Reagan was blamed for the debt... the Democrats controlled enough to prevent it. Therefore, everyone was to blame.

As for Bush's legacy, though he was a complete bafoon in some things like the massive civil rights grab that was the Patriot Act, will be 9/11. the banking collapse was nothing. a blip on the radar in the start of a major recession - much like the major recession we had at the beginning of Reagan's term thanks to a Mr. Carter. People do not remember recessions.

Presidents are remembered for one thing: Kennedy was shot, Reagan is Reaganomics, Clinton the BJ, and W 9/11.

And as a note, Bush's tax cuts fueled massive economic growth. What they did wrong was not implementing the self-control that must follow a revenue cut. The Republicans went on a spending spree that put us massively in debt when they should have been cutting back and the key interest rates were not controlled as tightly as they should. nothing fuels growth like a tax cut, but you have to be fiscally responsible otherwise. Clinton, on the other hand, was in the right place at the right time. The tech boom fueled the growth, not the policies of Clinton. He was just smart enough to keep his hands out of it.


Either way, both sides have fubar'd the nation into the mess we're in. The partisanship needs to stop and by forcing a one-sided agenda through like is happening now, that is not going to happen. we all need to sit back, have a beer, and figure where we are, where we need to go, and how to get there before we jump in throwing money and resources away.

does any one relize the great depression was only 15 years after the federal reserve board took over the money system

??????????????????????????

Either way, both sides have fubar'd the nation into the mess we're in. The partisanship needs to stop and by forcing a one-sided agenda through like is happening now, that is not going to happen. we all need to sit back, have a beer, and figure where we are, where we need to go, and how to get there before we jump in throwing money and resources away.


I may not like all your opionions. I may even joust with you from time to time.

But you got that right...

I hear this kind of talk in a town hall and all you gona get from me is.

YAY!

Brother on this point!

I believe it's an old Yiddish saying that "Success has many proud fathers, but Failure is always an orphan."

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, and when you 'Come to Jesus' in this forthright manner, I see no reason why groups of people like us couldn't form some kind of Independent party based on rational compromise.

I saw men land on the moon on television. I've seen the gas lines of the 70s, been through the pretty nasty recession of the 80s (I was able to buy my first house with the help of the government, who made slightly more profit off the eventual sale of it than I did, bless them) and I voted for Perot in '92.

But I never saw anything like the excesses of the 2000s. I was aghast to see people flip houses by being able to borrow 120% of the asking price from banks and basing purchases on "How much are the payments." I told a lot of my friends a the time, "This is going to end badly."

I just had no idea of the scope.

As one registered as an Independent voter, I would love to see some third party being able to mount a serious, credible, RATIONAL challenge to the madness and chaos and restore CONFIDENCE to the system. I disagree that tax cuts are the answer-- in the long run, it's the confidence that springs from the unique type of optimism which is the underpinning of the American psyche that will put us back on track. I don't think it's a given that tax cuts will always have that effect.

I'm willing to give Obama some more time. Like at the rural dragstrips of my youth, some of the best racing was done under the lights on "Run Whatcha' Brung Night".

-Kerry O.

We gave Obama 4 years... I got no problem with that...

Congress... No that is a different story... As long as they behave as they currently are I say throw the bums out.

If they start actually doing the job WE want them to...

Show ME where you attack Bush's addition to the national debt, about 5 times that of Clinton's, with the same zeal you're going after Obama. And as I pointed out before, you gave Bush a 9 month mulligan by saying his first official budget wasn't out until September of his first year in office. If you're going to be consistent, I would think any objective observer would not be out of line to call you on your double standard.




Okie dokie, national debt it is. From the Washington Times, the creme de la creme of American Conservative journalism, as quoted from a site called "Conservative for Change":



http://www.conservativeforchange.com/2008/12/national-debt-doubles-under-bush.html

Add to that the fact that the national debt TRIPLED under 8 years of Reagan, and it gets pretty silly to assert that the Republicans own the trademark on fiscal responsibility. But hey, I guess if the use of cartoons is your forte in political debate, it's not too difficult to laff off the propaganda you quote.


-Kerry O.



Not hard to do at all....do you see the little number that shows how many posts that person has? Click on it and if I said it you should be able to find it and quote it.

YOU WON"T FIND IT BUT GO AHEAD AND AND LOOK!!!!!! Maybe you will learn something....

IF I cut and paste something I'm agreeing with the article....I'm also interested in what other people say about it. Once again, click on the posting number and you will see I often comment.


When you use ACTUAL NUMBERS not how many times or percentages one gets a more accurate picture.

You didn't show me where I defended Bush's deficits. Once again find it.


Even though sometimes exaggerated, cartoons often expose basic truths...

What you have done is typical....diverted the discussion away from the fact that Obama's is still creating enormous yearly deficits, adding enormously to the national debt, while tax revenues are down almost 20%.



And go ahead....you can have the last word if you like!!!

Yes, and you're one of the top spammers of Obama bile on the system. Most of it follows cut-and-pasted articles lifted in their entirety from an amazing variety of websites, but almost all of them obscure.

In many posts over the last year you crow that Obama still has a lot of GWB people on his staff. If that isn't a tacit endorsement of GWB, I don't know what is.

In one post, you say "I have a new name for Obama-- FLAKE!" Yet, for all your alleged discontent with GWB, the tone you take when discussing him sounds like something from a Country and Western song about a man pining for an ex girlfriend who gently spurned him and whom he hasn't gotten over. Contrast that with the poison pen you wield for the Democrats and Obama-- it's pretty silly to try to pass yourself of as anything but a rainy day critic of GWB.



Oh, you mean like this scathing repudiation by you of the Bush years?

Your words, exactly:

"It will be ten to fifteen years before the Bush's presidency can be judged accurately. Historians tell us that.
Edited by crickstergo on Wed 02/11/09 10:54 AM "

Apparently, however, you had your mind made up about Obama a few days after he was sworn in (probably before), a torrent of ill-will that anyone with a little research on your posting habits can discern with absolutely no doubt. How, um, objective of you.





Well maybe he should follow Bush's example to the extreme and cut all taxes on anyone making over $100,000 dollars a year to nothing and let all the people on unemployment make up the difference in tax revenues. Sheesh.

As far as diversions go, your continued silence on the 9 month free pass you gave Bush on budget deficits while trying to hold Obama accountable for everything from the minute he was sworn in looks to me like the grandaddy of diversions. Not to mention your throwing down the gauntlet daring me to research your posting record.

Well, you got what you wanted, didn't you? :)

Gotta' love Unix search technology...


-Kerry O., "Honk if you think this is REALLY the 'last word."

And I won't shed a tear if a shakeup in the Democratic party unseats Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. I'd rather like to see someone like Lloyd "Baby Jesus" Doggett hold the post.

-Kerry O.

I don't care if a shake up turns both parties upside down.

Time to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Let the winds of change blow... Real change comes from US... Not from the mouths of a politician.