The election results on Tuesday should have been a wake-up call for people in both political parties. Voters are unhappy about the direction of this country and concerned about the economy. They want a change toward more limited government, lower taxes, healthcare reform without government intervention and more jobs for Americans, not illegal aliens.
On Tuesday, voters in New Jersey and Virginia elected Republicans despite a major push by President Obama and the Democrats. In fact, President Obama visited New Jersey numerous times to campaign on behalf of Governor Jon Corzine. It was all to no avail as Republican Chris Christie won handily. This election should be of special concern to the Democrats since New Jersey is a liberal state. In Virginia, Republicans swept into the major offices by huge margins. This is a state that Obama won in 2008, but, now it is moving toward the GOP.
Even in liberal Maine, conservatives scored a victory as voters turned aside a law legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage advocates have tried in 31 states to legalize same sex marriage, but each time, voters have reaffirmed their support of traditional marriage.. Maybe it is time that liberal activists started to listen to the American people.
Democratic leaders are trying to spin the results as purely “local” elections that had nothing to do with Obama. Baloney, it was a stinging repudiation of the liberal agenda of the White House. If the unemployment rate was lower and the President’s stimulus plan, healthcare bill and cap and trade plan were more popular, the Democrats would have won. On Tuesday, voters expressed their fears about the 1990 page healthcare plan, the poor economy and the unprecedented level of deficit spending.
This election was a barometer of public opinion in America. Now, socialism has been at least temporarily sidetracked. President Obama may have an approval rating hovering around an anemic 50%, but his radical agenda is much more unpopular. The election is a foreshadowing of what will occur in 2010 unless President Obama and his Democratic allies drastically change their plans.
In a recent poll, 40% of Americans identified themselves as conservative; whereas only 20% of the people accept the liberal label. The Democratic Party agenda is dangerously liberal and the American people are now starting to rebel.
Obama and company took power in 2008 not because America accepted liberalism, but because they were tired of Bush and McCain Republicanism. If the GOP embraces real conservatism and presents a true alternative to the Democratic agenda, the party will take back Congress in 2010 and Obama will be a one term President.
A political revolution is brewing in this country. In just the last few months, we have seen tea parties, town hall meetings, a major 9/12 rally in WashingtonD.C. and now stunning election results. It is a repudiation of Obama’s extremist agenda. If Congress does not listen to the American people and passes this healthcare monstrosity, they will pay the price at the next election. I guarantee it.
Attend Politics With A Punch at exquisite ROOSEVELT HOTEL on NOVEMBER 19. For more information, contact Stephen Sabludowsky or Jeff Crouere
Jeff Crouere is the Host of “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. He is the Political Analyst for WGNO-TV ABC26 and a Columnist for selected publications. For more information, visit his web site at RingsidePolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com
““““some encouraging signs of "deficit awareness.????”””” Kp, the masses are comatose… They just don’t have their minds right…… What is needed is a new accord, a firm understanding, an admission to the paradigm we are currently laboring under or towards…. Right now, we as a nation of some 300+ million citizens are ‘expected’ by the Chinese government to ‘feed’ their impulses and desires… China has what, almost 1.5 billion mouths to feed? Tell me how 350 million (around 1/3 of a billion) are going to provide for 1 and a half billion? The money they have, which we spent on them, is sitting in their coffers, and we are ‘borrowing’ some of that money now to help us “stay afloat”? Instead of using the money we traded with for things like water lines, sewage lines, electric lines, social programs, schools, roads, bridges (although I am sure some of it was spent on stuff like that) they are building submarines, aircraft carriers, nuclear missiles, combat aircraft, etc., etc., etc.. Are they opening trade up with other less developed nations? No, they are working to blanket the mineral and natural resources of the globe when the time comes, and that is a scant decade and a half away… the blink of an eye…. At the same time we (especially down here in this goofy ass state) are not doing much of anything to conserve and to contribute to the common good of our neighbors. It is take, take, take, take…. Beg, beg, beg, beg……. Demand, demand, demand, demand……. And when an answer is found it is muddied up and trashed around the place….. We are seriously skrewed to the nth power of turdy two…… And 2012 is going to come and go like a cool night on New Years eve of 2000…. The only thing that will change is the depths to which we have sunk as a collective whole… Getting tired of manning the watch tower… Written by
on 11/17/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well I notice some encouraging signs of "deficit awareness." First the TP had Cokie & hubby's article on the deficit Saturday. The show following Hardball tonight on MSNBC also has a segment on "the devaluation of the dollar." Liberals - those who aren't mathematically challenged that is - are starting to become aware of concepts such as "a devalued dollar" or "hundreds of billions in additional ANNUAL interest payments." "Aware of" as in ... "gee, these things are not good." I love to see liberals "grow" and start to use their heads in addition of their hearts when considering policy. What is passing as "stimulus" for the economy is nothing more than bleeding future generations to "fix" our mess today (oh, BTW, it's not working, if THAT matters). Good thing we can't "steal" years from the lives of future generations; because if we could, we would. Written by kpf
on 11/16/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
- - - - The GOP is a party whose interest seems to be not in governing but only in blocking others from being able to effectively govern. - - - - - ?/?/?/?/?/?!?!?!?????? Well, those that are ‘effectively’ governing that are affiliated with the ‘GOP’ appear to be making sure they are part of the gear works that are “blocking others from being able to effectively produce.” Same situation with the fuggin Dumbocrats…. All pompous @zzholes if you ask me….. But we still have the demotivated 'citizenry' to contend with.... We have become apathetic... We realize we have no real voice, and we merely wander around in circles like schools of bait fish hoping we don't get eaten by the sharks... It is a shame.... Written by
on 11/14/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Yes, the recession of the early 1980's, one which was so severe that Reagan nearly decided not to run for re-election. That era saw the beginning of record federal deficits, which were made that way by tax cuts and large increases in military spending, as well as trade deficits and the acceleration of the Rust Belt phenomenon and the phenomenon of the income gap between the very rich and the rest of us. Bush the father (of course, another not-conservative-enough conservative) and Clinton were able to undo some of those effects but then Bush the son did his best to emulate Reagan in tax cutting and deficit boosting and also to stick it to the same groups who got left out of the "Reagan boom." As the data show, the 2000's have been very, very anemic years at best in terms of job creation and income growth for the middle class. Again, the deficit situation will persist at least until the economy is thriving enough so that tax receipts are higher. The deficit hawks insist that no bandage should have been applied to the bleeding patient as costs have to kept down. Would such a patient recover on his/her own? No, of course not. They would bleed to death first. Written by Speak the truth
on 11/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The Democrats have always been the party of the broader representation and of having more differing philosophies within their ranks. The GOP is more, and especially now more than ever, the party of rigid discipline and ideology. Even now they are clearly purging less conservative members from their ranks and are unhappy even with members such as Joseph Cao who votes party line sometimes but not all of the time. Written by Speak the truth
on 11/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Those opposed to "helping" the economy with government spending would point to the recessions of the early 1920's and 1980's - which were painful but short-lived. The argument is that deficit spending only extends the pain, much as taking a bandaid off slowly does. The criticism directed towards Obama's "stimulus" is that much of it is nothing of the kind, rather political payback and an attempt to remake the country into a more socialist country. I see his administration is predicting ever higher deficits. Since my belief is that the Democrats will suffer in 2010 due to deficit spending, nothing could make me more happier. Until we have either divided government or at least enough GOP members in the Senate to force compromise, the insanity will not end. In the mean time, the "Blue Dogs" are saving us from a full blown leftist takeover - bless their hearts. Written by kpf
on 11/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
NO! NO! IT WOULDN'T BE DIFFERENT! F- me!!! I am against deficit spending, I believe that "stimulating" the economy - as Bush, Obama and yes, McCain no doubt if he had the chance - are doing is wrong. Imagine if the issue were war in Iraq or Afghanistan. If you are against it then you are against it NO MATTER WHICH PARTY IS IN POWER. I think deficit spending at this level will be "a cure worse than the disease." I must go eat before going out, but one last thing: how pathetic of you to not accept that the GOP CANNOT STOP ANY LEGISLATION, only dissent within the Democratic Party can do this. Hopefully after the 2010 elections, that will no longer be true. BTW, the GOP - as the minority party ALWAYS does - puts forth legislation - but this gets voted down by party line vote. They are not the "party of no" - they say "no" to what the Dems bring forth, BUT the Dems ALSO say "no" to EVERYTHING the GOP brings forth. So why single out one of the two parties who "say no" to everything the other brings up? If you really want to know "the truth" - you'll have to see the "warts" of BOTH political parties. Written by
on 11/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If McCain and Palin had been elected would the situation with the federal deficit and national debt be very different? It's highly doubtful that those items would be less significant. If anything, a McCain administration that would not have passed a stimulus package would now be witnessing near-depression if not actual depression conditions in the economy with perhaps millions more people out of work, all effects which would be acting to depress tax receipts and thus contribute to increasing the deficit even above the level where it is now. Of course, the question is whether the economy, having hit bottom is on a sustained path to recovery and if so how steady of a recovery this will be and then also what will happen with the employment picture. Data keep coming in that the 2000's have been thus far as nearly a complete decade a terribly anemic time for the economy and job creation. This, along with two costly wars which are still not resolved, is the legacy of GOP control of the government when they had the chance to show that, having had such control, what they could accomplish with their policies. So now the public is going to rush back to embrace this agenda after not quite a year of the Obama administration? No, while Obama's ratings are what they are, the ratings of Republicans in Congress are hardly anything to crow about and actually worse than Obama's. The problem is that patient in this case needed treatment and needed treatment so badly after suffering the effects of Bush/GOP policies after all these years that effective treatment was bound to be a shock. Nonetheless the GOP has remained committed to being the party of "no," which they absolutely and proudly are. Of course it's their hope that Obama does not succeed in accomplishing anything for the good of the nation and they've been determined to prevent him, to the extent that they can, from even having a chance, and then if the Democrats can pass anything, it's their hope that the initiative fails to work and that they will be able to say that they opposed it. And, after all, we're talking about people who believe that government cannot ever work right and they're not even about to try to make it work. Written by Speak the truth
on 11/12/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"…sheer gridlock" - funny you should say that. I am one who LIKES divided government (something you must not recognize as you attribute more power to the president than he in fact has). I like it when congress is split (the dems having one chamber, the gop the other) and/or one party having the presidency the other congress. I FEARED (for different reasons) EITHER party having the presidency, control of both houses and (because that is "not quite" absolute power) 60 senators. The Democratic Party has this. They can - theoretically - pass ANYTHING THEY WANT and even if EVERY SINGLE Republican in BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE oppose them, they can make their UNIFIED desires law. The key word Mr. Truth is "unified" - the "gridlock" in Washington D.C. is from WITHIN the Democratic ranks. I realize you are "stuck" on bashing the GOP, however, the fact that my fears have come to be (complete DOMINANCE of D.C. by one party) and their infighting makes them incapable of "pulling in the same direction" amuses me immensely. It is not the GOP who creates this dissention in the ranks of the Dems; it is the far left divisive liberals. I say this as moderate centrist legislation would easily pass muster among ALL the ranks of the Democratic Party. It is the far left divisive liberal legislation - that centrist Democrats cannot support - that is providing gridlock. Also, as someone who cannot fathom a person such as I who despises both parties (or who seems to be unable to fathom that both parties can be wrong, about war, about deficit spending, etc.) wishes to see "either-party-whoever-the-f%$k-is-in-power" DO THE RIGHT THINGS. Like ..... run a BALANCED budget (or at least not PLAN to spend the dollar into a dime with HUGE deficit spending), put U.S. citizens first and last by stopping our tax dollars from going overseas (for ANY reason) and quit being the world's policeman. Eh ... whatever ... enjoy your day. _____ I'm goin' home, to see my baby ____ I'm goin' home, to see my baby ____ Come on, Take me, Yeah Written by kpf
on 11/11/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Task no. 1 for Obama was/is to stop the bleeding of the economy as when there's a patient who's bleeding badly the first thing to do is try to stop the bleeding -- because someone could bleed to death quickly. Results are not yet clear but how the economy does will be the number one factor acting on his future. The GOP and deficit hawks and neo-Herbert Hoover's or Calvin Coolidge's would seem to just as soon have the patient bleed to death in order to try to treat an allergy or preserve a leg or so. The Founding Fathers intended for the political system to function through good-faith negotiation to bring about solutions for the whole of the people; they did not intend for sheer gridlock at times of crisis. Written by Speak the truth
on 11/10/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The GOP governed and spent like liberals - "like" but not quite as free with spending as this administration has shown liberals will do if placed in power. The centrist Democrats who fear for their re-election chances in 2010 already dilutes their power. The closer to that election the less chance to advance the far left agenda. I know the GOP offers alternatives as amendments to legislation; but I understand the Democratic Party faithful must parrot the "party of no" refrain, however disassociated from reality that may be. I will admit the Bush years were not fiscally responsible. That was one of the factors turning people off to them; I do not trust them to be fiscally responsible, but I also do not think they would be anywhere near as insane as Obama's plan for our budget over the next 8 years (his plans will not be realized, I no longer worry about that). "... only in blocking others from being able to effectively govern" - The GOP doesn't have the votes to stop ANYTHING - are you mathematically challenged, or simply completely clueless to how "the numbers" work in congress???? "...this cannot possibly be remotely close to what the founding fathers had in mind." - What the Founding fathers had in mind was limited government, protection of private property and personal liberty. The Founding Fathers would label the most right wing Republican as big government tyrants. I am however very glad to hear Europe is doing so well. It is past time for us to bring our cowboy soldiers home. The taxpayer can have a "peace dividend" with the money we won't be paying to station soldiers and airmen in their countries. We can not only close all our bases there but the Federal Reserve can stop sending money to EU countries to PROP UP their economies - money that is "created" by the Fed and devalues the dollar no less - since after all, "the truth" is their economy is better than ours. It's been lovely talking to you, I am soon to be home for two weeks, and do hope I am pleasantly occupied and do not find time to chat often on this board. Toodles. Written by kpf
on 11/10/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The point is that the GOP, no matter what, is still in no position to be looking to exploit peoples' continuing deep concerns about the economy and unemployment and try to take the mantle of economic populism. The GOP has not offered solutions, is still not offering solutions and alternatives and has not produced for the good of the majority of the people when it had the chance to "show me what ya got," and they still are not really interested in governing so much as throw the pot-boiling rhetoric of far right conservative-ism to the rock-ribbed conservative masses. The GOP is a party whose interest seems to be not in governing but only in blocking others from being able to effectively govern. There are two parties of differing philosophies but this cannot possibly be remotely close to what the founding fathers had in mind. BTW the combined economies of the European nations (with their socialized healthcare and more tightly regulated capitalism) are now close to overtaking the cowboy-populist U.S. if they have not already done so. Written by Speak the truth
on 11/10/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I hears bote of ya’s…….. This chunk of downsized turf called ‘Louisiana’ is an example of ‘government spending’…. In essence, a long time ago, during a culture far - far away, one of our leaders thought it would be a great investment on the part of the American People, and it was…. As was Alaska, not so sure about the Gadsden Purchase but it is sort of neat to wander around down there from time to time and look at the gila monsters wandering around (Ehhh, I guess it is sort of hard to bat a thousand all the time)…. And I do appreciate Commodore Perry’s efforts, and a whole lot of others efforts as well like Smedley Butler’s, and Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford, and the simple American People involved that pretty much dragged the world out of the stone age and showed it democracy and an improved standard of living….. One of u two mentioned something about “severe cutbacks in government spending”…. Well, yeah, to a certain extent a lot of government spending on the current GS scale is retarded and to blame for a great big bunch of waste……. Cut their numbers, cut their benefits, cut their pay……. More often than not GS workers didn’t want to enter the private sector for jobs, and they didn’t want to go into business for their selves… Instead, they wanted to suck on the taxpayers back and demand more, more, more, more…. Worse than Unions….. Then of course we have their counterparts to counter productivity, the federal assistance ‘lifelong’ “welfare style scab”…. Toss in crazy insurance, lending, and monopolistic opportunists and you have a great deal of the problems going on… Our health care system needs to be dismantled to a certain extent and re formatted… Our educational system K-12 and beyond? Same damn thing… Nothing but a barney the purple dinosaur day care babysitting service is all it really is anymore.. And our laws on the books? Toss about half those books on the bonfire and start all over is probably a good policy….. Affordable housing? It is a basic necessity in life… For a lot of folks… Jobs? Same thing, now get out there and create them…. Affordable food? You poor blind fools……. In this land of opportunity and so much diversity with 50,000 different things on the store shelves for the consumer to buy do you know why all those things cost so much? Simple, a person can only eat so much food, and everyone of those products is vying for stomach space…. So they don’t care, they are going to charge to the hilt for a couple of ounces of nothing….. That is their business model, it has nothing to do with sound business…. Can’t even get a sip of water from a water fountain anymore, you gotta buy a bottle of water fer a buck…. And air in your tires? You better cough 75 cents at least… I’m surprised the stores don’t have a ‘door’ charge…. A nickel just to walk in the joint (Oh sh^t, some genius will probably try it, and when the other stores see it working they will do the same) What a bunch of jackasses…. Enjoy your new reality, you worked hard for it, you deserve everything you ain’t going to get………. Peace Out…. Oh, and Obama, sorry to say but he is yet another ineffective tool, and the wave of the future.... Written by
on 11/10/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Make no mistake about it, the "stimulus" spending by government - governments all over the world - is recognized as a "balancing act" that carries with it the risk of inflation as great or greater than the deflation it is trying to cure. Read Bloomberg.com for articles on how governments the world over express their concerns on this "balancing act" - namely, when to end their stimulus spending. Obama's plan (his PLAN mind you) is to take GWB's fiscal 2008 record deficit - multiply it by a factor of about 4 - have this level of deficits for 3 years or so - then "cut the deficit in half" (which still leaves it larger than ANY deficit EVER run by any president before his administration) for another 6 to 8 years. That's his PLAN. If I am considered "foolish" by you to have the belief that this is a completely unnecessary risk and FAR BEYOND any "injection of liquidity" that the financial crises calls for, I'll just shrug that off as your ignorance. Deficit spending DOES have risks, "higher than ever deficit spending" has ... um ... I KNOW .. "Higher than ever risk" – (um, what else would it be????) Also a concern to me is that Obama, Frank & Co. have yet to admit to their culpability in creating the housing bubble, which triggered the crash. The fact that they are charged to correct a problem they largely created, doesn't bode well for the country. Thank Lucifer (or whatever "magical being" one imagines exists) that the populace will take some of the wind out of the sails of this administration come next year. What a year 2010 will be, the Saints win the Superbowl, and I get to hear liberals spout off about how ignorant voters are for the changes in congress that the midterm elections will bestow this country with; sweet. Written by kpf
on 11/10/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If the economy is not thriving, if consumers are not feeling comfortable about spending then there will be no chance to make any kind of dent in the federal deficit or national debt is the point and the truth of the matter (the problem is as much related to tax receipts as it is to spending). Just like the things that the Congress did and the Federal Reserve did during the initial stages of the Great Depression only served to make the economy perform worse, if you throw more more people out of work now, place more of a squeeze on the pocketbooks of the working classes with such actions as severe cutbacks in government spending you're not accomplishing anything toward either the goal of eventual economic recovery or reducing the federal deficit. Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge both live. Written by Speak the truth
on 11/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As I am someone who has repeatedly said he doesn't think government can provide economic prosperity, why then would you ask me if either party has a plan to provide economic prosperity? I mean ... if you're not gonna listen .... ____ Interesting opinion article on Bloomberg, I like this quote from the article: "The U.S. may be sowing the seeds of yet another bad-loan crisis by expanding homeownership anew. How encouraging those who may be better off renting to buy homes in a weak economy is good policy is beyond me." So where will we be in this mecca of Obamanation? Deeper in debt, a much weaker dollar, sky-high unemployment, and the possibility of run away inflation. By your grasp of economics, Obama must be to blame (no?), whereas I would say that the problems we are incurring have been create d by BOTH poiltical parties (not just when they are in "control" either), the policies of the Federal Reserve, the implicit guarantee of taxpayer bailouts for those lending companies making "affordable housing" loans to the poor and the resulting (one would think "inevitable") collapse as "greed without risk" runs amok, our expendatures overseas (not just wars either). But I most certainly do not believe that "the president is all powerful and deserves all credit/blame for the state of the economy. No offense, but that is waaaaay too simple to be "the truth." Written by kpf
on 11/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Kp, """"""I do not think they deserve the praise or the blame they receive for the state of the economy.""""?????? Yeah, but when they bail midstride of an elected position I think they deserve all the attention they can get with regards to the economy and what they failed to even try, even after being elected to office... Sarah Palin, please, go ---- yourself, if not for the sake of the citizens of Alaska, at least for the rest of us poor retarded Americans that have to look at your dumb ass from time to time..... It is difficult enough out there as it is without quiters like you trying to help screw us even worse than we already are... Written by
on 11/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Didn't the GOP have the entire reins of government during the first 6 years of the Bush the Fortunate Son regime? If the GOP, and the right wing of the GOP at that, was ever going to get a chance to show everyone what they could do to demonstrate the power of their special magic to get the economy really humming then that was it. And yet what happened? We all know. The GOP has no special magic for the economy when it comes to the bread-and-butter issues that most working families have to deal with. The "trickle down" effect only means that whatever growth economy that occurs on their watch bestows only a minor trickle of prosperity on the working people. The GOP is all about taking care of their Wall St. allies and leaving the rest of the people in the cold. Now, if people are impatient now for the economy to get going again that's quite understandable, but is the GOP offering an alternative remedy for most peoples' concerns? Hardly. Written by Speak the truth
on 11/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Actually, what is "disputed" by me is the notion that the president is solely responsible for government policy and outlays; also in dispute is that government "creates" prosperity. I think I have exhausted arguments for the former, for the latter one last thought: if government "creates" prosperity, then why - with the Democrats in power - are the economic signs going the wrong direction? Keep in mind "temporary bubbles" created by debt and inflation does not lead to prosperity, and that much of the increases we see in stocks represent nothing more than a devalued dollar. But ....if it makes you happy .... I will say that YES the president is all-powerful and determines - unilaterally - the spending by government, and YES economic prosperity is solely (or mostly) due to government policy. There, I said it. BTW, would you be interested in 100% ownership of a play? I'm calling it "Springtime for Hitler?" Written by kpf, "the truth" is beyond your ken
on 11/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
And so the facts regarding the performance of the economy and job creation or lack thereof during GOP administrations are not being disputed, right? Written by Speak the truth
on 11/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You ask: "so if Reagan in practice as opposed to rhetoric actually did practice government spending as a means to pump up the economy why is it so bad if Obama believes in doing the same thing?" If I defended the Reagan administration/Democratic congress spending of the eighties and criticized the same thing now that would make me a hypocrite. However, since I think it is wrong to spend more than one has (at least "all of the time" or "more than one can ever pay back") whether this is an individual or government your question/condemnation does not apply to me. I would credit the government surplus during the mid-Clinton presidency as due to the electronics revolution of the 90’s, which benefited the Clinton administration/Republican congress. They did nothing to create it; government simply had more revenue with more PRIVATE SECTOR job creation. So with a divided government (difficulty reaching agreement on new spending) fewer people on welfare/unemployment (less outlays) and more taxes being paid due to people buying electronics to the degree of creating jobs (a "boom" in other words). That is how I "detail" that surplus and economic boom. You however credit the government surplus and economic prosperity by "detailing" that a Democrat was in the White House - Period. Hmmmmm, I suspect there's more to it than what you ascribe in your "details." The problem is not “credit“ or even government (thru the Fed) pumping money into the economy. As with an individual’s debt it is a matter of degree. There is something such as “too much debt” – for both individuals and government. Paul Tsongas was “my man” in 1992. He said we would have to raise taxes and cut entitlements. Bill Clinton told the people what they wanted to hear, and so won the right to challenge Bush the first. We cannot avoid this problem forever, just as Global Warming proponents claim that the longer we wait the worse the problem will be, so it is with our dollar, and our government debt. We do not want to hit a brick wall as California did and have to make HARSH cuts. I suggest going to Bloomberg.com or any other source where you can see what other countries think about what we are doing, and the risks involved attempting to stimulate the economy with deficit spending. Lastly… GEAUX SAINTS GEAUX. Written by kpf
on 11/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It's not hard to detail what's happened. During Nixon/Ford administration there was the stagflation/recession of the mid-1970's, during the Reagan early 1980's there was the the worst recession/job loss period up until very recently and then the Bush the father administration witnessed the recession of the late 1980's/early 1990's the helped to drive him out of office and then the Bush the "fortunate son" administration obviously witnessed the recessions of the early 2000's and the most recent downturn, which has been the most serious such event in postwar history. So there's the GOP record on the economy/job creation. The Reagan apologist crowd might say something about the mid to later 1980's but even if the economy was recovering in that time from the earlier downturn any such recovery was pretty spotty and probably a good deal of it was related to spending on the Reagan defense spending boom (so if Reagan in practice as opposed to rhetoric actually did practice government spending as a means to pump up the economy why is it so bad if Obama believes in doing the same thing?). Written by Speak the truth
on 11/8/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Please provide a link showing such data. A few things come to mind, 1st - did the policies of the administration you give credit/blame to actually have anything to do with the economy going either up or down?; 2nd - did the administration benefit from the previous administrations policies (assuming it in fact had any effect on the economy)?; 3rd - Was there "divided government" during this time - and if so - who deserves the credit or blame, congress or the president? If you really believe that government can "wave a magic wand" and create prosperity, you are delusional. The economy's strength is outside of government control except government can enact tariffs, or raise or lower taxes, set interest rates and add to or subtract from the money supply. Look at our current circumstances. The dollar is sliding - in fact the IMF thinks the dollar is overvalued. The Fed cannot lower interest rates any lower than they are. The Fed cannot keep creating money at the rate they are. Unemployment is at the highest in many years. The threat of crippling inflation is the highest since ... um ... the Carter administration. So ... is this "Obama's economy" that is in trouble? No... REALLY? Then just what "measure" are you using to claim a "difference...in the records of GOP administrations and Democratic administrations over the past 40 years in job creation/unemployment and overall performance of the economy?" Do you discredit bad years in a Democratic administration as "the fault of the previous GOP administration?" Do you likewise give credit to Bush the first for Clinton's first year or two? Are you consistent in your measurement? Let's see the data you refer to, and dissect it with more than a simplistic cursory glace, which is exactly what attributing all success or credit to the "All powerful Dictator" the President of the United States is, simplistic and wrong. Actually, either Tip O'Neal was a "soft touch" who let Ronald Reagan run all over him - and therefore deserves no accolades - or he in fact was the powerful Speaker of the House who had a great deal to do with government spending in the 1980's. Having paid attention at the time I know the answer; he most certainly did not "roll over" and allow Ronald Reagan to do as he pleased. I know of very few presidents who have had such luxury. You may think that our presidents are dictators who always get their way, that is not however "the truth." You may think the economy is in the control of government, but that also is not “the truth.” The truth is a bit more complex than these simple-minded conjectures. Written by your friend, Kerry Fox
on 11/8/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The actual historical data indicate a definite difference, however, in the records of GOP administrations and Democratic administrations over the past 40 years in job creation/unemployment and overall performance of the economy. So that's just pure coincidence? Written by speak the truth
on 11/8/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Perhaps our belief that politicians "create" a strong economy is incorrect? While I certainly believe politicians can make an economy worse, and also can create conditions to aid economic prosperity, I do not think they deserve the praise or the blame they receive for the state of the economy. Our Federal Reserve "attempts" to influence the economy by raising and lowering interest rates and adding to or removing from the money supply, but they are not as "in control" of the market as many give them credit for. The fact that people are saving more and lowering their debt is a good thing, in fact government should follow their example. Written by kpf
on 11/7/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Almost forgot to add there CN, Alaska's population is around 630,000 people... You tell me how she can handle a country with 350 million and an illegal problem of around 20 million (which is around 20 or 30 times or more than the population of the state she tried to govern???) You is one certified aren't you CN.... You sure you ain't related to that wacko from Ft. Hood? I always said that if we were going to fall it was going to come from within.... Written by
on 11/7/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
People can relate to her? CN, try telling that to the citizens in Alaska who are facing 8.5% unemployment rate, up from 6.7% in September of 2008 (You know, about the time the ditzy broad decided to go on the McCain ticket as a V.P. contender)..... Oh, and while you are explaining the unemployment, also explain how she abandoned the helm of the ship and stepped down as Gov "because she felt she would be doing her constituents a disservice by spending more time defending herself from 'mean people' than she would on 'actually running the state as she was elected to do'... Especially when if she were in a Pruzahdental Possession, er uh, position, she would have to constantly be defending her 'economic policies and growth and revitalization promises' she might try to bull shit us with while explaining why she stepped down as Governor in the middle of the very same kind of problems..... Yeah CN, you is one genius there aren't you... Perhaps she should run for president of Mary Kay products or something, or as CEO of some Yugolslavian sport hunting rifle manufacturer....
Written by
on 11/7/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
While I agree I also think that deficits - like torture or rape - is bad no matter what "the degree" may be. I don't want to be tortured or raped AT ALL. Likewise, I do not want to see ANY deficit spending. Bush and the GOP engaged in RECORD SETTING deficit spending (we could have taken Iraq's oil - why not? We came, we saw, we conquered. To the victors go the spoils) so I do not trust them. The only reason I want to see them gain seats is that the big hearted liberals are idiots as concerns money (see: California). You are correct about Obama as his projected deficits are four times Bush's. Take into account the fact that government projections are delibrate lies, it will in fact be far worse. Written by kpf
on 11/7/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
After 4 years of Obamanomics we will forget about Bush deficits, bank on it. Written by CN
on 11/7/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Yet .. .many who voted for either the Owens or Hoffman were voting for "less government" - including (ideally) balanced budgets (or much less deficit spending). The eight years of the Bush presidency brought us the highest deficits in our nation's history. It's easy for the GOP to decry deficit spending when they're not responsible for taxing and spending, the question is, "will they do what is necessary to correct this?" As doing what is necessary may well mean increasing taxes AND cutting entitlements, in order to keep their majority they will have to convince an awful lot of people of the need to do this. Neither an easy task, nor one for the faint hearted. Politicians are notorious cowards as concerns matters that may adversely affect their re-election chances, "doing what's right" will require leadership that very few politicians of either party have. Written by kpf
on 11/6/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The election in the 23rd district was a wake up call to the republican party. Its time to quit moving to the left with McCain and others. It's time to move back to the center. It's time to push the country club elites out of the way and get the party back. palin connects with the common folk. Like her or hate her, people can relate to her. Written by CN
on 11/6/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Palin's a joke. If 3rd party ideas are the correct thing to do, whatever party in power should adopt them. Things will change as concerns 3rd parties. Perhaps slowly as their impact may keep (or "put") the Dems in office (al la NY's 23rd district) but the party who loses due to these 3rd party candidates will adopt some of these "3rd party ideas" to be competitive. Written by kpf
on 11/6/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Palin's a joke. If 3rd party ideas are the correct thing to do, whatever party in power should adopt them. Things will change as concerns 3rd parties. Perhaps slowly as their impact may keep (or "put") the Dems in office (al la NY's 23rd district) but the party who loses due to these 3rd party candidates will adopt some of these "3rd party ideas" to be competitive. Written by kpf
on 11/6/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If the corporate elite of the GOP succeeds in denying her the 2012 nomination, there is a real threat she will run on a third party ticket.????? #1 Who in the f^-k is Sarah Palin anyways and what is her true value? #2 Who in their right mind listens to her? (Again, what is her true value) #3 Who in their right mind would vote for her? (Again I suppose, and redundantly so, what is her true value?) and probably #4, Of what real use is the 3rd party if 3rd party ideas aren't given equal seating at the table anyways?
Written by
on 11/6/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As far as the GOP being split between ultra conservatives and moderates - isn't this also true ( except with ultra liberals and moderates) in the Democratic Party (if they weren't then a version of health care reform would have hit the President's desk months ago) - or for that matter, every political party going back to ancient Greece? If there is a trend displayed by the elections Tuesday it is that the rise of third party candidates shows a souring of public opinion with both parties; rest assured both parties are paying attention to that. This is in fact a good thing as when either party loses due to a "split" in their constituency, it causes that party to shift its platform. The success of 3rd party candidates - even as spoilers - then serves the useful purpose of "taking the rough edges" off of a political party's platform. Written by kpf
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh please. Third party candidates often detrimentally effect one party or another (Nader hurt the Dems in 2000, Perot hurt the GOP in 1992); reading some profound "trend" in this recent election is nonsense. In N.Y. the GOP ran a very liberal candidate - and lost. They will - in all probability - win back this seat in the conservative area of N.Y. Written by kpf
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff completely ignores the most significant race on Tuesday's ballot, the one that was actually about national issues. In upstate New York, there was a special congressional election to fill a seat Republicans had held for more than a century. Sarah Palin and many other conservatives chose to back the Conservative Party candidate over the GOP nominee who was a moderate. Just a few days before the vote, the GOP candidate dropped out of the race, endorsing the Democratic nominee. On election day, the Democrat won, giving the Democrats an additional seat in the House. This result points to two major problems for the GOP. First, conservatives are waging a campaign of political cleansing, driving moderates out of the GOP and into the Democratic Party. Second, Sarah Palin has demonstrated a willingness to go outside the GOP to further her political agenda. If the corporate elite of the GOP succeeds in denying her the 2012 nomination, there is a real threat she will run on a third party ticket. Written by David Quidd
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
(1)Democrats gained a seat in the HOUSE, NY-23, and (2) this loss shows the GOP is notably divided between ultra-Conservatives and Moderates. That's 2 big WINS in the Democratic column. (I guess it's the way you spin it, Mr.Crouere) The Market went up to 10,000 today..... As the economy continues to improve, Democrats get the credit....Republicans have been trying desperately to get their act together this past year .... And, now, they're further divided into the Party of Southern White Men (like Looziana) and they can't win national elections this way... (If only Sarah Palin and Boss Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would pinch-hit for Vitter.) Written by KJ- Good Swap
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
What kind of crap is this? When are we going to get away from "A recent poll..." kind of writing? What poll, who conducted the poll, how were the poll participants chosen? If the poll was taken at a church, the results would be a lot different than if it were taken at a college. Was this just in Louisiana, or was it a national poll?
Anyone can just spout off BS numbers like that without any documentation. A recent poll found that 100% of this authors ideas to be complete crap. Written by Peter
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If the results were reversed, Obama and his supporters would be crowing endlessly about how the results were an affirmation of him, the democratic party and his policies. And everyone knows that's how it would have gone. Let's see if chubby cheeks Mary Landrieu gets the message and balks at the democratic agenda, or if she can support Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and still fool the ignorant Louisiana voters into reelecting her again. Written by
on 11/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
