Hell Hath no Fury ...

Hillary says Barack Obama is using “Karl Rove” tactics. I saw her on CNN. She was furious. I have new sympathy for Bill. Obama and Clinton are accusing each other of being dishonest and playing dirty and they both are right. I guess it doesn’t take a right wing conspiracy to mess up the Dems.

Clinton complains that Obama is nothing but empty words, some of them not even his own. Obama thinks Hilary is trying to kill the dream. Again, both are right. How did they get so smart so fast?

I have mixed feelings about which candidate I would prefer. Clinton might be easier to beat, since lots of people really hate her. I don't hate her; although I do not like Hilary, I do believe she would bring along some of the moderate expertise from her husband’s team, so she is not so bad. Obama has fans who swoon when he talks, but when you read the words w/o the benefit of seeing him, they are unremarkable. He is much more form than substance. The only thing he really seems to believe is in defeat in Iraq and I worry that he would succeed in keeping that promise.

For now I just hope that they continue this personal battle. It is fun to watch, better than Jerry Springer now that it is heating up. Hilary has been soft on Barack up until now. On the other hand, he treats her a little contemptuously, the way you might treat a crazy aunt. It is finally starting to annoy her.

And I agree with both candidates. When Hilary says Obama is nothing but empty words, I agree. When Obama says Hilary will play dirty to win, I agree with him too. For once, most of what the leading Dems say is true.

It is really hard on Dems when they cannot blame Republicans. Maybe it is Karl Rove’s fault. Maybe he is advising both Obama and Clinton. Of course, George W. Bush is behind it all. I will rely on my liberal friends to figure out how to blame them. I have confidence they will find a way.

Posted by Jack at February 23, 2008 4:50 PM
Comments
Comment #246221

Jack,

Obama’s point about Hillary’s healthcare plan is essentially accurate. She wants to force people to buy health insurance (a point I agree with, incidentally), and has even talked about garnishing peoples’ wages if they don’t. Obama’s plan has incentives to buy insurance but doesn’t require it. Ironically, Clinton has attacked him in the past on exactly this point.

I don’t know if it is fair to say that she was a “champion for NAFTA”, but I doubt she opposed it at the time.

My prediction is that this will backfire on her, as almost all of her attacks have. Enjoy this while you can, because after the next round of primaries she will have to drop out.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 23, 2008 5:48 PM
Comment #246224

Which one’s O’Donnel and which one’s Trump?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #246227

I went back and looked at the video, and am 100% convinced this will backfire. Not only does her tone sound like she is scolding a ten-year-old boy, but what she is saying doesn’t make any sense. If the specifics of her health care plan aren’t fair game, then what the hell is?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 23, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #246236

Woody:

I don’t think it much matters. Hillary is just about gone.

I think the story is going to be a closer look at Obama’s credetials eventually

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2008 8:57 PM
Comment #246237

Like McCain has a chance in hell?

The Democrats are MUCH better funded this election …

Federal Campaign Donations:

  • Candidate’s ___ # $200+ _ %Donors __ # $2,300+ _ %Donors _ # $4,600 _ %Donors

  • Name: ________ Donors __ upto $200 _ Donors ____ $2300+ __ Donors ___ $4,600

  • ________________ ________ ___________ __________ _________ ________ _______
  • Clinton, Hillary ___ 57,975 ___ 12% ___ 19,949 _____ 63% _____ 7,411 ______ 33%

  • Obama, Barack __ 69,628 ___ 26% ___ 16,259 _____ 43% _____ 1,964 ______ 10%

  • McCain, John ____ 27,205 ___ 22% ____ 6,183 _____ 45% ______ 731 _______ 9%
  • John McCain doesn’t have a chance, unless voter sentiments change drastically between now and 4-NOV-2008, because:

    • (1) most voter donations (of all sizes) are not going to John McCain.

    • (2) Most (vastly more) of the largest donations (of $4,600) are going to to BOTH Democrat candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    • (3) John McCain’s share of the $4,600 donations is a tiny 7.8%

    • (4) John McCain’s share of the $2,300+ donations is a tiny 14.6%

    • (5) John McCain’s share of the smaller $200 (or less) donations is only 17.6%

    • (6) John McCain has alienated many conservatives on many issues (e.g. illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold campaign finance, Iraq, taxation, economic issues, etc.)

    What is interesting, and encouraging is to see Hillary, receiving by far the largest number of BIG donations ($4,600) isn’t doing so well.
    While the richest donors like Hillary, the majority of voters are not being swayed by her BIG money.
    But, there is a ways to go, so I would not count out the power of money to buy elections, since 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.

    That is also probably why John McCain is challenging Barack Obama to a publicly-funded-only election?
    And Barack Obama should, since he already promised to do so, if John McCain agreed to it also.

    But what is this telling us?
    The richest donors like Hillary Clinton.
    The less wealthy donors like Barack Obama.
    And John McCain may get the Republican nomination, but his chances of winning the presidential election are truly dismal.
    John McCain has alienated a lot of Republicans.
    Many Republican voters will be staying home, and those that do vote for McCain will be holding their nose if they vote for him.

    Personally, I do not like any of the candidates for president.
    All three of them have “D”s and “D-“s on illegal immigration, and have failed miserably to uphold Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution (not to mention Article V, the 4th Amendment, etc.). All three are despicable for pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, while thousands of American citizens are murdered annually by illegal aliens (more murdered in 3 years than all U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 5 years); flagrantly refusing to enforce existing laws.

    But who ever the next president is, how effective will they be if saddled with the same FOR-SALE, corrupt, Do-Nothing Congress that refuses to address these 10+ abuses?

    At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 23, 2008 9:01 PM
    Comment #246238

    If the concept of Universal Health Care isn’t fair game, then what is?
    Did either one specify how preventive measures will play a part in this fantasy?
    Will it pay for sawing out a wall to remove the patient? Will it pay for moving that same patient?

    Shouldn’t we be looking at solutions for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid before we do Universal Health Care?

    I don’t see Rosie or Donald saying Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid will be replaced with Universal Health Care. And if they aren’t going to be replaced then it is just another cost to the taxpayer, another line item in the deduction column on my pay stub.

    I don’t know how the government can whine about not having this and that while they’re planting trees and replacing sidewalks and building walkways and gateways along the river! It just doesn’t make sense to me.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2008 9:11 PM
    Comment #246240

    Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section4

    Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2008 9:55 PM
    Comment #246241

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

    Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2008 9:59 PM
    Comment #246243

    My friend is studying for her BA in something and she has a course in constitutional law. She thought the declaration of independance and the constitution were the same document.

    I kind’a sighed, and said, “No. Ask your teacher about it.”

    She is 35 years old and has been educating herself at the public’s expence for many years.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2008 10:33 PM
    Comment #246249

    In my opinion, Hillary’s real problem she cannot resolve. It’s the fact she voted for the war.


    Hillary felt that a vote for war would show in the 08 general election that she was fit to be the commander in chief. She figured she was inevitable on the democrat side and could start positioning for the general election in an effort to appeal to moderate democrats and independents.

    She miscalculated. She was wrong. The left, which had long protected the clintons and supported them in every scandal…abandoned Hillary for Obama and started waging war against Hillary to take her down.


    Hillary started to figure it out and after years of supporting the war flip-flopped to anti-war. but it was too late. The political correctness that long had dictated absolute support of Clinton’s was being rewritten by the progressives who are in control of Politically Correct Thought. Suddenly it’s politically correct to put Hillary down for OBAMA.


    In a world where anything she does is trounced on by progressive liberals (who control the party agenda) she can’t beat Obama. She can’t be change, she can’t go negative, she can be better at the details, they will allow her to do nothing and mock her every effort. She is being smeared and held in derision with the same propaganda the left has used to smear the right for years.


    Hillary didn’t figure it out until it was too late. I’m not sure she has figured it out yet. She didn’t need a new campaign manager, she needs to be back in the graces of the progressive left….but they have abandoned her and will not return to her.

    Posted by: Stephen at February 24, 2008 12:49 AM
    Comment #246251

    Stephen

    That is a good analysis

    d.a.n.

    You are right that Obama is currently the big money man and money sure helps win elections. However, he has had a really easy time so far. He is the smooth golden-boy, the one you remember from HS, who says all the right things in a soothing manner, but has no substance - a one dimensional candidate.

    Hilary waited too long to point this out. She did not want to look negative because she thought she had the nomination in the bag. But as the election season progresses, Obama will have to be more specific about his experience and plans. Then his golden image may tarnish.

    Obama is like a Hallmark card. He looks good and has a nice sentiment, but is paper thin when it comes to substance.

    Woody

    Yes, Hilary is toast. But you have to admit that Obama hit her with a low blow. I am delighted to see that this is going on AMONG Dems with no way to blame Republicans. The Clintons invented this sort of slash and burn politics. It is fitting that Mr. Smoothy is now applying it to them.

    Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2008 1:05 AM
    Comment #246255

    “Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged,” she said.

    I have to admit I laughed inside when I read that. My compassionate, conservative heart is actually feeling sorry for Hillary, these people are messed up.

    That debate should be very interesting. I want to see if she has any of Bill’s slickery. She’ll need it with the hole she has. I can’t believe Obama agreed.

    Posted by: andy at February 24, 2008 4:29 AM
    Comment #246259

    Jack,

    And do you think that Republicans don’t turn on their own? You obviously don’t remember what Dubya did to McCain in SC back in ‘99. Makes this look like siblings bickering.

    I’ve been saying it for about a year now, and I’ll say it again. Hillary gets nominated, she loses. The Republicans could run a trained monkey against her and they’d still win by 4 points. All the conservative hacks who whine about McCain would rally around him as a chance to stick it to Slick Willie one last time. The Right Wing base hates his guts, and hate her just as much, and they will turn out in droves just to shoot her down.

    Obama gets the nod, he wins by 6 points or so, easy. His ability to get the younger voters out is simply amazing, and will really come to the fore when he gets to run against someone almost old enough to be his grandpa. The base on the Right isn’t taken with McCain enough to bother. That’s why all the radio wingnuts have taken up the talking-points mantras already. Attacking his patriotism, linking him to MoveOn, taking his wife’s comments out of context (cough cough), everybody in perfect sync.

    So tell the truth, Jack. Is there really a Talking Points Memo? You seem to be on the mailing list, how does one sign up? :-)

    L

    Posted by: leatherankh at February 24, 2008 8:16 AM
    Comment #246260
    Yes, Hilary is toast. But you have to admit that Obama hit her with a low blow.

    Not at all. He is talking about the issues. If she got the nomination, McCain would certainly challenge her on requiring people to buy health insurance. If she can’t explain to Democrats why this is a good idea, then she certainly can’t in the general election.

    He may be distorting her record a bit on NAFTA. I don’t know. But the issue itself is certainly fair game.

    Posted by: Woody Mena at February 24, 2008 8:35 AM
    Comment #246262

    Stephen,

    Hillary’s problem isn’t that some Supreme Council of Political Correctness (which no doubt meets in a secret chamber in Berkeley) has decided to go after her, but that she has run a lousy campaign. Her tactics on Obama have failed because they are either lame (borrowed line in speech) or were fundamentally offensive to Democratic sensibilities (black candidate can’t win).

    The left has never been 100% protective of the Clintons. In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore links the Columbine shootings with Clinton foreign policy. That is just one example that comes to mind. I’m sure Moore had some spicy things to say about NAFTA.

    Posted by: Woody Mena at February 24, 2008 9:06 AM
    Comment #246266

    Woody

    I went back and looked at the video, and am 100% convinced this will backfire. Not only does her tone sound like she is scolding a ten-year-old boy,

    My exact same thought when viewing. It bought up memories of my sixth grade teacher who use to scold the guys in the class on a regular basis because of our hormonal issues. At the risk of crossing a forbidden gender line, it really made me think about how hard it is to argue with a pissed off woman and just how nasty they can get. It made me wonder if this type of explosive attitude would serve well in the presidency. As of yet I honestly don’t know what to think. I am 56 years old and still fail to understand the nuances of the female character. All that I have figured out is when to shut up and let it go for the sake of peace. :) Please understand ladies that I am making no attempt to be sexist in the last statements. There are men who would also be openly explosive. But for the most part I believe most men would approach the situation in a more subtle underhanded I’ll get you back way. Regardless neither tactic is always effective or necessarily better than the other. They merely define the differences between gender related approaches to issues.

    Posted by: RickIL at February 24, 2008 9:59 AM
    Comment #246268

    Leather

    Great minds think alike and I think these things re Obama are fairly obvious. I am writing one about him now, BTW. The only distribution lists (besides the ones they put me on for my work) are about forestry and those lists you get on when you buy something. If you can find my carbon tax or forestry ideas on any conservative talking point list, let me know.

    And I recall when Bush attacked McCain. I am sure the Dems will dredge up some of the same things. All parties do it, sometimes. I think it is just precious the way some Dems actually believe it is confined to Republicans.

    Woody

    I got no dog in that fight, but I saw that the factcheck.org didn’t hold to all the Obama points and his attack did copy the pharma attacks on the original Clinton program. I didn’t see anything wrong with those attacks, but Dems said they did.

    Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2008 10:06 AM
    Comment #246272

    Jack

    Please tell us how it is that republicans should not be blamed for the state of our nation. Who had complete unfettered control of the executive and congress for seven of the last eight years? Which party has played the obstructionist role for the last year in attempt to avoid accountability? Dems blame republicans not out of contempt, but because republicans earned that right. The reputation of the republican party has been severely tarnished. That bad reputation is the result of greed and the scandal that tags along with the quest for ultimate power. I can understand your feelings of contempt in the face of such a fast and fierce reversal of roles. But lets face it, the ideals your party preaches and what they practice have been two entirely different faces. As a conservative you should be outraged that your party has failed to meet your standard of conservative values so miserably.

    Posted by: RickIL at February 24, 2008 10:20 AM
    Comment #246275
    Jack wrote:d.a.n. You are right that Obama is currently the big money man and money sure helps win elections. However, he has had a really easy time so far. He is the smooth golden-boy, the one you remember from HS, who says all the right things in a soothing manner, but has no substance - a one dimensional candidate. Hilary waited too long to point this out. She did not want to look negative because she thought she had the nomination in the bag. But as the election season progresses, Obama will have to be more specific about his experience and plans. Then his golden image may tarnish. Obama is like a Hallmark card. He looks good and has a nice sentiment, but is paper thin when it comes to substance.
    Jack, you are drawing conclusions about Barack Obama that are too easily dismissed.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to look at Barack Obama’s voting record, statements, actions. and deeds. Part of the problem is mass voter delusion (delusion, and apathy, and complacency, and laziness, and blind party loyalties). People are delusional to think one person (whoever the next president is) can solve all of their problems, let them live at the expense of everyone else, and instantly undo the damage of these 10+ abuses of the past 30+ years?

    The nation’s pressing problems will still not be adequately addressed as long as most voters also continue to repeatedly reward do-nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2008 10:36 AM
    Comment #246278

    RickIl

    (1) I don’t think the county is in such a bad state, (2) many of the things that are currently negative (like much of the economy) are not really manageable by government, and (3) since the Dems have had control of both houses of congress we have not seen anything remarkable out of them at all. They have been very good at holding hearings and sham votes re Iraq, but not much else.

    The Dems have spun themselves up into this frenzy that things are so bad. But objectively they are not and the possible “improvements” Dems could make, even under the best case scenario, will not be significant. Unemployment, for example has hovered at or below 5% for several years. It doesn’t get much lower than that, even theoretically. The economy grew at more than 3% for many years. It doesn’t grow much faster than that even in theory.

    We are currently having a credit crunch because lenders lent money to many clients who were not credit worthy AND housing prices fell. Nothing can be done to stem this that is not already being done. Do you REALLY want to prop up home prices?

    Anyway, I do not believe things will change much no matter who is elected and that is generally a good thing. The next administration will face the massive entitlement crisis. This crisis has been building since 1935 and it has not been addressed by either party. This is the biggest threat we face. The Dems have no ideas to address this except to raise taxes. We need more imagination and innovation than they have expressed so far.

    Re Iraq - I think Obama’s idea that he will leave Iraq right away is juvenile. I know many disagree with me and I hope that we can change their minds with the facts and logic.

    d.a.n.

    Obama doesn’t have much of a voting record to consider. That is the big challenge. Your link indicates that most of the record he does have is not good. What more do we need to say? It seems your assessment of Obama is more negative than mine. I merely said there is not much to judge; you seem to say (in your link) that even what we can judge is negative.

    Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2008 11:42 AM
    Comment #246282
    Jack wrote: d.a.n. Obama doesn’t have much of a voting record to consider. That is the big challenge.
    Agreed.

    But delusion, delusional hope (hope that one person can solve all of the nation’s problems), and blind partisan loyalties are often more powerful than facts.
    And it doesn’t help that all of the other candidates are probably worse.

    Jack wrote: Your link [one-simple-idea.com/VotingRecords1.htm#BarackObama] indicates that most of the record he does have is not good.
    True. But that goes for most (if not all) in Congress.

    After all, for years now, no one has answered the challenge to name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, much less 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable.

    Jack wrote: What more do we need to say?
    Focus on voting records. They can strengthen and substantiate conclusions (e.g. Jack wrote: “the record he does have is not good”).

    Of course, doing that will make Republicans’ voting records will become fair game too.
    Perhaps that is why voting records often ignored?
    Neither side wants anyone scrutinizing their truly pathetic voting records.

    Jack wrote: It seems your assessment of Obama is more negative than mine.
    Really?

    By merely showing Barack Obama’s voting record. Interesting, eh?

    Jack wrote: I merely said there is not much to judge; you seem to say (in your link) that even what we can judge is negative.
    Actually, there is more than enough in the voting record to make a very good determination of character and values. Especially with regard to illegal immigration, which despicably pits American citizens and illegal aliens against each other (for profits from cheap labor, and votes: one-simple-idea.com/VoteDemocrat.gif); showing more compassion for illegal aliens than Americans.
    Jack wrote: Clinton complains that Obama is nothing but empty words, some of them not even his own. Obama thinks Hilary is trying to kill the dream. Again, both are right. How did they get so smart so fast?
    Funny. However, the same could easily be said about the incumbent politicians in the Republican party. Lately, which party has really screwed the pooch the worst?

    Surely you realize that McCain’s chances against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are dismal.

    McCain should pursue Barack Obama’s promise to adhere to Public Funding for the election, but that still is unlikely to be near enough for McCain to win.
    I think McCain senses that his Republican party has so severely screwed the pooch in the past 8 years, that it has decimated the chances of any Republican winning the White House.
    McCain has alienated many Republican voters (especially on illegal immigration).
    Even many of the Republican voters that reluctantly vote for McCain will be holding their nose when they do.
    Many Republican voters will stay home.
    Democrats are fired up.
    How did that happen?
    Ha! Well, Republicans can thank themselves for it. Duh!
    And I used to be a Republican.

    But, whoever becomes the next president, how effective will the next president be if saddled with the same FOR-SALE, corrupt, Do-Nothing Congress that refuses to address the nation’s pressing problems and these 10+ abuses, growing in number and severity?

    At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2008 12:29 PM
    Comment #246291

    Obama’s is the Jimmy Carter of this generation. He brings hope for America’s future. The big difference is Obama will deliver on this. Anyone who disagrees with him will be labeled a racist if they go against the will of the people and this will get the votes needed by both parties to get things changed.

    Posted by: bntgo at February 24, 2008 1:15 PM
    Comment #246294
    Jack wrote: (1) I don’t think the county is in such a bad state,
    Not yet. It’s still in the top 26 of 195 nations in the world to live-in.

    But if we stay on the current course we are on now, that almost certainly will not be the case within a few decades (if not sooner).

    But the question is, is it getting worse or better?
    I think there is a very strong argument that these 10+ abuses are making things worse in the U.S.

    Jack wrote: (2) many of the things that are currently negative (like much of the economy) are not really manageable by government, and
    Not true.

    The government is complicit in many ways with corpocrisy, selling out Americans, pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, corruption in government, a severe bloat and waste, pork-barrel and corporate welfare, and other manifestations of unchecked greed (one-simple-idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).

    One of the most serious issues with regard to the economy is DEBT.
    But why do we have so much DEBT ?
    What is causing it?
    Another serious (and overlooked) issue is incessant inflation, year upon year upon year, eroding the currency (like reverse compounded interest), creating incessant economic instability that hurts the lower and middle income groups the most, which is why a 1950 Dollar is now worth less than 11 cents.
    Why the incessant inflation?
    The nation has $48 Trillion debt (nation-wide), which is almost half the nation’s total net worth.
    Where will the INTEREST on a $48 Trillion DEBT come from, much less the money to pay the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion?
    Where will the INTEREST on the $9.2 Trillion National Debt come from, much less the money to pay the PRINCIPAL $9.2 Trillion?
    And that is ONLY if spending deficits stopped (i.e. stop the excessive borrowing and spending).
    Yet, you don’t see a problem in the near future (e.g. next decade or so)?
    If not, then what is the answer to those questions above?
    Where will the money come from?
    Where has the money been coming from?
    Sure, one can say the economy is OK at this moment.
    But will it be 10 years from now?
    How long before the world is making jokes about the U.S. Dollar like they used to joke about the Argentime peso?
    The U.S. Dollar has now been falling against the Agentine peso for over 5 years.
    Have you ever heard of David Walker, U.S. Comptroller?
    Don’t you think he knows something about economic?
    You know the saying: “It’s the economy stupid” ?
    That’s true.
    But, if it is so important to Americans, they had better start saying: “It’s the DEBT stupid.”
    Where will the INTEREST and PRINCIPAL come from for the nation’s $48 Trillion nation-wide debt?
    Should we not be alarmed that NO ONE can answer this simple question?
    Especially when the wealthiest 2% of the U.S. population owns most of ALL wealth in the U.S. ?
    Especially when the wealthies 10% of the U.S. population owns 70% of ALL wealth in the U.S. ?
    Especially when 80% of the U.S. population owns ONLY 17% of all wealth in the U.S. ?
    Especially when that disparity gap has NEVER been worse since the Great Depression.
    If greedy banks are so worried about foreclosures, why are they greedily rasing Adustable Mortgage rates, charge usurious rates, and exacerbate foreclosures?
    Because they don’t mind at all confiscating real property from money created out of thin air, and then reselling and auctioning-off those assets for more money to borrow more money to make more interest.
    The money system is dishonest, usurious, and grows the debt larger and larger, until we will eventually have no more capacity for more debt.
    Then this pyramid-scheme monetary system will collapse as it did in the Great Depression.

    Thus, the economy may appear OK at the moment, but how long before it isn’t.
    You, yourself, with regard to the 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching, have said it is going to smash us (especially with the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, and the current (ang growing) $9.2 Trillion National Debt).
    Do you know what the U.S. General Comptroller (David Walker) says about all of this?
    Do you know what his predictions are, if we don’t change course soon?
    Do you think he has a clue?
    And do you think he is doing himself any favors by being so honest about it?

    Jack wrote: (3) since the Dems have had control of both houses of congress we have not seen anything remarkable out of them at all. They have been very good at holding hearings and sham votes re Iraq, but not much else.
    Jack, partisan leanings only perpetuate and fuel the problem.

    Most (if not all) incumbent politicians in the two party duopoly in Do-Nothing Congress are irresponsible and unaccountable.
    The sooner enough voters figure that out, the sooner they might stop rewarding corrupt, irresponsible incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    But, whoever becomes the next president, how effective will the next president be if saddled with the same FOR-SALE, corrupt Congress that refuses to address the nation’s pressing problems, growing in number and severity, and threatening the future and security of the nation.?

    At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2008 1:22 PM
    Comment #246296

    Democrats…tighten your seat belts as you are in for a very rocky ride. Come convention time Hillary will be taking the Gore position in 2000 with shouts of count every vote (Michigan and Florida) and the Obama side will be shouting “no recounts”. It will be a replay of the 2000 election with the difference being that it will be contained within your party. Add the announcement by Ralph Nader that he is entering the fray as a third party candidate and you have the makings of a Republican landslide. Why, the old saying, “A house divided against itself can not stand”. So sorry Dems, but it will be a delight to watch.

    Posted by: Jim M at February 24, 2008 1:39 PM
    Comment #246301

    Jack,
    Over the past few weeks, Secretary of the Treasury Paulsen has quietly funneled $50 billion to major banks to prevent their collapse. In addition, the Federal Reserve has also pumped tens of billions of dollars into the system in order to prevent the collapse of credit markets. The same thing is happening internationally with foreign goverment equivalents of the Fed. These large scale actions are examples of monetary policy intended to avert a depression on the scale of 1929.

    In addition, Congress is using fiscal policy in an attempt to stimulate consumer spending, but pumping addiional billions directly to consumers.

    The situation of the economy is dire. Collapse may be averted, especially if Paulsen and The Fed succeed. But debt is disastrously large. Trade and federal budget deficits continue to contribute to this, and the tanking dollar exacerbates the problem. The falling dollar plays a major role in the commodity fueled inflataion which we are all seeing, especially with fuel and food.

    Consumers are saddled with huge amounts of personal debt, and the national savings rate has been negative for a while- something not seen since the Depression of 1929.

    10% of all mortgage holders are now “upside down.”

    Think about that for a moment, and what it means in your community.

    Jack, pretending the economy is “not really manageable by government” is absurd.

    Bntgo,
    You’re misunderstanding the appeal of Obama if you think opposition to him will be overcome by accusations of racism.

    A hand is being extended. Most Ameicans look forward to the idea of working together. Some do not. Some are afraid. They see the world as a place full of enemies, so it is a world which must be confronted with our military. The same fear here at home results in a different kind of confrontation with a domestic “enemy.” But the days of division, of Red States and Blue States and the deep seated pessimism- you know, government cannot affect the economy, this is as good as it gets, we can’t do better, we can’t, we cant’t… Those days are nearing their end, and those days of fear and division will not be missed.

    Posted by: phx8 at February 24, 2008 2:20 PM
    Comment #246303

    Just heard Ralph Nader is running for president.
    Who will that hurt more?
    The Republican candidate, or the Democrat candidate?
    I think it will hurt the Democrat candidate some, but not nearly enough to give John McCain a chance.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2008 2:50 PM
    Comment #246307

    phx8

    The Fed and the Treasury are doing what they should and what they did not do during the Great Depression. How would that change under a Democrat?

    It really should not matter if mortages are upside down as long as the people involved can make the payments. I understand that these guys would be tempted to dump their mortages, but that is just dishonest.

    Hilary proposes bailing them out by freezing interest rates etc. Great way to screw the economy. I think Obama just wants to subsidize the deadbeats.

    You are right that active government can affect the economy, almost always negatively. The ordiary appartus work better. We have added liquidity. But we do not want to keep home prices artificially high just to support bad debts.

    I have been concerned that home prices were getting out of reach for average guys. They had to come down.

    Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2008 3:17 PM
    Comment #246309

    phx8, Yes, there are some events that are being barely reported.

    It is interesting that most Americans are now concerned the MOST by the economy, but they are quite sure what is wrong with it.

    The DEBT is the invisible elephant in the room, with $48 Trillion nation-wide, and nobody will tell us where the money to pay the INTEREST on that debt will come from, much less the money to pay the PRINCIPAL. The U.S. is borrowing $3 Billion per day! Yet, some still find a way to paint a rosy picture out of it.

    The only response I’ve received thus far from one economist-wanna-be is that “we do not need to pay down the debt”.

    My follow up response was: OK, you do that. Get yourself a credit card, only make the minimum payment each month (letting the PRINCIPAL and INTEREST grow larger every day), and see what happens.

    OOOhhhhh … but the Federal Reserve and government can’t print all the money we want, eh?

    And that is supposed to be a good thing? ! ?

    So, what will happen when we can’t borrow or print enough money because, because the inflation has become laughable?
    Yes, there’s a high likelihood of much more inflation in the near future, with so much debt (i.e. the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, $9.2 Trillion National Debt, a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching, two ongoing wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan), U.S. troops stationed all over the planet, $6 Trillion of state and local government debt, and $20 Trillion of nation-wide personal debt (totalling almost half of the nation’s total net worth, with a mere 2% owning most of the naiton’s weatlh), get ready for some major money printing, because that is the ONLY way to keep the pyramid scheme from collapsing.

    No wonder the U.S. dollar is falling like a rock.

    Also, never underestimate the power of 3%-to-4% inflation, year after year to erode the U.S. Dollar (like reverse compound interest).
    Hence, a Consumer Price Index that looks like like this.
    However, do you really think the currently reported inflaiton of 4% is being accurately reported?
    Especially when it cleverly omits energy costs?
    I would dare to 10%guess that inflation NOW is actually close .
    Remember double digit inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
    Get ready. We’re highly likely to see some more inflation.
    It isn’t far-fetched.
    Now it’s a vicious circle.
    More debt, means more interest, which requires the creation of more money, which means more inflation, which erodes debt but erodes wages and savings, which creates more debt, which eventually leads to unemployment, more economic instability, more creation of more money from thin air, until we simply can not take on any more debt.

    It’s like playing Monopoly in which one person (the bank) can print all the money they want.
    Before long, the bank owns everything, and everyone else is deep in debt, or broke.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2008 3:21 PM
    Comment #246311

    Jack,
    The biggest changes under Democrats would not be with monetary policy. The biggest changes would be with fiscal policy. Making changes through Congress and the Excecutive would enable the monetary policy to stop what we just saw happen- the creation of a housing bubble through aritifically low interest rates, along lack of regulatory onsight.

    The two biggest and most obvious changes under Democrats would be reverting to the tax structure under the Clinton administration, which eventually created a balanced federal budget and, once upon a time, offered hope of addressing the national debt; and changing policies surrounding job creation, which would reduce outsourcing, and by keeping wages at home, regenerate consumer spending on a sustainable basis.

    Bush administration policies surrounding job creation have resulted in only 5 million or so jobs in seven years, despite the fact US population has grown during that period by 18 million. Clinton policies created 23 million in 8 years. To be fair, part of the problem started with NAFTA and Clintonian free trade policies. That has to change.

    Being upside down would not matter as much in a healthy economy. Unfortunately, much of the growth during the past recovery came from debt, specifically refinancing mortgages. But today, in an unhealthy economy, with greater and greater amounts of household budgets being consumed by rising energy and food prices, and with savings in such sorry shape, refinancing the mortgage is no longer an option…

    Posted by: phx8 at February 24, 2008 3:33 PM
    Comment #246314
    Jack wrote: The Fed and the Treasury are doing what they should and what they did not do during the Great Depression.
    As if any pyramid-scheme can really be managed?

    The Federal Reserve is joke; an illusion of responsible monetary management.
    As they tinker with it, they are simply creating a bigger problem that will be much worse later, as the massive debt continues to grow and grow to nightmare proportions.

    Jack wrote: How would that change under a Democrat?
    Well:
    • (1) Don’t do what the Republicans did and almost double the National Debt in only a few years.
    • (2) Try not to start any more wars based on exaggerations and lies, followed by hundreds of blunders (one-simple-idea.com/Bluders1.htm) and more lies.
    • (3) Try not to set new records in corruption, waste, pork-barrel, graft, bribes, cronyism, corporate welfare, corpocisy, and other manifestations of unchecked greed.
    Yep. That would be a good start.
    Jack wrote: It really should not matter if mortages are upside down as long as the people involved can make the payments. I understand that these guys would be tempted to dump their mortages, but that is just dishonest.
    Some people have no choice.

    Funny, if this is such a problem, and banks really don’t want to convert money created out of thin air into real assets (e.g. land, real estate, houses, etc.), why do they keep increasing adjustable mortage rates and interest rates? And why does the Fed get to through more money (a.k.a. liquidity) at irresponsible banks?

    Jack wrote: Hilary proposes bailing them out by freezing interest rates etc. Great way to screw the economy. I think Obama just wants to subsidize the deadbeats.
    That could be terrible, since many rates are now so high. If rates don’t fall too, it won’t matter.

    Besides, remember where the banks get their money. Most of it is created out of thin air. Cha-Ching! Should we feel sorry for the banks?

    Jack wrote: You are right that active government can affect the economy, almost always negatively.
    Really? Does the include Republicans? Gee. That statement sounds awfully negative. But, perhaps it is true, eh?
    Jack wrote: The ordiary appartus work better. We have added liquidity.
    “Liquidity”? What is that? Where did that “liquidity” (money) come from?
    Jack wrote: But we do not want to keep home prices artificially high just to support bad debts.
    And what causes these bubbles? From stocks, people flee to real-estate, then bonds and gold, then it starts all over again.

    Why is everyone running around looking for a place to put money to so that it is not eroded by incessant inflation?

    Jack wrote: I have been concerned that home prices were getting out of reach for average guys. They had to come down.
    And who benefits from this economic instability? Who has now converted money created out of thin air into real assets and property? But, the banks prefer to have some cash, because it earns interest. So, the banks can now sell those confiscated assets to increase liquidity, and make more loans, and earn more interest.

    And who frequents the home/land auctions?
    Have you seen all of the foreclosure bus tours? Cha-Ching!

    Yep. Get ready for the next bubble, fueled by incessant inflation.
    What will it be?
    Stocks again?
    Gold?
    Oil?
    Hard to say, with most Americans incomes falling every year (especially considering more workers per household, more regressive taxes, more government debt, more burdens from illegal immigration, more inflation, and these continued abuses).

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 24, 2008 3:56 PM
    Comment #246330

    Anyway, I do not believe things will change much no matter who is elected and that is generally a good thing.

    Are you serious Jack? A good thing? I guess I must be living on the wrong side of the tracks. My guess is that we could be in full scale depression and you would claim that all is good just to keep a dem out of office. There really is no need to respond further as PX8 and D.A.N. have done a great job of revealing the holes in your analogies.

    Posted by: RickIL at February 24, 2008 6:27 PM
    Comment #246332

    Jack-
    I’ll tell you the real problem: Hillary’s kind of Democrats have outlived their usefulness. And your favorite president is kind of responsible for that.

    As long as Democrats believed that they could get by and even prosper by negotiating and working with the Republicans, the Clinton Wing of the party was well regarded by people, and folks were none-to-interested in rocking the boat.

    We needed somebody who could hold the line, slow the advances of the GOP. As Bush and the Republicans succeeded in pushing the government further to the right, though, the popularity among Democrats and the general public of this approach lessened. The Clintons are part of the faction that favored this approach. While their time is remembered as a better time than this current administration’s, and Clinton still enjoys some glow from that period, they’re out of favor with the party mainstream, especially now that we have a majority. We want competitive, assertive Liberals now, not deferential, cautious folks worried at every turn about what your party thinks.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 24, 2008 7:10 PM
    Comment #246342

    It seems to me that Hillary had allowed herself to be cornered by the politically correct Progressives.

    No matter what approach she tried, they smeared her to the ground for it and it became the view of the party.

    Today I heard her coming out and attacking Obama’s message of “hope”. Mocking him for being the man who will supposedly open the heavens and shower us with change.

    I think Hillary finally found her voice. I think this Tuesday debate may be the best and most worth watching since the endless debates started. And this is the last of course.


    In my opinion, Hillary is going to ignore the boo’s from the brain washed progressive left and she’s going to take Obama down on this silly idea that he embodies hope and change. She will no longer let the left tell her she cannot attack Obama because it’s like attacking “Hope”. She’s going to mock him and burn him down. It should be interesting to say the least.


    If she doesn’t, I think she’s lost it. This is it, she’s warming up and we can hear her taking him down…I think she’s got to do it in the debate as well or she might as well give up.

    Posted by: Stephen at February 24, 2008 9:42 PM
    Comment #246350

    Stephen D

    So Obama will be a divider. If he wins, he will be unable too work with roughly the half of the population who will vote for his opponent.

    I respect your telling the truth. Obama appeals to the left wing of the Dems who want to rule over other Americans, who they consider dumb and retrograde. I look forward to considering this theme in the general election.

    Stephen (no D)

    You are right. He has positioned himself very cleverly so he characterizes every question about him as an attack on hope or “the dream”. Hilary must point out that his is mostly talk. She tries, but his fans won’t hear it.

    Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2008 12:12 AM
    Comment #246354

    Stephen, I think your analysis is spot on. Hillary has cornered herself into quite a hole. The debate should be better than reality TV, she’s gotta pull quite a few stops so that even MI, FL and the “super delagates” (whatever those mean) can come into play.
    I just wish all “debates” were televised by CSPAN only, these are not really debates but popularity contests driven by ratings.

    Personally I don’t think it matters who gets elected as far as our presence in the middle east. It is what it is. But the fact I might wake up one morning with an extra bill pisses me off. Mandatory health care is a terrible idea for this country, and she should know this.

    Posted by: andy at February 25, 2008 1:27 AM
    Comment #246360

    I’ve been reading over at Huffington Post. Time and time again you hear Obama supporters declaring that Hillary is “attacking hope”.


    This is what we will face in the fall if Obama wins. They will tell us that McCain dare not “attack Obama” because to attack Obama is to attack the very idea of hope and change and is virtually unpatriotic! If McCain accepts that, allows them to “boo” him into submission, he will lose.

    They preach that Obama is the very embodiment of the concept of hope and change and thus must never be attacked. I think Hillary figured out, possibly way too late, that she MUST attack Obama on his ability to deliver and that listening to those who told her she is forbidden to be “negative” was simply to concede the election to Mr. “Hope-Change”.

    Posted by: Stephen at February 25, 2008 4:17 AM
    Comment #246369
    He has positioned himself very cleverly so he characterizes every question about him as an attack on hope or “the dream”. Hilary must point out that his is mostly talk. She tries, but his fans won’t hear it.

    This is just an opinion, and one that she has stated at least a hundred times by now. Most Democrats just aren’t buying it. Republicans agree with her of course, but if she won the nomination you wouldn’t vote for her anyway.

    Stephen (no D),

    If someone told her she can’t be negative she must have lost the memo. As I said, she has tried and simply failed to make a dent.

    Posted by: Woody Mena at February 25, 2008 8:51 AM
    Comment #246377

    Stephen (no D):

    Today I heard her coming out and attacking Obama’s message of “hope”. Mocking him for being the man who will supposedly open the heavens and shower us with change.

    I think Hillary finally found her voice. I think this Tuesday debate may be the best and most worth watching since the endless debates started. And this is the last of course.

    You think her “voice” is this immature and undignified spectacle?

    It’s got erratic, non-presidential and sore loser written all over it, in light of her gracious parting words in the last debate where she was supposedly “honored” to be sitting there with Obama.
    Hillary and her supporters also seem to be forgetting that once upon a time, her husband (who had even less experience in Washington than Obama), also ran on hope and change. But now she mocks that idea, and every single person who once chose her husband, and who is now choosing Obama.
    I don’t think that any candidate (Hillary or McCain) can win by mocking change, mocking the voters who desire it, or showing sentiments that are this psychotically erratic and changeable from one day to another.
    For all these reasons, I consider that little performance to be Hillary’s Dean-Scream moment, rather than “the moment she found her voice.”

    Posted by: veritas vincit at February 25, 2008 11:46 AM
    Comment #246474

    Dan:

    Just a little history lesson for you and your fellow Democrats:

    (1) Don’t do what the Republicans did and almost double the National Debt in only a few years.

    When Carter was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the national debt was a lot higher percentage-wise than it is today and a lot less under control. The economy was in the tank, members of our embassy in Tehran were hostages, and Democrats had no ideas about how to do anything about anything.

    (2) Try not to start any more wars based on exaggerations and lies, followed by hundreds of blunders (one-simple-idea.com/Bluders1.htm) and more lies.

    This one is way too easy. Remember Vietnam? JFK started sending in “advisers” based on the famous Domino Theory, then LBJ cooked up the Tonkin episode in which U.S. Navy ships entered North Vietnamese waters and were consequently shelled, thus providing Johnson with an excuse to invade Vietnam. Two more things — Johnson ended up sending more than 500,000 U.S. troops into Vietnam, with more than 50,000 returning in body bags, compared to 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq with less than 4,000 fatalies. Also, JFK and LBJ happened to be Democrats.

    (3) Try not to set new records in corruption, waste, pork-barrel, graft, bribes, cronyism, corporate welfare, corpocisy, and other manifestations of unchecked greed.

    Could you please tell us specifically what “records” you are referring to in terms of all of the corruption, etc.? Since last I checked Congress was controlled by the Democrats, I have not seen any sign of a let up waste and pork-barrel spending. I would remind Dan that the all-time King of Pork is the honorable Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVa), who is also the only former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Congress. I’m afraid I do not know what the term “corpocrisy” means, but I’m sure it’s something really, really bad. That and “manifestations of unchecked greed” seem to me to be the usual liberal hatchet jobs on people who work hard and make a lot of money; which is, of course, an inherently bad thing.

    Uh huh.

    Posted by: Goombah at February 26, 2008 1:36 PM
    Comment #246499

    Jack wrote:

    The Clintons invented this sort of slash and burn politics. It is fitting that Mr. Smoothy is now applying it to them.

    I think Lee Atwater invented it, and Karl Rove perfected it.

    Posted by: Hotshot at February 26, 2008 6:58 PM
    Comment #246751

    I just hope and PRAY everyday that the american people do NOT vote either Hilary or Osama I mean Obama into office. That would be a HUGE mistake that this country would never recover from.

    Posted by: Brittany at February 29, 2008 1:14 PM
    Comment #246930
    Goombah wrote: d.a.n: Just a little history lesson for you and your fellow Democrats:
    Goombah, First of all, I’m an independent (i.e. neither Democrat or Republican), many of your assumptions are incorrect, and some of your historical facts are incorrect too.
    d.a.n wrote: (1) Don’t do what the Republicans did and almost double the National Debt in only a few years.
  • Goombah wrote: When Carter was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the national debt was a lot higher percentage-wise than it is today and a lot less under control. The economy was in the tank, members of our embassy in Tehran were hostages, and Democrats had no ideas about how to do anything about anything.
  • False.

    I’m not a fan of Jimmy Carter, but debt under Carter was smaller in magnitude and also as a percentage of GDP.
    Here is a chart showing the nominal debt, debt in 1950 dollars, debt 2005 dollars, GDP, and DEBT-to-GDP ratios between year 1900 and year 2007.
    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, inflation was very high (double-digit), because the federal reserve and government were creating too much money out of thin air.
    The Federal Reserve is a pryamid-scheme, and that problem is still with us today.
    Woodrow Wilson is the idiot that doomed us when he signed an executive order that gave control of our monetary system to the Federal Reserve in 1913.

    d.a.n wrote: (2) Try not to start any more wars based on exaggerations and lies, followed by hundreds of blunders (one-simple-idea.com/Bluders1.htm) and more lies.
  • Goombah wrote: This one is way too easy. Remember Vietnam? JFK started sending in “advisers” based on the famous Domino Theory, then LBJ cooked up the Tonkin episode in which U.S. Navy ships entered North Vietnamese waters and were consequently shelled, thus providing Johnson with an excuse to invade Vietnam. Two more things — Johnson ended up sending more than 500,000 U.S. troops into Vietnam, with more than 50,000 returning in body bags, compared to 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq with less than 4,000 fatalies. Also, JFK and LBJ happened to be Democrats.
  • False.

    I never said the Democrats never started any unnecessary wars. Vietnam was obviously not the proper and fair mission for of our U.S. Troops. We can not be the world police.

    d.a.n wrote: (3) Try not to set new records in corruption, waste, pork-barrel, graft, bribes, cronyism, corporate welfare, corpocisy, and other manifestations of unchecked greed.
  • Goombah wrote: Could you please tell us specifically what “records” you are referring to in terms of all of the corruption, etc.?
  • Goombah, every year, the pork-barrel gets worse. Visit CAGW.ORG for more details.

    And incumbent politicians in BOTH parties do it.
    And incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are almost equally corrupt.
    That only difference is that the IN-PARTY is usually a little more corrupt than the OUT-PARTY.
    The bad part is that BOTH now simply take turns at it, and the voters repeatedly reward the incumbent politicians for it with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    Goombah wrote: Since last I checked Congress was controlled by the Democrats, I have not seen any sign of a let up waste and pork-barrel spending.
    True. The pork-barrel was reduced only slightly, and there’s still much too much pork-barrel.

    Again, incumbent politicians in BOTH parties do it.
    However, the Republicans for a short while had many people fooled into thinking they were the party of fiscal responsibility.
    Yet, Reagan, Bush (41), and Bush (43) have proven to be BIG spenders and fiscally irresponsible.
    That has thoroughly obliterated the Republicans reputation (whether perceived or deserved) of fiscal responsibility.

    Goombah wrote: I would remind d.a.n that the all-time King of Pork is the honorable Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVa), who is also the only former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Congress.
    Again, I’m not a Democrat or Republican, and have no use for Robert Byrd is similar ilk.

    As far as I am concerned, most (if not all) incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress are irresponsible, unaccountable, and should be voted out of office for perpetuating these abuses for the past 30 years.

    Also, the Worst (low percentages) - to - LeastWorst (high percentages) pork-barrel rankings in the Senate are as follows:

    • Dayton, Mark (Democrat, MN, 0%)

    • Leahy, Patrick (Democrat , VT, 0%)

    • Rockefeller, Jay (Democrat , WV, 0%)

    • Akaka, Daniel (Democrat, HI, 5%)


    • Byrd, Robert (Democrat, WV, 10%)

    • Hillary Clinton (Democrat, NY, 14%)


    • Obama, Barack (Democrat, IL, 30%)


    • McCain, John (Republican, AZ, 95%)

    In the House … the Worst - to - LeastWorst pork-barrel rankings in the Senate are as follows:

    • Grijalva, Raul (Democrat , AZ , 0%)

    • Honda, Mike (Democrat , CA , 0% )

    • Napolitano, Grace ( Democrat , CA , 0% )

    • Roybal-Allard, Lucille (Democrat , CA , 0% )


    • Hensarling, Jeb (Republican , TX , 98% )

    • Ryan, Paul ( Republican , WI , 98%)

    • Flake, Jeff ( Republican , AZ , 100%)

    • Hastert, Dennis (Republican , IL , 100% )


    Based on Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW.ORG), most Democrats score worse on pork-barrel.
    NOTE: the Congressional Ratings can be sorted by grade (e.g. percentag).

    Also, based on BetterImmgration.com, Democrats score worse on illegal immigration.

    Goombah wrote: I’m afraid I do not know what the term “corpocrisy” means, …
    Corpocrisy is a manifestation of unchecked greed (e.g. corporate welfare, subsidies, tax breaks for outsourcing overseas, etc.).

    Here are a few examples.
    See line # 7: Corporate Welfare (more…)
    Also see: www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html

    Goombah wrote: … but I’m sure it’s something really, really bad.
    Shouldn’t most people think greed and fraud are bad? Surely, you are defending greed and fraud, are you?
    Goombah wrote: That and “manifestations of unchecked greed” seem to me to be the usual liberal hatchet jobs on people who work hard and make a lot of money;
    Nonsense.

    No one is against hard work, nor making money (legally and ethically).
    There is a big difference.
    Surely you understand the difference?

    Goombah wrote: … people who work hard and make a lot of money; which is, of course, an inherently bad thing. Uh huh.
    Nonsense.

    Again, hard work and the fruits of that hard work is fine (if legal and ethical).
    There’s a difference.

    Or, are you OK with these abuses and manifestations of unchecked greed?
    Like Gordon Gecko, “Greed is Good”, eh?

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 2, 2008 8:04 PM
    Comment #246940
    Goombah wrote: When Carter was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the national debt was a lot higher percentage-wise than it is today and a lot less under control. The economy was in the tank, members of our embassy in Tehran were hostages, and Democrats had no ideas about how to do anything about anything.
    False.

    I’m not a fan, but debt under Jimmy Carter (1977-1981; 39th president) was smaller in magnitude and also as a percentage of GDP.

    Here is a Debt Chart showing the nominal debt, debt in 1950 dollars, debt 2005 dollars, GDP, and DEBT-to-GDP ratios between year 1900 and year 2007.

    As you can see, the debt was smaller (both in magnitude, and as a percentage of GDP).

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 8:56 AM
    Comment #356082

    Botkier can be a type of from the number since they generally put together merchandise which might be personal. That outsized cheap designer handbags Chrystie Go hobo is amongst the proofs of it. With a weight of in for $695, the item incorporates glistening German household leather having snake-stamped lambskin diagonal aspect, in addition to bronze electronics in addition to studs accentuating the main portion. Furthermore, it attributes two times diagonal go closures having just about every acquiring cheap gucci handbags it is sections. Each rooms usually are layered having brand filling, which often include just one interior go, some sort of cellular telephone jean pocket, some sort of multi-functional jean pocket having keychain, in addition to an interior brand platter within the household leather software. Testing all around 04 that Botkier hobo case is usually open plenty of a great day-to-day relaxed work with, having model in addition to style currently happening. Other than bronze, this case is additionally easily obtainable in fumes in addition to black/black snake. However the snake aspect Chanel Bags online store seriously isn’t considerably apparent, the item however enhances the glamour in addition to model of this case.

    Concerning case, Burberry Buckleigh Nylon Handbag is usually built from some sort of stuff that is certainly possibly the best to help keep. Regardless Emporio Armani Watches where by people be put into family vacation, it truly is need to be of which case to its usefulness when compared to household leather in addition to suede. That has a selling price connected with $195 for just a Burberry case, you actually need it that. It happens to be crafted from nylon that’s likewise the true reason for it is low cost selling price. Very well, low cost or maybe definitely not, at the very least people armani watches for men sale employ a Burberry case for taking to you at any place people head out. People may choose to develop the black color type intended for a small amount of classiness, as well as this reddish colored just one for just a trendier glimpse. Regardless of what you favor, both equally carriers include black color household leather trims and in many cases seeing that sterling silver develop electronics intended for form a contrast. It offers drawstring purses with just about every area which then adds to Cheap Chanel Bags for sale it is entire pattern. This equestrian knight brand is put within the entry intended for simple print in order to hold it is smart pattern. It offers major grips having wedding ring parts and is particularly type of on in relation to inches tall, that’s witout a doubt plenty of on your hip beachfront needs in addition to whatnots. Due to the fact that is a extremely versatile Burberry case, you could potentially set of two the item having summer months garments or maybe beachfront garments for just a comfortable glimpse though for the beachfront, as well as having trousers in addition to clever relaxed garments though the downtown area.

    Posted by: chanel tote bags at November 1, 2012 5:40 AM
    Post a comment