lying through his teeth about his intentions on governing so he'd appear to be a moderate like John McCain, did nothing to stop the crisis when given an opportunity in 2004 (unlike McCain) and in fact supported an organization whose goal it is to get MORE bad loans into the marketplace, then decided to engage in policies that are sinking the economy further into the toliet.

what did mccain do and how successful was he?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

But yeah, let's take a look at that talk show host Limbaugh. THAT'S what is important!

...you guys crack me up!


Who was the party leader when the Democrats where a minority in Congress and didn't have a President in office?

I can't name a single person who acted as "defacto leader" for them either. Was it Bill Ayers? John Stewart? Who was it that the media looked to as official spokesperson for the Democrat party? No one that I can recall. But of course this isn't about precedent or "leadership", it's about distraction. Distraction only lasts so long. Especially when people's wallets are getting emptied. If this is the best the Obama administration can do to defend it's policies, they aren't going to do very well come 2010, I assure you. People are going to vote out the folks in charge. Rush Limbaugh will be nowhere on the ballot which is why this is a terribly flawed and sure to fail strategy just as it was back in the early nineties when it didn't work either.

again, i'm just asking if not rush then who is? and if the answer is no one then that's cool too.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Democrats who came back in power in Congress in 2007 were responsible for the mess we are in now. its not like the evidence is out there, its just the MSM(from where much of the evidence is from) would cover that fact, or the congressional record which shows Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as the main congressional intimidators of the Morgage and banking industries. The Dems have been doing whatever they could to get more loans for those who couldn't afford it to satisfy campaign promises. 0bama himself was a shakedown artist who sued mortgage companies, saying they were biased against blacks in giving the loans -and using a 'study' as proof. The author of that study later stated that the study was bogus and never actually done. Too Late however as 0bama had already bilked BILLIONS from them.

that is the "mark furman said the N word" defense.

[hyteckit]

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

Economic Adviser user Pres. George HW Bush? Really? How was the economy under the first Bush?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

what did mccain do and how successful was he?

He, along with several other Senators, sounded the alarm. Too bad BO didn't sign it.

[hyteckit]

Yes, I vote for more regulations and oversight too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

Economic Adviser user Pres. George HW Bush? Really? How was the economy under the first Bush?

Pretty good. Since Reagan, I think there was 11 years(?) of economic expansion. Bush had a short cyclical recession like Clinton, but Bush's cleared up well before Clinton even took office. Then Clinton had his own small one at the end of his term. Bush II went about 7 years before his turn was to come around, which has been worsened by the housing/mortgage mess the Democrats gave us and now Obama is plunging us even further down the toilet.

This would have been another cyclical thing if not for Barney Frank insisting nothing needed to be done, and Obama talking down the economy so he can have a depression and be a Roosevelt-like savior with his own socialist new deal using trillions of unnecessary government spending. Just ask most any economist.

[stupendousman]

There's a video link somewhere of the congressional hearings that went along with that letter where the Democrats scolded the Republicans for wanting increased oversight and regulations on the mortgage industry. That and Barney Frank's insane insistence (again..how does that guy stay in office?) that F&F weren't doing anything risky, get's a a market meltdown!

Barney Frank knows NOTHING about housing issues other than how to run a whorehouse from his. THAT is the guy who Republicans need to be featuring in their commercials. He's pretty much the devil.

[ironknee]

so republicans support more regulations?

cool i can go for that

i would also think mccain and/or palin would at least be the top leaders of the republican party

will mccain run again? who knows

will palin? i hope so.

[ironknee]

also,

it's only been 2 months of being president for obama.

remember when 9-11 happened and many of you blamed clinton for it...

so at least give him 9 months

[waxcrash]

Another interesting article about Rush:

Newsweek: Why Rush is Wrong

Some good quotes too...

Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach. Forty-one percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Limbaugh is especially off-putting to women: his audience is 72 percent male, according to Pew Research. Limbaugh himself acknowledges his unpopularity among women. On his Feb. 24 broadcast, he said with a chuckle: "Thirty-one-point gender gaps don't come along all that often … Given this massive gender gap in my personal approval numbers … it seems reasonable for me to convene a summit."

We lost the presidency in 2008. In 2006 and 2008, together, we lost 51 seats in the House and 14 in the Senate. Even in 2004, President Bush won reelection by the narrowest margin of any reelected president in American history.

The trends below those vote totals were even more alarming. Republicans have never done well among the poor and the nonwhite—and as the country's Hispanic population grows, so, too, do those groups. More ominously, Republicans are losing their appeal to voters with whom they've historically done well.

In 1984 Reagan won young voters by 20 points; the elder Bush won voters under 30 again in 1988. Since that year, the Democrats have won the under-30 vote in five consecutive presidential elections. Voters who turned 20 between 2000 and 2005 are the most lopsidedly Democratic age cohort in the electorate. If they eat right, exercise and wear seat belts, they will be voting against George W. Bush well into the 2060s.

I hate to say it, but the writing is on the wall - or shall I say the sign...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Pretty good. Since Reagan, I think there was 11 years(?) of economic expansion. Bush had a short cyclical recession like Clinton, but Bush's cleared up well before Clinton even took office. Then Clinton had his own small one at the end of his term. Bush II went about 7 years before his turn was to come around, which has been worsened by the housing/mortgage mess the Democrats gave us and now Obama is plunging us even further down the toilet.

This would have been another cyclical thing if not for Barney Frank insisting nothing needed to be done, and Obama talking down the economy so he can have a depression and be a Roosevelt-like savior with his own socialist new deal using trillions of unnecessary government spending. Just ask most any economist.

What does an Economic Adviser under Pres. George HW Bush has to do with Reagan?

I wonder why if the economy is going so under Pres. George HW Bush, why he turned out to be a 1 term president.

Besides Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are all deficit spenders who drive up national debt. What's wrong with Obama being a deficit spender?

[hyteckit]

Ronald Reagan is one of the biggest deficit spenders. He increase the national deficit more than 400%. National debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion under Pres. Ronald Reagan.

If you conservatives love Ronald Reagan, you guys must love Pres. Obama.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Ronald Reagan is one of the biggest deficit spenders. He increase the national deficit more than 400%. National debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion under Pres. Ronald Reagan.

If you conservatives love Ronald Reagan, you guys must love Pres. Obama.

One of the greatest snake oil salesman of our time was Ronald Reagan, but that isn't surprising. A lot of people actually think they can get something for nothing.

[hyteckit]

Can someone explain this part of Mr. Boskin's article:

"Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html


$3.6 trillion budget is more than double the national debt held by the public?

Isn't the national debt over $10 trillion?

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

Tax revenue is over $2.7 trillion? So a $3.6 trillion budget with a $2.7 trillion tax revenue would mean a deficit of $900 billion.

How does it add "more to the debt than all previous presidents"?

Ronald Reagan alone added over $2 trillion to the national debt.

Is Mr. Boskin kidding?

Where does he get his numbers?

[ironknee]

and what is the deal with not putting the cost of the iraq war on the budget?

oh and what about bin ladin? the one who masterminded 9-11...still free

getting saddam is like getting generalissimo francisco franco in ww2

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by waxcrash 

I hate to say it, but the writing is on the wall - or shall I say the sign...

Let's see what the country looks like in 3 years. You seem to think that Obummer will maintain his popularity, but it's hard to be upbeat during another Depression.

Oh my, his numbers are already slipping...

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Let's see what the country looks like in 3 years. You seem to think that Obummer will maintain his popularity, but it's hard to be upbeat during another Depression.

Oh my, his numbers are already slipping...

You're right, we don't know how things will be in 3 years, but here is something to think about:

The GOP fails to recognize that they need to appeal to the independents and moderates in order to win the next election, and they keep alienating them. Rush does an excellent job at that. The core conservative base is not large enough to carry the GOP - and it's shrinking.

Are Republicans banking on the premise that the economy will be so bad in 3 years, that voters will pick a Republican president? (I'm not saying it can't happen.) I know conservatives blame the economy as the reason why Obama won. That is part of the reason (along with the war in Iraq), but the biggest reason why McCain lost is because of Palin. She scared off any chance of capturing the moderates and independents. She was too extreme and uneducated for the independents. And McCain thought he was too moderate for the core conservative base - so he picked Palin to get the core conservatives (classic Rove strategy), which worked, but scared off a large percentage of independents that he needed. The last election had the biggest turnout in 40 years. With the popular vote, Obama won by about 10 million votes. So how is the GOP going to capture a majority of those 10 million voters they need for the next election? And that is the problem right now. They have to find a way to bring in the independents including the black, Hispanic and female voters at the same time keep the core happy.

If the economy is still in the crapper 3 years from now, I can see the GOP has a chance. And if the economy is better, good luck, because the Dems are going to stick it in the Repubs face how they fought against it. If the GOP wants to have any chance, they need to get Rush to shut up. Pay him off, give him OxyContin, hookers or whatever it takes. They need to distance him as the implied leader of the Republican party. Also, If the GOP can’t tap into the individual donations like Obama did, they are toast. Obama will out spend them like there is no tomorrow. Expect to see more Obama-infomercials. And last but not least, for the love of God, whoever runs on the GOP ticket, please pick a solid running mate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What does an Economic Adviser under Pres. George HW Bush has to do with Reagan?

I was just pointing out how long the economic expansion lasted between both Reagan and Bush with only a slight downturn for about a year during all that time.

I wonder why if the economy is going so under Pres. George HW Bush, why he turned out to be a 1 term president.

A. It seems after plus 8 years, people like "change". Apparently at this point even if that means change for the worse.

B. Bush was out of touch with a lot of domestic issues and really didn't seem to want to work for the votes for the second term. Clinton on the other hand did everything but beg for votes, even performing his song/dance routine on Arsenio Hall, turning him into more of a celebrity than national leader.

Besides Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are all deficit spenders who drive up national debt. What's wrong with Obama being a deficit spender?

Reagan and Bush II had to pay for wars (and the result of 9.11)

Bush I had no real control over the purse strings.

Obama wants to spend money on stuff we really don't need, in a way that economists say will hurt us for which there is no Constitutional mandate for (unlike defense).

Remember which party was in control of Congress (and forced the President to go along) when there was no real war, and we had a balanced budget.