IF Bush started in 2001 trying to shut down Freddie and Fannie and the Democrats (those rascals) took over in 2007, what happende in the intervening six years?
And, what happened to the budget surplus which was in place when Bush took office?
As I have said before, there is enough irresponsibility on the part of both parties to go around. Both parties in Congress are culpable of abdicating their responsibilities and throwing the economy to the Wall St and banking wolves.
Trying to blame two years of Democratic control for the problem simply is not accurate.
Blaming any one agent or party for the recession and cherry-picking evidence to back up your pre-concieved notion is only good for scoring political points and for inflating non-fact-based realities.
There is no way the necessary compromise to actually fix this nation's financial market problems and budget problems if people keep buying into overly biased political commentary that blames whoever the author does not like for America's problems. This type of bs analysis takes the focus away from the problems--that we should be paying attention to--and puts emphasis on blaming people. And then, when compromise time rolls around, everyone is so misinformed about the problem that they just go with what they believed with in the first place.
So, thanks, Better2012. You've done a great job solving all our problems by blaming Obama and the Democrats for everything. Your numbers and capitalization has proven beyond a doubt that it is so obviously all the Democrats' fault and so obviously no one else's fault, except for Obama's fault.
When the reality that the parties share power and responsibility sets in again, we know what to do: we make sure that our leaders know never to compromise with those twisted, evil Democrats, even if it means that we never ever have any solutions to any of our problems. Cause it's our way or the high way because it is all their fault.
"we make sure that our leaders know never to compromise with those twisted, evil Democrats, even if it means that we never ever have any solutions to any of our problems."
I was almost buying your bipartisanship up to there.
If you truly believe it is both parties that need to compromise, then blame extremists on both sides who don't allow room for compromise either way on issues like... off shore oil drilling, or nuclear power plants. Would you compromise, or fight to the death?
ps - I remember some of the videos you referred me to in the past. I will call BS if you try it.
It's too bad Jack Kemp died too soon.
I don't care if someone like him is Republican or Democrat, but we sure could a good dose of Jack's enthusiasm & wit right now. He had it right when he and others created the "Empower America" organization.
I would absolutely compromise on those issues (which, for some reason you think you know my views on in advance) if it meant finally getting a decent bi-partisan national energy plan. I certainly would not "fight to the death."
Past smast, Charles. Let go, move on, let's be friends and find real solutions to real problems.
Help! It's not the Republic Party ,so why has the Democratic Party become the Democrat Party?
Tax cuts while in the throes of a very expensive war didn't help either! Oops! I forgot-- the war was off budget.
An honest answer I think. Fair enough.
I have no problem being friends and working with people. But even my closest friends and family will tell you that that I have a low tolerance for flip flopping and words only support. So far you seem to be straight forward.
Having said, yes, by all means let's move forward. I am truly sick to death of party before country and would gladly support and help elect any Joe Schmoe who could convince me that he will do the right thing for the country and not just himself/his party.
That's what I'm saying.
I don't mind people having different ideas that I do...I'm certainly as fallible as the next person.
It's also not that I don't have views on things or that I think debate is always useless. And, for sure, if I keep posting on these blogs I'll post something we don't see eye-to-eye on, and that's okay.
This post, however, can't even be debated because everything in it is so partisan that it is ridiculous. Casting blame on only one agent or group of people for an entire country's situation is almost never accurate. If there world were so simple then we would have much fewer problems than we do. This polarization where all my people are always right and all your people are always wrong just does not work. The attitude does not get stuff done in a democracy, and it's been like this for way too long. Reality is almost always more complicated than one simple solution for everything and the operation of a good democracy is almost always more work than just switching around the parties.
Just saw the failed moderate Jon Huntsman speak today, by the way.
I am reminded of that moment in "Miss Congeniality", when Sandra Bullock gives a GREAT answer to the 'Are pageants fake' question... and then adds her little vengeance speil. Michael Caine says, "A brief shining moment and then that mouth!"
Climegeist, you took a perfectly reasonable and responsible position and then.... you had to add a stinging judgement, "...the failed moderate Jon Huntsman..."
Do you see the possiblity that you are what you claim to despise? That you have met the enemy and he is you?
You can spin it all you want but you can't run from the math. Truth hurts sometimes! I know it stings that you can't blame it all on W!!
And nobody on this blog appears to be doing that. But, you seem to be trying to blame it on two years of Democratic Congressional "control".
Better 2012, If you can ignore Romney's financial shenanigans,you are an accomplished spinner. Romney may have remained within the law ,but his ethics are certainly questionable--- the term vulture capitalism comes to mind.
The math you mentioned must be Republican math.Romney certainly can do the math when it comes to sharp dealing and tax avoidance.We need wealth creators and not "entrepreneurs " who thrive on human misery.
You just spun to Romney!! Well done - that's the first time I have seen a conversation regarding past debt responsibility spun to the upcoming Republican nominee. We have a winner!!
Better, The point of the are-you -better-off allusion is to connect Romney with the Reagan myth.Even "Republics" agree that W was a disaster, evidenced by the fact that he is now persona non grata at Republican events.You ,of course, are free to cherry-pick history to suit your taste.
No, your attempt to spin to Romney is to try to discuss anything other than your party's policies and decisions that continue to drive us into the land of no return. Facts hurt. It's much easier to change the topic.
Better2012, one fact that you seemed to have left out is that your entire OP is simply a cut-and-paste of a viral email/FB rant that's been floating around for a few months.
It's polite to mention this up front, as it makes a difference whether these are "facts" and ideas that you tracked down and developed yourself or some anonymous entity's "facts" and ideas that just happen to agree with your worldview.
Scin - didn't intent to be "impolite". This indeed was a copy of an email I received from a friend. That wasn't something I was failing to disclose - I just didn't consider it relative.
Now that that's out of the way, my points still stand. Your rebuttal is simply another effort to change the topic.
Fly - what in particular are you looking for that's not stated in the OP?
Better, I made no attempt at a rebuttal, since what you posted was something you neither wrote nor researched yourself. Therefore, these aren't really your points, and they stand about as well as any other undocumented chain email.
It is true I was not the original author - which has nothing to do with the validity of the issues at hand. There are a long list of things that I didnt write, including "To Kill A Mockingbird", "War & Peace", and "Prophet from Plains - the Biography of Jimmy Carter". Surprisingly, I am also not a contributing author to The Wall Street Journal or the AJC.
However, what all this has in common, is that it makes no difference. The points outlined in the OP Stand, and your attempt to shift the conversation to "original authorship" is just a spin. It's an attempt to invalidate the claims because they were not orignially authored by me. It's just a spin.
For the record, I also did not write any of the reports from the Conressional Budget Office or Freddie & Fannie. I'll probably use those in another blog later - so just wanted to give you a head's up.
See, the problem with posting chain emails as if they were the result of your own research and thoughts is that when anyone questions them, all you can do is say "You're just trying to change the subject. The points still stand." Which makes sense because in fact you don't really know where these "facts" came from, and a quick Google search merely reveals that lots and lots of people who think like you do have posted this exact same email all over the place.
If you were to look at long term trends rather than these carefully cherry-picked data points, you might realize that the federal budget has been growing at a predictable rate regardless of which party "controls" Congress. And you might realize that unemployment rates jumped and then dropped off during both Bush and Obama's presidencies. And if you'd written this yourself, you might have left out the stock market bit, because you might've noticed where the market is now, and more importantly you might have seen that the long-term trends do not make a case for or against either party.
If you looked into it more, you might realize that during that 52-month streak there weren't actually that many jobs created (like a batter with a .250 average during a 52-game hitting streak) and the purchasing power of wages actually decreased (like a batter scoring fewer runs during his hitting streak).
You might wonder why Dodd and Frank are blamed here, given that the hated Dodd-Frank Act wasn't passed until AFTER the meltdown. You might wonder why Democrats are blamed for Congress ignoring Bush's 17 Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac pleas since 2001, given that Republicans controlled Congress from 2001 until 2007.
Then again, you might not!
John sales apples. He makes a gross profit of 5$. He payes 2.50$ in taxes fed, state, etc. With a net profit of 2.50$, 1$ of wich he reinvest in apple seed and 1$ he uses to create a job for another man to help plant the seeds. If I have my math right John now has a saveings of .50$. Relax John you havent over extended your funds you have a small saveings. With the 2.50$ taxes John payed the Government spends 250,000$ bailing out... Wait maybe I should start over somethings not right. Ok, John sales no no John dies, he leaves .50$ to his daughter she pays .30$ on death tax leaveing her .20$ to pay for a tomb stone. With the .30$ death tax the Government spends 300,000$ bailing out no stimulating! wait wait I must have sometihng wrong. Ok John sales, no Johns dead.