The Republican Spin Machine

The Republican Spin Machine
The Republican Spin Machine

The Machine

When one thinks of spin, the first things that come to mind tend to be Lawyers and Used Car Salesmen. However, everyone must stand in awe of the power and determination of the Republican Party spin machine. In the last twenty years, the Republican Spin machine has turned liberals into communists, sex into a national crisis and turned war heroes into cowards. What is even more amazing is how the Republican Spin Machine deflects attention away from the massive mistakes made by Republican leaders and eventually spins the argument to make good people believe it was the fault of Liberals. The Republican Spin Machine is truly amazing and must be stopped for the good of the nation.

The Machine At Work
The Machine At Work
The Spin Machine Are The Media Pundits That Spin Conservative Issues No Matter The Consequences
The Spin Machine Are The Media Pundits That Spin Conservative Issues No Matter The Consequences

What Is The Republican Spin Machine

It is first important to point out that the Republican Spin machine is not the regular rank and file Republican Party member. It is not the good folks that vote for Republican candidates, believe in the 2nd Amendment or believe in limited government. Those are Republicans and they must be differentiated from the spin machine because they are innocent bystanders who have genuine beliefs.

The Republican Spin Machine is the media outlets and political pundits that spin everything, yes everything, to serve solely victory. Bear in mind that victory does not mean victory for the Republican Party or even members of the Republican Party. Victory for the Republican Spin Machine is simply the embarrassment of the target of their efforts. Never mind that it is bad for the Country. Never mind that it is bad for their own party or what that party believes. Just destroy the enemy at all costs.

Fair And Balanced: Only If You Make Them Happy
Fair And Balanced: Only If You Make Them Happy

Fox News

To see the Republican Spin Machine at work in all of its glory, one simply needs to watch Fox News for about an hour. In that hour, Fox News will try to convince its viewers that Democrats are socialists who are trying to destroy the Country. Glen Beck, Fox's newest member has even stated openly that he believes that President Obama wants to create "FEMA" camps created in the image of German concentration camps. After this tirade, Beck was given a better timeslot.

Moreover, Sean Hannity is the best example of the Republican Spin Machine at work. During the Bush Administration, Hannity railed against Democrats who had the audicity of objecting or displaying disagreement with the President and said over and over again that for the good of the Country, everyone needed to get behind the President and his issues. Now that Republicans lost the White House, Hannity spends every day trying to tear down President Obama and rails against anyone, even Republicans, who shows any support for anything the President is doing. Objective disagreement is one thing, but Hannity displays nothing but Partisan rhetoric and tries to pass it off as news.

Fox News and its pundits are not the only members of the Republican Spin Machine. They are just the best known and are very effective.

At First The Bush Administration Promised That No Torture Was Taking Place
At First The Bush Administration Promised That No Torture Was Taking Place
This Was Considered An Enhanced Interrogation Technique
This Was Considered An Enhanced Interrogation Technique
The Machine Has Targeted Nancy Pelosi To Blame For The Torture Issue And She Is In Full Retreat
The Machine Has Targeted Nancy Pelosi To Blame For The Torture Issue And She Is In Full Retreat

The Republican Spin Machine At Work - The Issue Of Torture

During the Bush Administration, allegations were raised that American soldiers and other agents of the government were engaging in tactics that constitute torture against terrorists. There was an outcry against this. Even John McCain, a Republican, voiced his objection to any torture tactics being used against anyone held captive by American soldiers. A law was passed solidifying America's stance against torture. Instead, American soldiers and agents were only allowed to use "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Last month, the Obama Administration released evidence that the Bush Administration, in fact, sanctioned water boarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." The public was outraged. Many called for indictments.

The Republican Spin Machine went to work. At first, it blamed President Obama for releasing the information calling the release of facts a threat and danger to America because it would give those who hate us more reason to reign terror. A week later, the machine then railed against the President for not releasing information showing the valuable information that was obtained through the use of torture techniques, admitting torture was used but trying to convince the public that the ends justify the means. The machine has attacked Obama for thinking about investigating which members of the Bush Administration were to blame for the use of torture. And now, the machine has set its sights on Nancy Pelosi, the democratic Speaker Of The House. They are now stating that Pelosi knew what was going on in 2003, and because of this she is to blame for any torture techniques that may have been used.

One really has to stand in awe of the Republican Spin Machine. It is come full circle. What started as a Republican problem, and solely a Republican problem, has now now been spun to the point where all the talk is about the current Speaker of the House and what she knew and when.

The point here is that the Bush Administration openly and actively sanctioned torture. They ordered troops to conduct activities that violate American and international law. And they have been caught. Whether the justice department should investigate or intervene isn't for me to decide. But what is amazing that only in a month the story has changed and the Democrats are in full retreat mode.

The Machine Works Because Pundits Like Sean Hannity Are Willing To Say Anything To Win
The Machine Works Because Pundits Like Sean Hannity Are Willing To Say Anything To Win
The Machine Works Because Many Democratic Leaders Sit Idly By While The Machine Determines Their Public Perception
The Machine Works Because Many Democratic Leaders Sit Idly By While The Machine Determines Their Public Perception

Why It Works

Many wonder why the Republican Spin Machine works. The answer is fairly simple. The Republican Spin Machine works because most Democratic leaders are afraid to anger the monster. They are afraid to take it on directly. They are simply wimps.

John Kerry was a wimp when he allowed the Republican Spin Machine dishonor his military service and questioned his patriotism. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not ready or willing to take it on at all. And that is why they have both been targeted for destruction. For too many years, Democrats have been to busy trying to avoid the Machine and this is one of the reasons why Republicans appear tougher on issues that relate to National Security. Most democrats won't fight and this needs to change before the machine takes the White House back in 2012.

More by this Author


Comments 264 comments

eovery profile image

eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

Funny Hub.

I do wish Fox would settle and tell the news, but they are working on ranking also.

And the liberal media doesn't do anything?  The liberal media dominated and controlled the last election.

And you put Ms Pelosi on this hub, after it has been all but proven that she is lying, and dare call it a spin.

And Obama is not putting his spin on things by only releasing the parts of the records on torture that he want to release? 

It is on both sides.   

I think it is called politics.

I like to learn how other perceive things, and this helps. Thanks

Keep on Hubbing!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

Pelosi is horrible, I have said that numerous times. But she did not sanction torture, nor did she order anyone to do it. The point of the hub was to show how the story changed.

I never said the Democrats didn't do spin. The Republicans simply do it better. And it is not the politicians doing it, but rather media outlets and pundits. The Republicans in Congress just sit back and say No while their axe, the machine, goes out and tears down anything in the way.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

What about the NY Times and the LA Times ? Talk about unfair and unbalanced . The LA Times editorial board not more than a month ago was calling for a rewrite of the constitution , I kid you not ! And the more then liberal NY Times had one writer convicted of plagarism are did you forget about Jayson Blair ? And another prominent columnist named Maureen Dowd who did the same thing this week . It Is hard to get objective reporting anywhere .

          And come on those hacks at MSNBC , I would rather watch  news reports from the cartoon network . And bgpappa you gotta admit the left do their fair share of attack journalism too. I am nofan of Sean Hannity by a longshot but Keith Olbermann Is every bit as much of a doofus . I get most of my news online you cannot trust the major news networks , So If all these democrats are being attacked It Is because they earned It . Even Leon Panetta stood up to the wicked witch of the Bay Area Nancy P . And she may not have sanctioned the torture but she Is every bit as complicit !


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks Tony.

Keith Oberman is bad, I will admit. But he is also ineffective. He does no damage. If Oberman was any good at it, then I couldn't write an article like this being the field would be even, but the Republicans do it better because they are willing to go all out. They have convinced a major portion of the nation that Obama is a socialist. You have to stand in awe of their greatness.

I don't watch the news on TV anymore for news either. I read papers, the ones that are left and look online.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

Man. I always thought the Republicans were unpopular because the Truth is unpopular. I think the Democrats are the spinners of all time. I have read the strategy of Saul Alinsky. It is all about subterfuge to achieve ends. Think about naming killing babies—pro-choice. Enforcing politically correct ideology—Tolerance. Tearing down America's culture—multiculturalism. Take 50% of a man's paycheck—fairness. Tearing down America's Christian heritage—separation of church and state. Teaching kids a false history of the world—self-esteem.

I could go on all day about the carefully crafted terms that don't mean what they are supposed to mean—in say, a dictionary—employed by the Radical Left to disguise what they are really up to.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment but I think you are wrong. The Democrats try to do it, they are not nearly as good at it. The Republican Machine tears down people and issues.


eovery profile image

eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

You ever thought that some of these issues and people may need to be torn down. It is our civic responsibility to get bad lcongress people out of office. And to expose bad legislature and ideas so that they may be discarded.

Keep on Hubbing!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well that is true eovery. but that is not always what happens. Facts are fair game, like what Pelosi is going through now she deserves some blame, but the story is changing from torture to her and people are forgetting the torture issue. I am amazed at how good they are.

Take John Kerry, who I admit was a horrible candidate. He served proudly in Vietnam. George Bush did not. Yet, at the end of the campaign, John Kerry was the disgraced war dodger and George Bush was the poster child of veterans. And the entire story was overly exaggerated. That is not tearing down for civic pride, that is tearing down for sport. And that is what I have a problem with. Don't make me bring up Max Cleland.

But as always your thoughts are welcome and thanks for the input.


eovery profile image

eovery 7 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

The story with Pelosi is that Dems wanted to go after people on the torture, but now they can't because it was proven Pelosi was in on it. This is the spin of the Dems. Republicans were in the defense. This has actual placed them on the offense and have given Cheney creditability. Cheney is now challenging Obama, and with the congress shutting down the funds for closing down Guantamino, this has started to make Cheney look like a main leader in the Republican party again. What a twist in events!

I am originally from Wyoming where Cheney was the Governer. He was well liked and a cool dude. The dems and the media has made Cheney look very bad, but is the light starting to shift, now?

Well Keep on Hubbing!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well, Pelosi has a problem, I admit that. But the information the Rep. are railing against was given to her in 2002 and 2003, so why did they need her ok. Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing a new Speaker.

I have no doubt Cheney was a good governor. I think we need men like Cheney in the background. Just shouldn't be out front.

How bad are things for Republicans when they look to Dick Cheney for inspiration?


perrya profile image

perrya 7 years ago

Fox news is not part of the spin machine. Its just news. Like CBS, ABC. Hannity is a devout right wing conservative whom I agree on many things (I am in the middle, usually democrat). Sometimes, he goes too far, so what? MSNBC is totally the liberal anything goes BS. Hannity has his own show that use to be balanced when Allan Combs was there. Each side has their pundits, their allies in the news and print. If you are going to bash the respublican spin, do so for the democrat also.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

And of course the Democrats are quashing an Investigation Into Pelosi , the snake slithers through another one I am not surprised .


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comments. I don't know how you can call Fox News actual news though. They don't even tell the news anymore. They just have Right Wing Pundits spewing venom everyday. I agree, MSNBC has liberal pundits as well, but they also give Conservatives a voice. Joe Scarborough (sp) for example.

I think the Democrats should do a full investigation into the torture issue, even if it harms Pelosi. If Cheney wants the nation to see what happened, fine. I have a feeling it will harm Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield a lot more than Pelosi. Pelosi is only being accused of being informed about torture. She did not order it.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

I have a feeling that alot more then Bush and Cheney will get hurt and that Is why the Dems are so reluctant to Investigate


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well Tony, if you are referring to the Country as a whole I agree. Investigating our past wrongful acts will hurt the Country's reputation. Then again, could have been hurt anymore after Bush II. Should have never been let out of the bag if they weren't willing to go the whole way. No memos, no nothing. But now that it has started, I think they should finish.


Smireles profile image

Smireles 7 years ago from Texas

Dick Cheney is an American Patriot. I think it is about time that someone from the Bush years stands up for what really happened. I did not agree with President Bush but I always felt that he never had the support of the left. It is a disgrace when people who claim to love this country do everything in their power to bring down the President (Bush) the way these people did and are still doing. Cheney knows what really happened and if our current president would admit it, only 3 people ever experienced enhanced techniques (water boarding). To listen to the news reports one might be excused for thinking that every prisoner was treated this way. The left wing people seem to think that closing GITMO will solve our problems but it is becoming clear that the real issue is to try these people and send them on their way. About Fox News...if we did not have fox news as a voice of the opposition where would we be? Listening to Chris Matthews with a chill up his leg and others of his ilk who want to pass off opinion and propaganda as fact. Sorry about the rant but it gets very old listening to half truths being puffed off as reality. Thanks for your discussion. Keep hubbing!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

The issue isn't just torture, but all things. There is Max Cleland, John Kerry, the econonmy. The Machine is now trying to convince the Country that George Bush inherited a bad economy and was able to keep it going until the collapse. Chris Matthews and MSNBC are bad, I admit, but they have conservatives on that channel that argue the other side. The only liberals allowed on Fox are the ones be screamed at by Sean Hannity. News is not supposed to be opposition, it is supposed to be news.

But thanks for your comment and input.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

James

could we agree on what the definition of a word in a dictionary means before we discussion on the issues ,what do you think? You give me the impression that ,the puritans were normal,or the mormons,or any group that uses religion and politics interchangablly in such a way as you can't have one without the other.It's my contention that we can have our own personal religious beliefs,and live by them as long as they are not incompatable with other religious beliefs.For example radical religious beliefs,like poligamy or any sexually devient behaviour ,from what the majority sees as devient.Although I believe in a Republic,I don''t see that as meaning conservitive in all respects as it currently is practiced by the republican party in general in the same way I don't believe in being liberal .We need to be more socially aware without helping others when they can help themselves.If ,someone is unable feed themselves and asks for help,we should help them learn how to fish and feed themselves.If thats a religion,which I don't believe it is,although it's associated with religion.Just as the word God is associated with religion in some mens minds.To me a religion is a formal,regimented series of practces,and actions related to those practices.If,our religion reflects our beliefs for the better,and positively affects our thoughts and actions in public life in general is all that much better.But to say we can't seperate our religious life from our secular life is like saying,you can't seperate your sex life from your work life or your relationship to your children from your relationship to your husband or wife.There will always be a connection between the two ,but they are still seperated by common sense in thoughts and actions toward both.You may be right about the liberals though.Yet the republicans had been wooing the religious right for the political advantage it confered on them.

bgpappa

I agree with ,the news should be impartial

I don't know if you are aware of the unauthorized biography of Dick Cheney,but here are some websites to look at

rollingstone.com/politics/story/6450422/the_curse_of_dick_cheney/

www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/multimedia.html

www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/resources.html

www.nogw.com/download/2005_serving_two_flags.pdf

p.s.I noticed a google ad at the top of your hub but when I came back to your hub it was missing,something about a guy named BOB and some corporatite connection I missed the chance to check it out.I was just cuious about what it was about ,but I may never know now.oh well


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

I have read some stuff about the biography of Cheney, but haven't looked yet.

I don't know what the ad was, google puts them there. BUt if you find out, let me know.


Opinion Duck 7 years ago

Once again bg, neither party is competent or effective.

The truth is that neither party is for the people.

As in sports, it doesn't matter who scored and who fumble, it does matter who won and who lost. Congress needs to act like a team and not two superstars, that can't win a game.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well, on that point I agree. Neither side in Congress is doing much to help right now.


comp3820 profile image

comp3820 7 years ago from Michigan

I agree with the folks who believe that both parties are good at the spin machine. I do think, however, that the Democrats are the experts, managing to make an inexperienced candidate(Barack Obama) defeat two veterans of politics (John McCain, and Hilary Clinton)


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

I don't think Obama won because of spin, I think he defeated it. Clinton tried it with the three in the morning stuff and "Ready on Day 1." McCain tried it with the Socialist attack. I agree both parties engage in it, the Republicans are just better at it.


A Texan 7 years ago

The Sean Hannity (show) is an opinion based program just like Rachel Maddow, chris matthews and Kieth Olberman. But I don't see anything in your Hub critisizing them! The problem with liberals are that your truth is what works at the time,I watch Hannity every night and never see or hear anything that can't be verified by an independant source, If you want to be taken seriously and capture the ratings that FOX news has, you have to be honest! Something the rest of cable news can't do!  The news part of FOX news is just as advertised, Fair and Balanced, is MSNBC? I do not know where you got the photo of a bleeding man but how is anyone to know who is torturing who? Is that supposed to be an American torturing an Iraqi? Prove it. How exactly did you write this hub with a straight face? Nancy Pelosi didn't lie??? Yeah, she did, sad part is a liberal will never admit it.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

A Texan, thanks for the comment.

I never said the Democrats didn't engage in spin, said the Republicans are better at it. But saying Sean Hannity doesn't lie, just is not true. He lies all the time. Call Obama a Socialist is a lie, Obama isn't even a liberal. Blaming Clinton for Bush's mistakes, the list goes on and on.

MSNBC is bad, but at least they allow conservatives counter show. Morning Joe, etc. Fox has no liberals whatsoever. The only person on fox that is worth watching is Shepard Smith, everyone else is a Right Wing Pundit. Yet, the channel is called news.

Oh, by the way, if Pelosi did lie, which has not been proven, she only lied about being told about torture. She didn't authorize the torture, or lie to go to war.


maven101 profile image

maven101 7 years ago from Northern Arizona

Great Hub from the liberal perspective...well stated criticism of conservative politics...only thing lacking are the facts...

90% of the MSM admit to being liberal, voting liberal, and shading their take on the news with a liberal slant..You are right in the assumption that Fox News Channel is more conservative then the other networks...but the difference is only obvious because of the blatant liberal agenda displayed nightly by the MSM...Fox News Channel is about as fair as possible in this churning market of left/right politics...

O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteren, and Geraldo are about as even handed as you can expect from the media...

There is no Republican Spin Machine anymore than that Great Right Wing Conspiracy so beloved of Clinton....


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

I disagree that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." I think the three you mentioned try to objective, which is more than can be said than Hannity or Oberman, but their bias shows by the topics they pick, the slant they take and the guest they have. Shepard Smith is the only exception I can find on Fox.

I also disagree that the Spin Machine is gone. Obama is a socialist, govenment run Healthcare are just the latest examples. My problem is that they are good at it. Healthcare is failing right now because the Spin Machine has Americans convinced it is a Socialist system, when in reality it is not.


maven101 profile image

maven101 7 years ago from Northern Arizona

I think we are both mistaking " News " reporting with news commentary....The straight news offered by Fox News Channel is about as fair as you can get it...I'm talking about the half hour news updates, the breaking news reports, and the news slots like " Happening Now " and Shepard Smith's two  1 hour long shows at noon and 4pm Pacific...

I listen to CNN news and it is loaded with pro Obama slobbering and anti-conservative commentary...


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks Maven,

I agree that most "news" today is news commentary. And I agree with you on Shepard Smith, however I disagree that CNN is totally pro-obama, at least in the last few months. during the campaign I will grant you, and wrote an article about how non objective it was, but lately they have been fairly objective, detailing problems with the stimulus plans, etc. Plus, CCN always has Republicans on whatever show is on to provide that point of view. No one can argue that Ed Rollins is a staunch Republican.

But I think we all agree, that actual objective reporting, on both sides, is disappearing. News commentators are taking over the industry. I feel this is a realy problem. Watchdogs can't have political agendas.


jimmymackk 7 years ago

right wing forever demacrust only get the flakeytop the right gets to the core of the pie not just the crust...


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment, whatever it may mean.


ChristopherD 7 years ago

AYes, both do spin when they can. But the Democrats have a bigger voice. They have all of the television companies except for Fox. They have all but 2-3 newspapers on their side, and then they have people like you that walk the flanks and spew out the radical BS that they are good for. We have a handful of radio talk show hosts and 2 newspapers that are committed to our cause.

You know why we are better than the liberals. We talk with common sense and with a logical brain. It is hard to say how much we need a national healthcare plan when the financing wont work. The knowledge that a lot of doctors will quit if they cant pay their bills since they will be limited on how much they can charge. It is hard to fight the logic when saying "but think of all the people it could save, or wouldn't it be better if all people received health care." Yes it would but if we all get screwed for the minority currently, well to bad. Come up with another plan then.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks for the comment.

I agree that some Republicans speak with common sense. However, most only throw insults and add nothing ot debate. Your categorization of the current plan is slanted, of course, you are against it which is your right. But where is the great plan that can solve all the healthcare problems of today being offered by the right? The only thing I hear is tax cuts and the market, two things that apparently is the answer to everything. While it is perfectly a person's right to believe in those things, they haven't done well in regards to healthcare. I have insurance, I pay a lot of money for it and currently am subject to rationing and poor care. And my decisions are not made by doctors but insurance companies who have nothing but profit at heart. Where is the great plan? Obama's plan is not perfect but it does some good things. I would love to hear a real alternative.

Thanks for reading.


internpete profile image

internpete 7 years ago from At the Beach in Florida

interesting hub...and the spin machine of the democrats and liberals? CNN and basically all the other media out there...


ChristopherD 7 years ago

Well we have approx 325 million people living in the U.S. Obama is stating 47 million are without insurance making it 14.5% I have heard many of times there are 15 million that are ILLEGAL Aliens also living here. Bringing that number to 32 million uninsured or about 9%. Lets take the people that currently do not have their own children listed yet under their plans. How about the late teens and early twenty somethings that think they do not need it and opt not to have it for 2-5 years. Then lets widdle that 9% even further for the people that may have not paid their insurance bill and got dropped for a month or currently in between plans.

You want to be in a Government health plan that will be telling you what you can have done as a treatment or not based on age or health? You want to be told what doctor you can see and not be able to get a referral to see a second doctor for a second opinion? Currently you are paying $xxx.xx amount for your insurance. Now remember you are adding 47 million people that do not pay a cent and will not be paying a cent for insurance. You actually think you will still be paying the little amount you are paying still? That is going to get higher because a young person can not pay more than double of a senior citizen does even though he has built up enough equity to deserve smaller payments. This will most likely raise the senior citizens payments so they can charge more for YOU!

I personally do not want to pay for the illegal aliens in our country! Nor do I want to be told at the age of 65 I am to old for a new heart or a replacement knee. If I have the money or INSURANCE and the DOCTOR is still around that can accept my MONEY its my choice NOT some legislatures.

What needs to be done? Stop the attorneys from suing for millions of dollars which will bring mal-practice insurance down in which costs then can come down. This is one of the largest problems we have and Pres. Obama is not looking at that. After that I will have too excuse myself from making any other suggestions since I am not a expert here, besides maybe streamlining the system of a lot of paper work which could reduce the number of employees needed in the insurance and hospitals.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

intern, thanks for the comment. I agree that MSNBC has gone around the bend, but still the Republicans are simply better at it because facts, tact and morals have no boundaries. But if you point is that there is no more objective journalism then we agree, and it is sorely missed.

Chris, Thanks for the commnet. I don't agree with you numbers and would only add that the "illegals" are already a burden on the system, why not account for them in the budgets.

I disagree with you take on the lawsuits. Medical malpractice damages are already capped in most states including my State of California. There are no punitive damages. The number of cases have stayed the same and the only ones being hurt are the patients. The malpractice insurance, however, has still tripled despite the cap on damages. That just doesn't match up does it. No increase in cases and a cap on damages and the insurance increases anyways. But the insurance companies have shown the biggest profits in the last few years.

If the choice comes down to an insurance adjuster making decisions on healthcare (the current system) or the government (not the current option but going out there with you) I will take the goverment. At least that decision will be based on public good and policty, rather than solely on corporate profit. I have nothing against profits, but don't want my health to be compromised by it.

Thanks for the comment.


opinion duck 7 years ago

bgp

The problem with the country is the two party system. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are the problem, as they both are run by their lobbyists and not the people.

Congress is like a marriage, if both parties don't work effectively together, then the marriage fails. It doesn't matter which party caused the failure, it is the result that is important to the children of that marriage.

I don't see that finger pointing and blaming one party of the other, when it took two to tangle.

The media doesn't report the news, they control what topics and events are made important for their viewers. Political parties don't serve their voters, they make election promises and then ignore them.

The voters for the most part of loyal sheep that allow the parties to herd them because they blindly follow them.

Voters shouldn't be blindly loyal to their party, they should vote in the best people for the job, regardless of the party.

What are the accomplishments of Congress and the Presidents of the US in the last fifty years?

Passing bills and makings promises are not accomplishments.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

OP,

Mostly agreed. Both parties are failing. Thanks for the comment.


The Dix View profile image

The Dix View 6 years ago from Los Angeles

Bravo, Bravo! I agree that they both spin, but I've never seen it this bad. It's getting harder to even be satirical about it. I think you nailed this one, I hope everyone reads it.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Agreed.

Thanks for the comment


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

I am lost. If the Republican Spin Machine works so well, why is a Democrat in the Oval Office? Why are most major cities burdened with Democratic Mayors? Why are both houses of Congress weighted down with Democratic majorities?

How could this possibly happen if the Republican Spin Machine runs so efficiently?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Simply answer, because George Bush was that bad. Despite the failures of George Bush's eight years in office, the election was still fairly close, and look at the last year, I think the Spin Machine worked very hard to defeat the Healthcare reform.

Thanks for the comment.


Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

I dunno. Maybe it's just me, but I side with nicomp here. The dems won. They got it all. So, what have they done? And how have they helped the American people? I'll say it again, all the polls said health care was not wanted by the majority of Americans. Now what? It's Bush's fault too that health care was passed? Speaking of spin machines...


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Nope, Healthcare was all Obama. He will either win or lose with it. The economy, wars, lack of respect around the world, that was Bush.

By the way, the economy has improving and improves slowly each day.

Thanks for the comment.


Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

Yes, the economy is improving, but I'll not credit that a bit to Obama. There are many other factors driving economic improvement. As for the health care bill, at this point it is what it is. All the kicking and screaming by 52% of the American population didn't stop it, and so now all we're left to do is vote what's on our minds in November.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Of course you won't credit Obama, my guess is you will give credit to Bush somehow.

Today you call 52 percent legitimate, but last November 52 percent was not a mandate.

Thanks for the comment.


Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

Actually I won't give credit to Bush either. I think I'd agree that Bush had failed economic policies. I think economies work in cycles is all I was suggesting. Presidents can influence economies, but they cannot control them.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Fair point as to the nature of the economy, I have to agree with you there. President can nudge one way or the other, but bubbles burst.

The Bush line came from an episode of Hannity, where he gave credit to improving indicators to George Bush. The Spin Machine at work there. Blamed the downward spiral on Clinton and talked about how Bush saved it from "disaster." Then blamed Obama for slowing down Bush's progess.

Thanks for the comment.


Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

Believe it or not, staunch republican I am, I'm not a big fan of Bush. A Reagan conservative he is far from. I agree with many of his policies...but he would never, ever top my list as a great president. ;)


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Most true Republicans weren't fans of Bush after he took office. Somewhat as true liberals are not that happy with Obama. Believe it or not, Obama isn't all that liberal. If he were liberal, he would have pushed for universal healthcare from the start. That was off the table before he even took office.

Thanks for the comment. Enjoying the debate.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Obama isn't all that liberal. If he were liberal, he would have pushed for universal healthcare from the start."

No No No. He's planning to get us there. We have him on video telling a partisan group that he is in favor of single payer (check YouTube). There are provisions in the current bill designed to bankrupt the insurance companies. It'll happen.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Maybe he believes in it, which I agree he has said, but he wasn't willing to fight for it. He didn't even introduce it. Went for the public option, which was abandoned.

I don't believe in the domino effect argument. I am shocked you don't have more faith in insurance companies. They will adapt, they always do. And if the government is as inefficient and horrible as Republicans say, then why is private insurance companies afraid of it.

Thanks for the comment


Springboard profile image

Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

bgpappa, now there I STRONGLY disagree. Obama is clearly one of the most liberal presidents we have had in our history. And for one who cited change and bipartisan politics, he is also clearly one of the most divisive.

As for the health care thing, when did he ever take anything off the table? In fact, health care was so front and center it makes one wonder if he forgot that the economy was in such bad shape...

He leaves a lot more to be desired than Bush ever did. IMO.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

First off, we haven't had that many liberal presidents, specifically since FDR. Johnson and Kennedy are really the only two. And Obama is not nearly as Liberal, or as ready to fight, as they were.

He tried Bipartisianship and was rebuffed at every turn. It is easy to forget that the Healthcare package passed has many Republican Amendments, just no Republican votes.

Change did come. As you stated, healthcare was front and center, debated for a year. Every point of view was heard, considered. Much different than the Bush tax cuts or even going to war.

Bush left everything to be desired. At the end of this term we all desired our economy back, our reputation around the world back, and a return to the Bill of Rights. The economy is recovering, our reputation around the world means something, and the Bill or Rights means something again, including may I add the 2nd Amendment.

He ran on Healthcare reform, he won on healthcare reform, the brought healthcare reform. It is not a very liberal approach because it isn't universal and isn't a single payer system. But there are some good things in the bill that will help everyone, including the tea party people and liberals alike. It is progress we can believe in.

As always, appreciate your thoughts and your always welcome here.


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 6 years ago

Nice hub, but one correction. You said the republican spin machine is not the rank and file republican members. If you have heard anything out of John Boehners mouth or Eric Cantor or any republican leader, you have heard massive amounts of 'spin'


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Fair point, but I don't think even Boehners or Cantor represent the meaning of rank and file Republicans, but rather the extreme wing of the party, and the comments upon which you refer are meant to be accepted by the right.

Thanks for reading


Russell 6 years ago

Excellent post. I was actually trying to illustrate to my girlfriend just how brazen the republican spin machine has become when I stumbled on your writings.

I would be interested to hear your opinions on a little theory of mine. It seems to me that the attitudes and actions of Bush Administration became so frequently and brazenly...anti-American (by which I mean completely at odds with actual American values and laws like freedom, due process, a free media, transparency in government) that to actually even acknowledge their actions is to appear to be attacking them. To make an analogy...If you told me that Hulk Hogan punched an 80 year old women in the face I would laugh at you because it seems so ridiculous. Even if I saw it I would have a hard time believing it. And if Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck were screaming at me that it never happened and that it's a liberal conspiracy to destroy him, I might actually listen for a second (well maybe not to those two but possibly to an actual journalist.)

Massive deregulation for the sake of unfettered corporate profits, two wars (one of which has at least 5 justifications and no real reasons), a complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution, a complete declawing of any environmental policy, the disaster that was FEMAs handling of Katrina, torture, war crimes under the Geneva Convention, etc, etc. At some point it gets to where it's hard to believe that anyone could or even would be capable of and willing to do so much in direct contrast to the responsibilities of the office of President(and the laws of the land), making it seem like it must be some sort of media attack. I mean no President could possibly be that irresponsible or unaware or big money interest controlled? Right? Right?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Russell,

I agree. More importantly, anyone who attacked Bush was deemed by the Spin Machine to be unamerican. Now, the same machine says it is the most American thing to do to attack and question the President.

Thanks for reading.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Typical liberal B.S., complaining about the 2 Bush wars. There has been no real effort on Obama's part to dismantle these wars. It is easy to criticize the war until you are in charge and realize they have a purpose. Obama knows we have a mission to complete. I dont hear any criticisnm of him for doing so.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Braudboy,

If you read any of my other hubs I have spoke against Obama on the wars. But lets not forget or let the spin machine convince that they wars was started by Bush, mishandled by Bush, and then handed to Obama.

Thanks for the comment.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I know how the war was started, and I support it. But, It is unforgivable for Obama to run an election criticizing it and promising to stop it....and to then get elected, and do nothing of the sort. This is the kind of misleading candidates that the democratic party attracts. ...and as for the spin machine....there is no greater spin than the nightly news of ABC, NBC, and CBS which are nothing more than cheerleaders of Obama and his agenda. When you talk actual Fox news, you do not get spin. YOu are speaking of Fox TV shows that have opinionated hosts. It is not the same thing.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Braud, I will give you NBC, they are as bad as Fox. But even Fox News, with the excption of Sheppard Smith, is all about the Republican Spin. And Hannity and Beck portray themselves as news, as truth, when they are opinionated hosts.

As for unforgivable, you can't just walk in and yank the troops. And he never said he was ending the war in Afghanistan. As for Iraq, withdrawal has begun.

It is unforgiveable for a political party to tell the nation that the fundamentals of the economy are strong in the middle of a collapse.

Thanks for the comment.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

YOu still mention Hannity and Beck...they are not Fox News! These are hosts of opinion based TV shows. How do you not see this? They are no different than Oberman and Maddow of the flip side of the coin. They are not news either. When speaking of Fox news...that would be Sunday morning with Wallace and that is fair and balanced news. ...and why cant you yank troops from a war you dont believe in. It certainly shouldnt take close to 2 years to do so.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I mentioned Smith, agreed with you that he is a fair and balanced news man and segment, and yet you scream anyways.

As for yanking troops, you can't yank troops out of a country we destroyed. That would be as reckless and the way Bush got us there in the first place.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Oh, how convenient that the democrat position would be the following. We passionately cry out for the end to war, and we passionately cry out to bring the troops home. Then we get the democrat elected that ran on answering these cries and demands. Then, we all of a sudden, realize that we need to stay there as it is the responsible thing to do. Liberals are whackos.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Yet, the conservative position is even more convenient. We want war and tax cuts for the rich at the same time. We are going to destroy civil rights and improve corporate rights at the same time. Then we will sit idly by and watch the economy collapose, the wars go to hell, and allow corporations to go unregulated. Then when we lose, we are going to blame the other side for not fixing our mistakes fast enough.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

You have been brainwashed my friend. Conservatives dont want tax cuts "for the rich". We want tax cuts for everyone. You have been duped my friend. You seem to think that corrupt politicians can run an economy better than professionals who have experience running businesses and making profits. ...and conservative never want war....but there is definitely a time when war is needed. You certainly dont let a group attack our mainland and kill over 3,000 innocent citizens, destroy a major city, and then do nothing. The best regulations for corporations is the free market itself. Consumers know a good deal when they see one. And dont bail out any losers. Companies make better choices if they know they must pay the consequences.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Professionals running business, you mean the guys on Wall Street? I run a business, have no wanting of the government to do anything but I am not the one who has been duped. The free market is great, but there must be some regulations. Otherwise, you get oil slicks in the gulf and regular folks getting ripped off. But we do agree on the bailouts, should not have been done at all.

I agree, we should have went to war against those who attacked us, no problem with that. But Iraq, why did we go there again?


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

The guys on Wall Street are small potatoes compared to the clowns in Washington who have dwarfed the misery on Wall Street to the tune of trillions of dollars....and yet you seem to want to put your trust in them???? Wall Street, if left alone (no government bail outs, no govt intrustion with forcing financial institutions to loan to risky, low income, bad credit homeowners),etc....will make its way just fine. There will be winners and losers, and the net result will be a profitable private sector economy. I have got news for you....you would have oil slicks with or without regulations. This is not a perfect world and tragedies occur. As long as man stretches his boundaries with exploration and innovation, you will have incidents such as space shuttles blowing up, oil platforms in deep ocean circumstances malfunctioning, and the like. Liberals will always try to take tragedies and use them as excuses for government intervention. Governments have never proven any efficiency or productivity in their response to these events.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Right, because we are supposed to trust BP to clean things up. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, direct results of Bush deregulation. Not liking government is one thing, but no regulation simply does not work. There is a fine line, and that is what needs to be found.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- you have no idea what you are talking about. Fannie and Freddie are exclusively democatic inventions designed to get housing for the unqualified homebuyer in an effort to buy votes from minorities and low-wage workers. It blew up in their face. Check out the Clinton years to see the groundwork on how the housing bubble began to blow. Also, check out who is running Fannie and Freddie and you will find democrats. ....and you will have to trust BP to clean things up in the Gulf because Obama and company have no clue what to do here.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Fannie and Freddie were started with heavy oversight. Under the Bush years the regulations were wiped away and the oversight was non-existent. Democrats were only running it for the last two years, the housing bubble began bursting two years before the economic collapse. All the signs were there and like always, Bush did nothing. To be fair, neither did the Democratic minority.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

you are in denial bgpappa! Fannie and Freddie has always been and will always be an arm of the democratic party. It is still making bad loan decisions to this day and you have not heard the last of what it is going to cost us tax payers because of crooked democrat politics.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Under Bush control for eight years. Deregulated the market. Can't ignore 8 years of bad decisions.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- Your ignorance in this matter is apparant. It is the regulations of democrats on banks requiring them to lend money to high-risk borrowers that invented the poison piece to the economic puzzle. That is what government regulations get you, especially when it is corrupted by politicians seeking more political power. Democrats own the real problems in America through this faulty strategy.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Your inability to see truth is what is apparent.

Thanks for reading.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I thought I might have driven home the final nail in this debate, pointing out that government regulatations is what led to this economic meltdown. YOu cannot count on corrupt politicians to shape the economic landscape. The politicians have alterior motives and do not possess the expertice to tamper with our economy in such a fashion. Their only real expertice is in buying votes.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I agree that you solely can't rely on politicians. But you can't soley rely on the free market either. Both are filled with corruption.

As for your assertion that government regulations led to the meltdown, it was a lack of enforcing regulations and greed and the individual enjoying life beyond their means. We all bought into it. We all have to pay for it. The reall issue is how? Government bailouts of corporations isn't the answer, we agree on that. Fine medium between regulation and free market is key.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

A corrupt business will go out of business. Unless propped up by a corrupt government. THe government is where real power lies. We must keep government limited and with little power to influence bad business. Then the consumer is king again and businesses must satisfy the customer or go out of business. When you give govt the power to regulate, you open wide the door for corruption, back-room deals, and you make businesses come begging at the door of politicians. It is a bad formula.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

A Corrupt business will go out of business, unless it gives campaign funds to Republicans. And ok, to be fair, to democrats as well.

But regulations, real regulations not the flimsy stuff of today, works for good faith businesses, the consumer and the country as a whole. The last ten years showed us that when business and regulators are in bed together, it hurts the consumer, and the country as a whole.

I believe in the free market system, but I also believe in checks and balances. Power must be checked everywhere, not only in government. That is regulation comes in. Unchecked power in corporations leads to monopolies. Teddy Roosevelt did something about that. That is all I am saying.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Politicians have always been for sale....and that is the problem. Democrats are just as bad, if not worse, than Republicans in this regard. It is obvious in their demand for big government to be in control of all things. Once you understand that govt is willing to get into bed with business, citizens need to stand up and limit governments ability to do so. Your problem is you are unwilling to see the problem in Washington as the core of our nations problem.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

We limit government at the polls. If politicians are corrupt, we get rid of them. Government will be here long after you and I, isn't it our duty to demand better. But no, I don't think government is at the core of our nations problems. That is too easy. And corporations are not at the core either, that is too easy. If we got rid of government would that really get rid of greed? corruption? Are you kidding me. Government is a reflection of the people.

As for who is more corrupt, Republicans have no moral ground to point any fingers. Halliburton, Enron, Blackwater, ect., all corrupt and zealously defended by republicans.


Mighty Mom profile image

Mighty Mom 6 years ago from Where Left is Right, CA

Still relevant 12 months after you wrote this, and no end in sight. Some of their tactics are so blatantly ridiculous, and yet, people still fall for the spin. Are we really THAT stupid as a nation?

Certainly there are Democrats who have lost their moral compass and are ineffective. But in terms of systematic, pernicious GREED and LIES, they aren't even in the same ballpark as Rush, Glenn, Sarah and the gang.


Mighty Mom profile image

Mighty Mom 6 years ago from Where Left is Right, CA

P.S. bgpappa. Since we're both from Sacratomato, any time you care to wax eloquent on the LOCAL political scene, I'd love to hear your views! MM


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

MM, as to your first point, I agree the pin is still alive, but I don't think it is the spinsters who are the greedy bunch. Rather it is Cheney, Halliburton, Big oil and the like. Amazed that after a year this hub is still alive and well, but glad because there is a pretty good debate going on about the nature of government.

As to your second point, I have opinions about everything, incuding the local scene. Would love to find an outlet more local than this but what issues bother you?

Thanks for stopping by.


Mighty Mom profile image

Mighty Mom 6 years ago from Where Left is Right, CA

What issues bother me?

1. City Council.

2. Broke city and county.

3. How did our state go from being the 5th largest economy in the world to the 8th?

4. Are there no actuaries in the state of California? Did no one see the crisis in retirement and retiree health benefits coming? Helll-OOOOO????

5. With more than a few things to worry about locally, why is the city council spending even 1 minute on organizing a boycott of Arizona because of Arizona's immigration law? What exactly does said boycott involve? We refuse to set foot in the state? We refuse to allow products from AZ into our city? I don't get it. It reminds me of a time not all that long ago when W and his gang diverted attention from their failings by distracting attention -- at the national level -- on steroids in baseball.

I guess that's what's left when even the smoke and mirrors stop working!

Ok. That's my rant for today. If I give it a little more time I can come up with a few more!

Oh wait: Here's one more.

Meg Whitman vs. Steve Poizner. It's only June 2nd and I hate both of them. And what's up with the "other team" that we have to dig Jerry Brown out of mothballs??? Maybe I will have to move to Arizona! At least I could visit Lita Sorensen!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

MM,

Don't move to Arizona. I agree about Dems in California, what a week bench we have. But the Whitman Pozner primary is funny. They are acting as if they are running against a democratic government. Arnold is a Republican. Oddest campaign I have ever seen.

City council, I will think that over.

Thanks for reading MM


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

No one suggest getting rid of government. It is the limiting of their power and size that is the task. They must be reduced back down to being public servants instead of elitist rulers.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well I am all for that.

Thanks for reading.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

How are you for limiting government power an size when you keep crying for government regulation??? Do you not realize that this gives government ultimate power and creates the problem we have??? These massive government regulations creates government beauracracy and corruption. You just are not getting it.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Why are you still arguing?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

Let's just start with what President Obama promised the American people if he would be elected. Someone needs to tell Obama that the election is over and that he don't have to campaign on the road anymore, HE WON THE PRESIDENCY.

Obama said that his administration will be open and transparent, he will rid Washington of the lobbyist, provide jobs, fix the economy and it won't be business as usual in Washington when he is elected.

For all of the above, he deserves an 'F'.

If someone can defend that record sensibly, let's hear from you.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Funny, the point of this hub was to point out the Republicans ability to change the subject or spin and they were successful in the comments.

Bush promised to be a "compassionate conservative", to not "nation build" and to be a "uniter, not a divider." He deserves an "F" as well.

As for transperency, a year long debate on a healthcare bill. How else is there not transperency? He is trying to change Washington, but Republicans say no to everything. And sadly, the Democrats in Congress are spineless and horid leaders and deserve to lose this November. But to be fair, Obama has done some disappointing things. The bailouts, the weak heathcare bill, failure to end wars totally. So I give him a C thus far.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

A year long debate on healthcare is transparency???? That does not speak to what is in the bill, which was never posted before the vote was taken. YOu consider this transparency????


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Yes.

Thanks for reading.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Well, your bias and inability to think clearly on this administration is also transparent.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

and your bias and inability to think clearly about this administration has been utterly transparent.

Thanks for reading.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Well, I must I admit I am biased toward any administration who is hell bent on transforming our country into some socialist experiment and some government dominated entity that is far away from what our founders intended. I am guilty as charged.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Now only if that administration existed, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks for reading.


OriginsBlog profile image

OriginsBlog 6 years ago

It is funny that you say Republican spin machine - as if other networks don't do the same thing. They are all the same, and they are all working for the same people.

The members of the illuminati (Watch Invisible Empire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E) own most of the media, and what they don't own they influence. Just like they influence Washington with their lobbyists.

We haven't had any real Republican candidates to choose from in a very long time. Republicans, by definition, are strict Constitutionalists.

Anyone who has read the Constitution realizes that we are very far off base right now, and we didn't get here overnight.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I actually agree with some of what you wrote here, however find it interesting you call the Republican Party a network. I read the Constitution all the time, not sure why you think we are way off base, would be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks for reading.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Let me help you...he did not say the "Republican party" he said "the Republican spin machine" which is the title of your hub referring to Fox News. ...and I will put my 2 cents worth on how we are way off base from our constitution. Our original founding was based on limited Federal Government with most powers falling to the states. Do you see any resemblance to this in todays government structure?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Yes, I do actually.

Thanks for the comment.


OriginsBlog profile image

OriginsBlog 6 years ago

I should have articulated myself better. Network = Fox. All networks do the same thing, for the most part. I don't subscribe to Fox, or any other network for that matter. They're all spin machines when it serves their agenda.

Fox does not equal Republican. I doubt if any of those guys even knows what it really means to be Republican. I mean they all supported Bush.

The last honest reporter that I remember seeing was Lou Dobbs, and he mysteriously resigned. Independent media is the way to go when it comes to getting both sides of the real issues.

As far as being off base from the Constitution, I could go on for days. How about taxation without representation? What do you think inflation is? The Fed is unconstitutional. Nation building is unconstitutional. The Patriot Act, The IRS, Department of Education, Social Security, tax on anyone other than investors and corporations, etc... these are all unconstitutional.

No time since I have been alive have I lived in the kind of America that our forefathers intended for us. We are way off. braudboy nailed it... Federal Government powers are supposed to be very limited.

Most people don't even understand that America is supposed to be a republic - meaning 99% cannot take away the liberties of 1%. However we are now operating as a democracy - meaning 51% can decide the fate of 49%. It's wrong. It's backward. We need to get back to the Constitution.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I agree that the rights of the minority are being squashed by the majority under the guise of democratic rule. At too some extent, what Madison feared about factions is happening.

And I agree that all news channels have an agenda now and the media has lost it way and no longer serves its purpose very well.

However, I can't agree that all that you claim is unconstitutional is. Yes, Federal Government under the Constitution is supposed to be limited. But what you describe is more the liking of the Articles of Confederation. Taxes are not unconstitutional, no matter how much none of us like to pay them. But I would like to see an argument why the Dept. of Ed. and the Patriot Act are constitutional. The Patriot Act should be easy to knock out. Dept. of Education a bit harder but even as a liberal I must admit, it is dubious at best.

Thanks for the comment.


OriginsBlog profile image

OriginsBlog 6 years ago

If that is true, then how come there are over 1 million people in America, many of them former IRS agents, who do not pay their taxes.

The supreme court ruled that taxes on the average American worker was unconstitutional. The IRS does not trump the supreme court.

Do you even know that we were not always taxed? Watch America: Freedom to Fascism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpTVXitOQk

Also, the Federal Government should have no involvement in my states' plans for eductation. It eliminates competition between state educational standards, among other things.

It is communist. Before Carter melded state and federal control, America had the finest education system in the world. Now, we are a joke, and the most expensive. Enough said.

I shouldn't have to waste my breath on the Patriot Act. The real purpose of the Federal Government is to defend the Constitution and civil liberties - the Patriot Act takes away many civil liberties, and is therefore unconstitutional.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

We are in agreement on the Patriot Act.

We are in agreement as well that the Federal Government should not have control over local school districts. But this does not mean it shouldn't set standards. The Bush "Leave no child behind" is a joke because it mandated everything, but left no money behind. Money and standards - the rest left to the district and teachers.

As for taxes, constitution was amended to allow for personal income tax. Therefore, constitutional. See amendment 16. Supreme Court can say what it wants (and if you are going to say the Supreme Court said something, give the case name) but the Constitution speaks for itself.


OriginsBlog profile image

OriginsBlog 6 years ago

Supreme court Stanton vs Baltic Mining:

"The provisions of the 16 Amendment conferred no new power of taxation."

In 2009, the government taxed over 900 billion dollars from the private sector. The also taxed almost 300 billion dollars from corporations legally. Plus, inflation is illegal taxation without representation.

I don't know why anyone would want to pay taxes, but those of you who do always hide behind the 16 Amendment. The supreme court reiterated this ruling several times:

Southern Pacific vs Lowe

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.

Those are just a few. The majority of American workers fall into the private sector that is being taxed illegally.

We do not qualify for either direct or indirect taxation. If they didn't have the power then, and they didn't get it, than they don't have it.

Please watch America: Freedom to Fascism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpTVXitOQk


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Funny, the 16th amendment clarified the section of constitution saying it didn't matter what source of income it came from, it is taxable. Love it, you don't want to pay taxes, but if you house catches on fire you want fire department. You want more border patrol and the ability to enforce anti-abortion laws (not you personally, but conservatives) oh and you want to fight wars in Iraq but not let the oil flow back to America without corporate profits- but don't tax me. I don't get this argument one bit.

I don't like paying taxes, but believe some are necessary. I think taxes are too high, government is inefficient and wastes too much. Fix the government, more efficient, needing less money. Even I think the government is too big right now.

Considering our government lives to make corporations wealthy, don't you find it odd that private sector indivudlas pay 3 times for taxes than corporations.


OriginsBlog profile image

OriginsBlog 6 years ago

I don't want wars. Bring our boys home. Get the government out of everything. It will cost us less, and stimulate the economy.

The truth is right in front of your face. Watch the video with an open mind.

I find it odd that the private sector pays taxes period. You're arguing my case for me!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

We agree on the wars. Bring them home. I defended Afghanistan for a long time, but at this point, it seems we have no business there anymore. We aren't getting who we were after and simply costing lives at this point. I never agreed with Iraq.

Tax corporations and leave me alone, we have a platform.

Thanks for reading.


tom hellert profile image

tom hellert 6 years ago from home

bg p,

I disagree with your article in that I believe you ar railing against the 1 network that does not "carry the water " for the democrats and the Left-Oh I also agree they have maybe moved right even more- I like Colms as a person he ans Sean seem to actually be freinds- even though they dis agree-But let us not forget I could write the exact same article about MSNBC, NBC,ABC- (if they still have a network news program), CNN,Air America etc-but I would not want to tell anyone they are still around by accident. I guess it is easier to zero in on the ONE news network that DOES have a right slant- in that I will SAY SLANT - Yet aside from having the HOTTEST ANCHORETTES ON THE AIR WAVES I believe they are more fair in the general news processing and display- reporting is no longer a proper term anywhere.I understand how FOX would "offend you" as every other network offended me before FOX came along Rupert Murdock is a genius for sure....let us both agree on that.

TH


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Tom,

I have to give you MSNBC, they slant left. But I don't see the bias on CNN. Ed Rollins, etc, are always on there giving the right point of view.

But the bigger problem, at least to me, is that news has a slant. No more just reporting facts, objectively. No more journalism. Pundits from here on in. And that is problem, left or right.

THanks for the comment.


tom hellert profile image

tom hellert 6 years ago from home

Pop,

The news has not just reported facts since I was born-i agree the news buisness is less information more infotation- ONA SIDE NOTE: You gotta give credit where it is due Fox news hires alot of pretty "FOXY" readers...a higher number than most other networks.....

TH


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Tom,

Yes, come are foxy, but if you look at their background (professionally) they have no business doing the "news". Of course, neither does Oberman.

Thanks for reading.


tom hellert profile image

tom hellert 6 years ago from home

B,

You mean they talk about stuff.. I'll have to keep the sound on now ... hehehe

TH


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

LOL,

you are better off if you leave the sound off.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

Don't miss Cavuto and Beck this week on Fox News. Cavuto asked a Democrat senator why the balance of the stimulus has yet to be spent. his reply was " we may need it to fix any problems if they come up". The stimulus was approved for $787 billion. The cost is now $857 billion now that the CBO has gotten the true figures from the Obama administration. 60%of the stimulus has been spent leaving a whopping $340 billion as a Democrat slush fund for President Obama. Somehow the administration's estimates and informational responses are mostly wrong.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Funny,

you should watch John Baynor on meet the press. For all the talk abot pay as you the Republicans, he had no answer how the tax cuts would be paid for. Both sides are horrible right now.

Thanks for reading


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

Sorry I missed it. ''Republicans, he had no answer how the tax cuts would be paid for''

That's a stupid question to ask of a Republican, Republicans have no--have zip-- ZERO say so in the government. The Dems have to make the decision as to the tax cuts or whatever. Stay tuned, get ready for the spin zone. The moderator should be asking the democrats what they intend to do with the tax cuts situation .


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

ugh, the same comment over several hubs. Use a different talking point please


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa, here is how tax cuts are paid for....as always, by the increased business activity that always result from them. Look at any era where tax cuts were implemented and you find an increased govt treasury that follows. Also, tax increases always are followed by a slowed economy as businesses run for cover to find tax shelters, accelerate earnings to take advantage of the present tax codes as opposed to future tax hikes, and so on. Tax increases have never spurred on an economy.....NEVER.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

You left out one big tax cut that ruined the economy, the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because we were fighting two wars.

Thanks for the comment.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

braudboy

Bgpappa has trouble understanding the benefits of tax cuts. You will always hear the Democrats complain that the tax cuts take money out of the treasury, that should have been deposited by the taxpayers and the worst ones are businesses.

Who in their right MIND would rather send money to the government rather than keep that money in their own pocket, to spend on what the person needs to spend the money on first.

President Barak Obama’s Congress has given 95% of the people tax cuts. That statement is another half truth, for my family, we can qualify for only one. We didn’t get a tax cut, we got a government handout that we will be required to pay the tax on. The rest of the so-called tax cuts are tax credits if certain things are done. Tax cuts are not the same as tax credits, LIBERALS don‘t understand the difference.

The stimulus set aside $100 billion for infrastructure construction, ready to go projects. As of today; 19 months later only $20 billion has been spent. Something is wrong with that report, someone needs to be asked how can that be when Unemployment is on the way up to 10%.

The money being sent to Washington has allowed President Obama and the Democrat controlled congress to expand the government some 25%. Now wouldn’t it have been better to have a tax cut ( lower rates ) so that all the people would have benefited across the board ? Kind of looks like the people and the private sector got the SHAFT.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

And the same thing all over again. And again you don't respond to my point.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- you have your facts wrong. The Bush tax cuts pulled this country out of an economic downturn following 09/11. This country-'s economy boomed for the following 6 years. That is not ruining the country. You were misinformed. The recent economic collapse had nothing to do with tax cuts and alot to do with a housing bubble that burst. We can debate the causes of this debacle caused mostly by bad loans to people who couldnt afford them and had no real credit ratings to merit them, all under the name of giving opportunities to disadvantaged people. A pure liberal policy that is a bad idea, economically.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Not only was the economy on a roll following the Bush tax cuts, but unemployment was under 5% and closer to 4%. Pretty good numbers that we would certainly like to have right now. It is very simple. You are dealing with human behavior and you must make policy that drives the actions you want. If a store wants more business, you lower your prices and have a sale. You might make a lower profit per sale, but you drive human behavior and you make more sales. The final result is usually a big profit for the store. The economy is not any different. YOu want to drive the behavior in favor of more activity which is done thru tax cuts or lower tax rates. It puts more of the nations money in the hands of the private sector to stimulate the economy.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

The thing nobody wants to admit was the "Bush boom" was a lie. Housing prices were inflated. Wall Street was inflated.

Thanks for the comment.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

The "Bush Boom" was not a lie, it was a boom. That is like saying the "Clinton boom" was a lie. The dot com bubble took his economy to new heights....and then burst. The Clinton economy was an inflated Wall Street due to the dot coms. There are always reasons for your economic results and not all are going to last. All economies are going to cycle. The Bush economy had low unemployment and an energetic business community. These are not lies.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

But the Bush boom led to the Bush recession, all I am looking for is one conservative to admit that Bush made mistakes in the economy. Two wars not paid for, tax cuts not paid for, expansion of government not paid for, deregulation without supervision. Something. Can't just say Obama is in power now so blame him for everything.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

No, Obama is not to blame for everything if you can explain what he is to blame for.

2007-2008 Democrats take control of Congress, Senator Obama was there voting on legislation to run the government. Think about it, President Bush and the minority members of congress ( Republicans ) have no power except for Bush veto power..

2009-2010 Democrats gain super(60 votes in senate )majority control of Congress, Senator Barak Obama wins presidency, Bush gone (somehow after 2 years ) and Republicans have no voice in making legislation.

The Democrat talking points (heard it again twice today ) ’’ 8 years of Bush caused the problems'' can one really believe that with an open mind.

''But the Bush boom led to the Bush recession, all I am looking for is one conservative to admit that Bush made mistakes in the economy.'' You said

I’m an independent and I will reply that both sides didn’t do the job. In the first 6 years of Bush, the minority Democrats obstructed and filibustered in both houses. The last 2 years the Democrats took over and promised open and transparent government. Sounds good but it didn’t happen. Upon winning in 2009.President Obama , Pelosi and Reid promised the same. Sounded good, it didn’t happen again.

The country is headed to a disaster, without the help of the Republicans. 2009 the deficit was $1.4 trillion, in 2010 it will be $1.3 trillion and in 2011 it will be another $1.? Trillion.

The Democrat's ideas to get us out of the recession is to spend. The results of all that spending has been a failure. Case closed on the Dem's ideas, enough is enough. Wake up America before it’s too late.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Wow, you really just repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over again. FIND A NEW TALKING POINT.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Of course Bush made mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But his tax cuts were right on and lower tax rates is always the best medicine for an ailing economy. Obama is way off in his big-government approach. We must find a way to grow the private sector. It wont happen with Obama. Bush policies turned around a bad economy coming off the dot-com collapse and followed by 09/11. He did it with tax cuts. It is a no-brainer.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

And Nevermind the tax cuts were never paid for. And nevermind that the Bush economy was a lie. You believe tax cuts cure all. Ok.

Thanks for the comment.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- The only lie in the Bush economy is the one that liberals try to tell. They want to deny that we did not have 6 years of prosperity and low unemployment. You can try to live in that fairy- tale if you want. And I already explained how tax cuts pay for themselves in the increased business activity and the large tax revenues that result from a larger economy. I know it is difficult to understand the complexity of this formula and it is why you buy into the simplicity of government control. Tax cuts dont cure all, but they sure beat the hell out of a govt cure-all.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

" the tax cuts were never paid for. And never mind that the Bush economy was a lie."

The facts are that the Bush tax cuts brought the country out of a recession, 911 and two wars for 6 plus years.

The tax cuts were about $300 billion of giving money to the citizens and businesses to spend rather than the government to spend. Get it right, with the tax cuts the treasury received the most ever in our history during the bush years.

President Barak Obama and company are spending money that the country don't have and have yet to turn the economy around in 19 months, wonder why they continue on the spending spree.

bgpappa , what is the plan?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Ugh. If the treasurey got so much, why the deficits? Oh, because we had two wars going. God forbid the rich sacrafic a little during two wars. Oh, no, give them their tax cut. Oh the plan, stop the free fall of the economy during the first year, then build it back up. Took eight years to destroy, will take 3-4 to rebuild. Not that I agree with Obama's economic plan wholly. Bailouts were a mistake. Let the "too big to fail" companies fail I say. Seriously, all that money if going to people should have went to the people. But didn't. So now we don't get. But the same big corporations you defend got it, spent it, and didn't create jobs as you promise. Didn't do anything but outsource jobs, evade taxes and ask for more. Corporate welfare.

See I can state when Dems get it wrong, because I am not a democrat. I am a liberal. Democrats went right a long time ago. Its funny that you think Obama is such a radical, he is not even Liberal. Many of his ideas were first introduced by Republicans in the 1980s. Now you and Hannity claim they are "socialist" only because Obama introduced them.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Braud,

We didn't have six years of prosperity. He inherited prospoerity, and peace by the way. We had six years of war, Katrina, economic downturn, low capital reserves int he banks, skyrocketing gas prices, finanical fraud by accounting firms and corporations as a whole (remember Enron?) All of that occurred before 2006. It wasn't reported on the news, which we would both agree the news sucks these days, but the problems were there. that is the lie of the bush administration.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Bush did not inherit prosperity. The economy was slowing, the dotcoms had burst and wall street came back to reality. Then 09/11 hit and the economy tanked. Your memory is short. You can certainly point out instances of specific problems during the Bush years, but you must also see the big picture of economic boom and low unemployment. It is indisputable.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

No, its disputable. Nobody mentioned the "recession" Bush inherited until the "Great Recession" under Bush's watch. As for all the talk about the recession Bush inherited, The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001. Thus George Bush did not inherit anything, it occurred under his watch. If you are going to blame Obama for the "Great Recession" that began years before he was inaugurated, you have to be consistent stop saying Clinton left Bush a recession.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

....and again, your gun ownership example does not hold water. Gun owership is protected, but your "BEHAVIOR" with that gun is regulated. It is like the example of nudists. They have a right to be nudists, but not to force their nudist ways on all society. They are not allowed to trample over the standard that society declares for clothing and proper attire. The same with smokers or any other behavior. Their behavior is trumped by the "greater good" of the society as a whole.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

...and you made my point that Bush inherited a recession. It began in March 2001. Bush took office in January 2001. It takes two consecutive downturns in a business cycle before a recession is declared, meaning the economic downturn took place during the final months of Clinton. I understand your frustration in defending your liberal buddies, but you really must look at the facts.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

So if Bush "inheretied" a recession, when it began in March, how come Obama didn't inherit a recession when it began a year before he took office?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Oh, by the way, NBER does not define recession like you do. It is done monthly. So pursuant to NBER, the Recession started in March, so the two consecutive months were January and February, both under Bush.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

You finally admitted you are a liberal! Now we all know what your problems are.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Obama did inherit a recession. But, he has had over a year and a half to diffuse it and turn it around. Instead, his policies have only worsened our economic status, deepened our govt debt, divided our country, and generally just screwed things up.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

....and by the way, it is not me who defines recession, it is economists. The definition is 2 consecutive business cycles of slower economy. The business cycles are quarters (1/4 of the yearly cycle). It is what it is! There is no way to accurately track the economy monthly as you do not get enough reporting to do so. You are grasping at straws in defending the obvious downturn in the economy as Clinton presidency was winding down. It is probably why dems lost the white house that year.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Do you care that the group I mentioned is conservative? But I agree they grasp at straws. The economy is better now than during the last years of Bush. But I agree the bailouts were a mistake and waste of money. Should have let AIG and GM fail on their own.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Jon, My problems are bigoted, greedy Republicans and the Democrats to weak spined to fight.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

How can the economy be better off now than in the last years of Bush???? We are at 10% unemployment and the Bush tax cuts havent even expired yet. Wait until 2011, and you are going to see even mor economic pain caused by Obama.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Lets see, in October 2009, well before Obama even won the election, the economic world was ending. Banks were failing, Wall Street tank. The job loss and economic free fall was under way. Bush did nothing. McCain offered nothing. Obama won. First months in office, did some stuff, some economically sound, some not. But the free fall stopped. The Great Depression was averted. Yes unemployment is still high, but that was caused in October 2009, not anything done before. Oh, and the continuous outsourcing doesn't help. But the economy is better right now that in October 2009. People are more confident, they are buying things again. But conservatives aren't happy with that because it doesn't help them politically. So they point to the deficit over and over and over again. In the 1980s Republicans had no problem with deficits. Now they are a problem. Bush had no problem with deficits. Now they are a problem. Its just political, not some sort of adherence to fiscal responsibility.

But those are the politicians, not you and not necesarrily me. I don't agree with every Obama policy, because most are too conservative for my taste. Giant bank bailouts, corporate welfare, much of the healthcare bill. Conservative in nature. Helps corporaitons more than people.

But the economy is better, not perfect, still a lot of work to do. But it is better. For me (my business has picked up and client are paying again) For my community and the nation as a whole. Jobs are coming back, slowly, way too slowly, but they are coming back.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

What is your wacky definition of consevative? There is nothing conservative in the health-care bill, bank bailouts, or pretty much anything Obama has promoted since he came to office. As for people being more confident in our economy, and being better off.....well, lets just see how our November election turns out. I will predict that you will see an overwhelming outcome that suggests people are fed up with Obama's policies and are ready for another "change".


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I bet Republicans pick up some seats too. The minority party always does. The sad thing is Republicans have done nothing in the last two years but say how bad things are. From day one they blamed Obama. A healthcare plan that helps insurance companies, bank bailouts, those are Republican ideas. Bush proposed them (not the healthcare). As for healthcare, universal in liberal. And that never got introduced.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

"republicans have done nothing in the last 2 years"....if you mean since Obama took office, you are right. Republicans have too small of numbers to get any cooperation on their ideas. THank God they have not even considered following the madness being initiated by the liberal nuts in congress. Sadly, the dems have managed to still pass some of this ridiculous legislation because they have the numbers to do so. November should change that.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

So, considering that Republicans have so little numbers because of the mess they made of the Country under George Bush, they have no responsibility to do anything? They have no responsibility to come up with ideas? They have no responsibility to try to work with Obama? Obama has tried to work with them. Tried to listen to them. I get the Congressional democrats and how they are inept, but the REpublicans still have to do their jobs. All they have done is said tax cuts over and over again and lied to the American people. They could have used this time to build up their party and bring people together, but they didn't. November will take care of itself, but I don't think it will be as drastic as you think. I think dems will lose some seats, and righfully so, but not as many as you think.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Republicans have plenty of ideas, but they will not get any attention while Reid and Pelosi are in charge of congress. Yes, republicans do have a responsibility, to uphold the values of their party principles. That means, under current circumstances, to stop Obama at every turn on his liberal, socialist agenda. It has not always worked as Obama got some kind of awful healthcare bill through congress this year. Hopefully, the republicans can hold him up on the ridiculous "global warming" legislation. We will see how November turns out, but is looking like a rout. BUt, you are right about one thing. The dems will always be a solid presence in congress as there are definitely a large percentage of people in this country who are duped by govt giveaways, special interest promises and the sort. YOu see, the dems have no soul and no principles and therefore can appeal to all varieties of groups through their lies, false promises, and misleading political campaigns in order to gain power.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Funny, his global warming legislation (cap & trade) was orignianlly introduced by Republicans. And again talking points and ad homenin attacks, but no facts. Typical Republican response.


steve8miller profile image

steve8miller 6 years ago from Ohio Great City of Dayton

FOX propaganda at its finest as of late. I think FOX is funny. They take old idea's that the left wing media does not run with. Then FOX does run with them. Like the Bush is Hitler. The left wing media did not run with this at all. However a quick look on the internet will show that many thought that Bush ran the country like a dictator. AKA Hitler. Well FOX picks up the Hitler and projects it onto Obama and for some reason it sticks.

The concentration fema camps is another great example. Left wing media does not pick it up, however the leftist generated the idea. Then while watching Mr. Beck he talks how Obama has plans for the white race in these concentration camps. I mean come on FOX where is the originality. The funniest things though are the ones that make no sense, like Obama is Hitler. I am waiting for some originality from FOX. However I am now boycotting them altogether. They have recruited a friend of mine to a neonazi group in Michigan. My friend is white we both have many black friends. However he watched way to much FOX news. Now he thinks Obama plans on putting the white race in the Fema camps. Sick! I now despise FOX. They talk to the 25% of the people who are fooled all of the time. The rest of us just look on in total disbelief. Good hub.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Steve,

They really are amzing sometimes. Sorry to hear about your friend. Fox has done an amazing job of targeting the latent fears of people, causing unrest, then blaming Obama for the unrest.

Thanks for the comment.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Oh yeah...that "global warming" cap and tax legislation is really hot with republicans! What have you been smoking??? Anyway, it looks like some sane republicans will be preventing it from becoming law.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Stevie- I guess you are gettin your news from MSNBC. I think maybe 1% of America might be tuning in to this ridiculous news channel.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

It was introduced by Republicans in the 80, pushed by George Bush I heavily. It is what George I did with emissions. Learn your history. They only oppose it now because it came from Obama. "Country First", ya right. And by the way, keep your comments to me, don't attack everyone just because you have run out of talking points.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- you are getting frustrated. It is understandable as your backward and upside down thinking has been confronted with common sense and intelligence. I cant speak to 1980, but I dont hear much support in 2010 for the "global warming" madness.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

You don't hear much support in 2010, you must not be listening. Scientists, except those who don't believe in evolution, all agree that Global Warming is a threat. But I know, you don't like science.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I speak to republican politicians when I refer to support. ...oh, and I do like science. I dont, however, like biased scientists who live off of grant money and political payoffs to skew their research. If you look intowhat real scientific research is, you will not find it in the global warming arena. All a bunch of convaluted theories that havent even come close to being proven. All trumped up by a political movement that has no interest in the truth, but is driven by money and political power.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

"Scientists, except the ones who don't believe in evolution, all agree that Global Warming is a threat"

Oh, you mean all of the ignorant scientists believe that global warming is a threat.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Really, you don't believe in global warming. Even George I believed in Global warming. John McCain, Colin Powell all acknowledged Global warming. Really. I bet if Obama came out tomorrow saying he didn't believe in Global Warming, you would start advocating environmental protection just to spite him. Real scientists are almost unaminous, global warming is a threat.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Sorry....I dont twist in the wind with my opinions like some. Global warming is ridiculous. Man doesnt affect climates. It is a con-game designed to fool the weak-minded. I am not surprise that you have been duped.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Oy vey


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

GOd bless you. (did you sneeze?)


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thank you, but no. Old Jewish saying.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

So, in this long rant, why did I miss your criticism of the Democrat spin machine? Are you a big hypocrite and only against GOP spin, pretending it's bad, while ignoring Democrat spin? Or, as I suspect, you're just a partisan, who posts spin constantly yourself, full of finger pointing at the "other guy" pretending to be virtuous, while being the actual incarnation of the evil you profess to complain about?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

What democratic spin do you refer. By the way, there is a link to click for other hubs by me, and you will see that I have no problem denouncing democracts. I don't consider myself a democrat. I am a liberal. The democratic party waived bye bye to me a long time ago.

But I notice you don't actually defend the right, you point fingers. That is spin in itself. You make broad accusations without any facts, another conservative tactic. What exactly do you stand for?


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

What do you mean "What democratic spin"? Surely you're joking, for you could not possibly say "there is no Democrat spin". So, unless you're currently editing a hub page to denounce all the Democrat spin and about to publish it, you're just a hypocritical partisan, complaining about what's supposedly bad from one party, while ignoring it from the other. And, you CAN try to run from the Democrat party if you wish. I do understand rats fleeing the ship, but you're not fooling me, your words are wholly partisan, not idealistic or principled.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Again, there is a button: Other Hubs. Otherwise you are just howling at the moon. And if you are going to quote me, at loeast do it right. I asked you what spin you are referring to. Typical Conservative response. Misquoate, mislead and most importantly, offer nothing substantive. Just insults. And by the way, I didn't run from the democratic party, they ran from me. The current crop of democrats are no better than Republicans; unpricipled, unreasoned. They have run from to the middle, crossed the middle and are basically "moderate" Republicans at this point. corporate welfare, cap and trade. These were Republican ideals before.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

You: "I asked you what spin you are referring to." My answer is obvious to any logical person. ALL SPIN from the Democrats. Duhh. You're here whining and moaning about the GOP spinning things. If the problem is "spinning" then you have to complain about the Democrats "spinning". After all, if that's bad, it's bad, no matter who is doing it. But, you're not moved to complain about Democrats spinning, only the GOP. You've repeatedly proved my point, those whole thing is PARTISAN, not principled, rant. After all, if spin were the sin, then Democrats spinning would be just as egregious and you'd have included it in your rant. But you didn't. And no, I don't howl at the moon. You were, if there's to be any metaphorical truth here.

If you have to ask me "what spin?", meaning you can't find any, or none bothers you enough to mention, then again, your sole motivation is partisanship, not principle. But the, you admitted you're a liberal, which means "party first, foremost, forever, above all else".


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I agree, my problem is that Republicans are better at it. I am pretty sure I have said that time and time again. I asking you because I am wondering if you are principled or just another conservative who only points fingers. You have answered my question.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

You think the GOP can out-spin Democrats? What planet do you live on? How did you lose contact with reality? Frankly, I care nothing about "spinning" since all of it's as shallow as a sheet of paper lying flat. If anyone is influenced by it, other than the media (who is too dumb to think) they literally have got to be complete non-thinkers.

I note your typical liberal haste to attack my character immediately. Please note, this hub, these comments, are about what YOU think. Attacking my character over my pointing out your flagrant hypocrisy and lack of principled commentary is as juvenile as the 1st grader shouting "He started it!".


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

ugh. I enjoy good debate. But you have to bring something to the table. You bring nothing are aren't worth the time at this point.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

Well, you may be right. Debate is not fun when you're wholly wrong and insist on being so.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

ya ya ya.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa,bgpappa

ugh ugh ugh and ya ya ya ,back to the stone ages ?

Be nice and except the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The recent spin, VP Biden telling the American people that the economy is getting better and that the stimulus worked.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

The economy is getting better and the stimulus worked. Not spin, fact.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

"The economy is getting better and the stimulus worked" Is only true in some fantasy land. The economy is not getting better, the stimulus did not work. The borrowing removed capital from the productive markets, and instead, spent it on non productive "expensing". It was not invested in technology, growth, productivity, or in any other productive manner. The money was taken from the markets where it MIGHT have been used productively. The economy is not improving, it is failing, because the insane Adminsitration and Congress have been undermining the entire foundation for and the entire mechanism which makes the economy work. Their thuggish attacks on industry, and willingness to destroy the systems in place to replace them with artificial and unworking ones has all but completely undermined any reason for anyone to invest or risk anything.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Much of that money went to save your precious markets - bailouts I am speaking of. Market would be dead if not for government spending.

Economy grew by 1.6% last quarter. The economy GREW. what say you to that.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

Obviously, you have no idea what's going on. The Bailout was the "fix" for the problem that government created in the first place. The problem was 12 trillion in mortgages backed and shoved into the marketplace by government owned entities. That's 12 TRILLION in mortgages, in just a few years. It completely distorted the credit markets, real estate markets, housing markets, investment markets, etc. The "bailout" was only "needd" because of the effects of what government did in the first place.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Right, and all those banks lending without capital reserves and no regulations had nothing to do with it. Corporations forging books and numbers, outsourcing, and evading taxes had nothing to do with it. Gas prices and two wars had nothing to do with it, right. I do agree the government, under Bush, deserves some blame, but not even I blame him for everything. Simply pointing the finger at government is too simplistic and narrow. Everyone, including ordinary Americans, had a role to play in the Great Recession. At least admit that.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

That's just a whole bunch of nonsense. Blather. You fail to grasp that the "wars" and "gas prices" and such are MINISCULE in comparison to all that debt. 12 TRILLION DOLLARS. In roughly 5 years. None of the nonsense you mention is even a small fraction of the dollar amount, much less anything that ended up cause credit market collapse. As for lending without adequate reserves"? The biggest two offenders are the lenders RUN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Your ignorance of what's really happened is staggering.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

You never cite facts. Just you little insults and conclusions. Really, you don't think ten years of two wars without paying for them have taken their toll? The Iraq war has cost nearly 3 trillion dollars, 1/4 of the number you state. You can't be so narrow minded to think other factors led to the meltdown. And the two biggest offenders as you say, please remember, that was George Bush's federal government.


weholdthesetruths profile image

weholdthesetruths 6 years ago from Western Flyover Country

You post rhetoric, and then shout "you never cite facts". Duhhh. Hypocrite.

But more importantly, your efforts to link, and your apparent belief in certain causal relationships between certain trivial facts betrays your lack of grasp of the entire picture. You desperately want to make argument about Bush and the GOP, but nothing you want to argue has any merit, because the first problem is that neither is the problem. The problem is runaway spending. Sure, the GOP didn't stop it, but it was the Democrats who FOUGHT FOR IT. You're all hyped about military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, but can't see any problem with the government agencies sponsoring 12 TRILLION in debt - a good lot of it underwater, poorly documented, based on inflated (the bubble caused by the debt itself ) unrealistic values, substandard credit borrower mortgages - at interest rates way too low to ever recover from the now obvious default rates and the depreciation of the assets borrowed against.

This was something the GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY CHARTERED FANNIE AND FREDDIE TO DO. In other words, our financial markets problems were DELIBERATELY CREATED by people who intended to do exactly what was done. And you view those people as the SOLUTION to the problem.

Frankly, you're irrational.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

And frankly, you are a typical conservative. You cite the federal government is incompetent and then Republicans do everything in their power to make it true. The very time period you refer to was George Bush and Republican Congress. Now you argue that they screwed up and we should blame Democrats. And, of course, you cite no facts. Only call mine trivial with no support. "Sure, the GOP didn't stop it." No, the GOP cuts taxes, then increases spending. And I am not hyped about the wars, only want Republicans to acknowledge that while the wars were being waged, of them illegal with no purpose, they didn't pay for them. They didn't want the richest 1% to have to sacrafice a little, so they cut taxes. Now, that Obama has ended one war and is actually managing the other (oppopsed to ignoring it like his predecessor), Republicans want to strap him to the bill. That is the hypocracy I am referring to. We are actually in agreement about the bailouts, I think that was wasteful spending as well.

Your little name calling games really don't help out your argument. Only shows how childish your argument is. Seriously, your one step above your momma jokes at this point. Get a life, or cite some facts. Either way, you are wrong, you know it, can't do anything about, so you howl at the moon. The very definition of desperate. Typical Republican. Screw up and destroy the country and now complaining about how fast it is getting fixed.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- you miss the point of cutting tax rates on the wealthy. Do you not see that these are the people who own businesses and have the ability to grow and energize the economy? IT is a calculated decision by conservatives that this money is better utilized in their hands to hire workers, start up capital ventures, and to grow the economy. Why do you think that governments can better spend this money? The net result, when money is properly utilized in the private sector, is to grow and prosper the economy which the net result of is a larger tax revenue for the U.S. treasury.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I understand the theory, the theory sounds great. The only problem is the corporations don't do what you say they are going to do, not to the extent that you (or any Republican) describes. They outsource jobs. I think the money is better in the hands of the people than corporations. Tax cuts are fine, but why should only corporations and the richest 1% prosper. Middle class tax cuts have a history of growing the economy. My problem is that Republicans hold on to the theory, without looking at facts. What you describe just doesn't happen. The bailouts proved that.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- I could say the same about government. In theory, they promise great things they will accomplish with our tax dollars, but they never fulfill their promises. They waste and politicize and power-grab, instead of looking out for the people. You should look at the facts of govnerment's record of being prudent with the public treasury, it is a dispicable one and they cannot be trusted. I am just saying that government's role should be a limited one and that the people, the corporations, and any entity that is making money, should be allowed to keep as much as possible to re-invest, spend, and stimulate the economy from a private-sector direction, instead of a corrupt, politically-motivated gov't direction.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

So the answer is somewhere in the middle then. Greedy Corporations versus incompetent government. At least I have some some with government, me and my friends (which includes you), corporations not so much. But I don't want government control of everything either, so the answer is somewhere in the middle. Been the debate in America since the start - kind of cool its still happening today


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Hey bgpappa- I dont like where this is going. I am starting to like you.(ha ha). I love a good debate and you are up to the challenge. There is certainly some middle ground out there somewhere.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I like good debate as well. Might not change my mind, but earned my respect. I appreciate people like you that are 1) passionate about their beliefs 2) willing to put themselves out there and 3) bring something to the table other than rhetoric and insults. Welcome to bring forth your conservative ideals here anytime, just don't be suprised if I say the opposite.

Middle ground is a good thing. Can we at least do what we all seem to agree on? Only if politicians thought that way (and I speak about both sides)


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Good job bgpappa- I will be looking forward to some more debate in the near future.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Me too


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

Where do fools go from here? Don't miss Beck next week, Obama on the road again and to celebrate Labor Day.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Really, a Republican is going to raise a "too much" vacation argument when Bush was on vacation so much during his reign. Don't even go there.


steve8miller profile image

steve8miller 6 years ago from Ohio Great City of Dayton

braudboy, my friend is a neo nazi because of FOX. I do not watch MSNBC. I do valid research, I am a college student. Oh wait better not say that, I do not think it will help my cause. lol Darn Liberal Colleges. Here is another one. "Republicans think with their brains, while the stupid liberal thinks with their hearts." I loved that one my fathers conservative friend told me the other day. Especially because the Conservatives call themselves "Christians" Good luck bgpappa, well you will do just fine against these crazy conservatives. They are the minority. So rich you would think they were the majority though. I will give them that the Conservative Republicans seem to have found Joseph Goebbels the king of propaganda. GOD help us all.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

"I'm a compassionate conservative." Strange language where Bush actually felt he had to distiguish himself from other conservatives. But the point remains, both sides engage in spin, the Republicans just do it better because they don't care about facts. Such as today, the economic numbers are doing ok, not great I admit, but ok yet if you watch Fox News the world is going to end and any improvement gets a "it would have been faster." Great spin, really top notch.

Thanks for the comment.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

The truth will set you free someday, hopefully before the nation goes broke. The CBO announced that the 2010 $1.4 trillion deficit is the second highest in US history. Spin Spin ,that's the tune!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Yes Jon,

and The Republican answer, a 4 trillion dollar tax cut. Now that is spin.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

''The Republican answer, a 4 trillion dollar tax cut. Now that is spin.''

I BET YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT TAX CUT. CAN YOU?

I'M SURE THAT BARAK OBAMA CAN'T EXPLAIN IT EITHER.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

ya, ya, trickle down, trickle down. Tried that, didn't work. In over thirty years, republicans haven't been able to think of anything new. Amazing.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, PLEASE


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Tell you what Jon, you actually answer some of my questions, and I will answer yours, again. Trickle down economics. But I find is disingenous for Republicans for months whining about the deficit and their answer adds another 4 trillion to it without any explanation whatsoever how its going to be paid for.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- Your question is bogus! First of all, you cannot use simple math (all that liberals can understand) to apply to the complicated mathematic formula that is the U.S. economy. You cannot say that a tax cut costs 4 trillion dollars. By using that idiotic and static thinking, you do not account for the future expectations of a more energetic economy where more private dollars are in play to spend, create wealth and jobs, and the resulting increase in revenues that result. Try to expand your mind beyond what government tells you to think. You have bought into the idea that government knows better how to allocate the recources than private individuals and companies.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Odd, its the Republicans who say that is how much it will cost, I guess they are the idiots. As for broadening my mind - TAX CUTS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING. Wars cost money. Bailing out your beloved corporations cost money. Why not a middle class tax cut, or as the one proposed, a tax cut for businesses who are growing? Buy more machines, get a tax cut. Hire employees, get a tax cut. Why is it always the top one percent. They don't create the jobs you promise. They don't create the revenue you claim. They keep the money, they save it, they send it to the Kayman Islands. I am not hating, I would do the same. Human nature.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

Kids stuff, you tell me first and then I will answer.Don't forget who has been running the government into the ground? Pelosi and Reid in charge for the last 4 years (2007 to 2010)Senator Obama ,2007 ,2008 and in full charge 2009 to the present. Incompetence,irresponsible, arrogant and just plain over his head.PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER MY LAST REPLY IF YOU CAN.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

You really don't get it. Bush and the Republicans ran this Country into the ground. Now you can't stand the fact that the economy is improving. Jobs are coming back. Consumer Confidence is rising. Don't cheer against the country just to win the midterms. Don't cheer for people to suffer just so you can get rid of a PResident you hate for no real reason. I don't have to answer your questions. I wrote a hub. My answer is out there. You won't address the original point because you can't. All you can do is whine and try to use fear. No results, no answers, just fear. Now that is spin.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

THE WORD IS '' FOOL ''.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

THE PROPERGANDA GOES ON NOW WITH THE APPROACHING ELECTIONS.

A score card for both sides to consider.

‘’From December 2007 to March 2009, 5.1 million people lost their jobs, and in December 2007 Unemployment stood at 5%‘’ UNDER BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY CONGRESS UNEMPLOYMENT WAS 4.6% IN DEC 2006. JAN 2007 THE DEMOCRATS TOOK MAJORITY CONTROL OF CONGRESS.IT TOOK ONLY 12 MONTHS FOR THE RECESSION TO START UNDER THE DEMOCRAT‘S CONTROL. YES, SENATOR BARAK OBAMA WAS IN THE SENATE TOO.THE DEMS AND OBAMA VOTED TO PASS PASSED TARP ( 700BILLION) TO BAIL OUT WALLSTREET.

FOR ALL FORTHCOMING DISCUSSIONS REMEMBER THAT THE REPUBLICANS SINCE JAN 2007 HAVE NO POWER TO DO ANYTHING REGARDING LEGISLATION UP TO THE PRESENT.President Barak Obama and the Democrats BLAMING THE REPUBLICANS FOR TODAYS PROBLEMS IS TO BE DESINGENIOUS AND SIMPLY FALSE..


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

From Jan 2007 through January 2009, the Republicans controlled the White house. Do you think I touched a nerve by pointing out the truth. 8 years to destroy the economy. Less that two years and things are improving. Keep trying Jon, keep trying.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

My friend bgpappa

''From Jan 2007 through January 2009, the Republicans controlled the White house''.WRONG AGAIN, A (ONE) REPUBLICAN, President George W. Bush from 2000 to 2008 controlled the white house.

The Republicans controlled Congress (a separate branch of our government )from 2000 to 2006.

The Democrats controlled Congress 2007 and 2008. Yes if you want to be technical the new congress was sworn in the following Jan after the election.

Note that congress (a separate branch) runs the government, the president (executive branch)manages the departments of the government.

The economy is not improving as well as we are being told, it’s all a farce,properganda and bull.

WAKE UP,the truth will set you free.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

You know, could it be that Republicans are just sore losers. The economy is improving, and instead of trying to convince people that it is not, you should be rejoicing. You are making money. I am making money. More people are making money. Home prices are slowly rising. The economy is improving. Even on Fox News they have given up. They are now preaching how it would have improved faster had McCain won. Ya right. Deal with it, and I hope you prosper my friend. Because if you win, and I win, and everyone wins, we all win. Don't cheer for failure, hope endures.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- It is not just tax cuts for the top 1 %....it is accross the board. Tax rates are too high. It just so happens that the top 1% pay the most taxes. Why do you think government can better spend money than the private sector. Do you not know how to spend your money and do the right thing with it??? Do you need govt to be your daddy????? YOu have been duped. Govt should have a limited role in our lives and we should be able to keep more of the money we earn.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 6 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- if the country is making such a great turn around, with an improving economy and so-forth, why do you suppose all signals point to a terrible defeat for democrats in this mid-term election????? The plain facts are that this country has not rebounded, mainly due to poor policy decision and poor leadership in Washington which all points to democrats. They will pay for it in November.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

If trickle down worked the way the theory suggests, I would be all for it. But it doesn't. The years under Bush taught us that. I am for tax cuts, just for people that need them.

The democrats are targeted for defeat for two reasons 1). Democratic Congressional leadership is weak and they are not willing to fight for anything; 2). Republicans lying about the current state of affairs because they have no answers (except of course tax cuts). Democrats deserve to lose, I don't deny that, but lets talk about the real reason. They have moved right, are pandering to corporate interests. They are acting like moderate Republicans except they aren't willing to fight. Democrats have no guts these days and that is why they may lose in November.

But the economy is improving. Even your argument "not rebounded" is what Fox has shifted to: It didn't happen fast enough. It was a free fall, and that was stopped, all that momentum stopped. And now it is gaining, slowly but surely. We will see.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

Part of your problems are the source of your information. To find out what's going on in the economy, read the business sections in your local papers.

Obama’s first year in office the poverty rate rose from 13.2% to 14.3% according to the Census Bureau. There are 43.6 million people, now 1 in 7, live in poverty.

Americans without Healthcare coverage rose 15.4% (50.7 million people) to 16.7%.Medium household income in 2009 was $49,777 down 0.7% from a year ago.

Unemployment is now 9.7% up from 4.6% in Jan 2007 ( Dems took over control of congress)

14.9 MILLION OUT OF WORK and no end in sight.

On 9/17/10 Economist said a report confirmed that DEFLATION is not an immediate treat to the economy. DEFLATION is a prolonged drop in prices and wages. On 9/22/10 a different story comes from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The Federal Reserve will take further steps to boost the economy because of the weakness of the recovery. The Fed concluded that economic activity has slowed in recent months. Note that President Obama and the Media reports the opposite.

Chairman Bernanke last month indicated a preference to launch a new program to buy large amounts of government debt. The government prints more money, sells the debt to the fed, the fed funds more government. That’s a ponzi scheme, people go to prison for those actions. The mainstream media don’t print news like that, that’s bad for us citizens to knowing the true debt of the nation.

Wake up America , seek the truth and nothing but the whole truth.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well first, the poverty rate rose because of the Bush economic policies, again, you are amazingly forgetting that Bush and the REpublicans were in charge for 8 years. 6 years the Republicans were in charge of Congress. What happened was their fault. Yes, we have a deficit, nobody denies that. But really, 4 trillion for tax cuts for the rich is the answer? Please.

Even your facts show the economy is slowly improving. The improvement has slowed, but improvement is improvement, so you are arguing that it isn't happening fast enough. You prefer the free fall? You prefer the Katrina effect on our economy where Bush sat back and did nothing until it was too late? The economy is improving, which is amazing when you think how bad it was.

Wake up Jon, admit the truth.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

bgpappa

Check this one out.

Barak Obama and the oil spill in the gulf

Barak Obama places a drilling moratorium on drilling

cost to economy 100,000 jobs

Get out from under the rocks and admit the truth that Obama and the Democrats are incompetent in running the government. If you a socialist government try Russia or maybe Cuba.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Oil spill in the gulf will cost a lot more than the moratorioum. And your estimate of 100,000 jobs is riduculous and amazingly not supported by any evidence.

And it is conservatives that want a communist country. USSR and China in practice were run and owned by a simple few, who paid no little taxes and everyone depended on them for their well being. A junta if you will. That is what conservatives are fighting for.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

BGPAPPA- I Thought I would check in with you about the recent election. Pretty much as I predicted, The voters of America are not at all happy with Obama, Pelosi, and the liberal agenda being pushed by democrats in Washington. What do you think?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Think the same about Pelosi and Reid. But, if you look closley, it was the "moderate" democrats who took the hits. Not the liberals. And the far right lost too from O'Donnell to the Nazi, they all lost. So the country is crying for middle.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Of course it is the moderate democrats who took the hit. The "hard left" liberals are in strong liberal districts. It will always be the moderate democrats and moderate republicans who fall as the political winds shift. You are wrong that the country is crying for middle. It is what liberals want to believ when they lose elections. It was the "tea partiers" and the conservative movement who energized this last election cycle. They were inspired by the horrors of an Obama-run gov't.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Braud, look closley. Except for Ron Paul's son (not a knock on him, just can't remember his first name right now for some reason) the tea party candidates did not do very well in the general election. Moderate Republicans did very well. While the tea party brought energy no doubt, they didn't get as many victories as they would like to think. Republicans won, they deserved to win, Congressional Democrats blew it. I really can't deny you that, they blew it. BUt let us not make it out to be more than what it was. A shift away from a sitting President who failed to lead, and congressional democrats who failed to possess a spine.

Odd though, when Republicans can't blame Obama, what are they going to do? By the way, the economy is still improving, jobs are on the rise... slowly, slowly, slowly.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Tea partiers did better than you think. You hear only of the higher profile ones and the ones the press wanted to emphasize to show Palins defeats. We had a tea party winner in my district of south mississippi. The name is Steve Palazzo and he defeated Gene Taylor, a 10 term conservative democrat. Republicans will do plenty, but they are still not in charge. Even being in the minority, they worked over Obama on extending the Bush tax rates. How about that?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

You named one guy, the majority of them lost. Republicans are in charge of one House of Congress, they have an interest in the Country actually doing well now. The extension of the Bush tax cuts was working with Obama, not over him. He says No and they don't get them. Yea, tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else, how exactly does that work for the deficit, which last week the Republicans said they cared about.

However, to be truthful, as long as I get a tax cut too I am all for it. I could use one.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I named one more guy. I know about it because it was my local election. I explained to you that the media did not tout the "tea party success". Any way, around 70 or so dems got replaced in the house, and that is a good thing. And... Look,I understand you hate to admit it, but come on. Obama ran on the promise of ending the Bush tax cuts. He has constantly talked up the ending of those tax breaks for the wealthy because the "loonies of the left" love that stuff. Anyway, he caved, and he should have. It is what is right for the economy. Oh, and by the way, it is not really a tax cut. It is preserving the current tax rates that have been in place for about 10 years. And it does work for the deficit because it keeps our economy from tanking in 2011 or at least gives it a better chance of succeeding. It is funny how liberals can buy Obama's claims that he saved jobs, even as we lost millions of jobs, but you cant understand that keeping tax rates lower can spur on an economy resulting in increased tax revenues. Suddenly you just cant think outside the box.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Lol, Bush lost millions of jobs, CBO says jobs saved and made under Obama. You won't admit it, the economy is improving and has been all year. I know, Fox News doesn't say it so you won't believe it, facts are facts. And buy the way, where is all the jobs the Bush tax cuts were going to create? Oh, ya, tax cuts during two wars, nice move there. I under stand trickle down theory very well, there is just no evidence that it has ever worked. I disagree on Obama on this one, think he is doing the wrong thing. But notice how you won't give him credit for doing what you think is the right thing. Odd isn't it.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I did give Obama credit for doing the right thing. I just said it was the right thing to do. But, I also realize he didnt want to do it and would not have done it, except his party was soundly defeated in the mid term elections. Liberals need to understand that the main problem with this country is not that we dont collect enough taxes, ....WE DO!. The problem is that we have a government that is out of control and spends way too much money(mostly trying to please the left of this country). It must stop.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

If you really think the Government is the cause of all the problems but are not willing to blame Bush for a lot of it, then you really have no point. I agree spending is too high though. Lets cut the corporate bailouts and stop the wars. Spending would be much lower then.

THanks for the comment.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

I have never said Bush is blameless. He made many mistakes. What I realize is, however, is that republicans will do much less damage than democrats. Dems are pushing us toward a big-government, socialist, nanny state that is unsustainable. Republicans are making mistakes but are not near as dangerous. ...and I have got some news for you, Obama and company are all in on bailouts and war. Are you paying attention????


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Agreed, I hate the bailouts. Wrote a hub about how I hate the bailouts. But the wars, Obama deserves no blame. Bush started them, then mismanaged them, made promises to the people he was bombing. Can't just cut and run, I am sure I heard Republicans say that over and over again. Everytime he makes a move towards getting us out of either mess, Republicans throw a tantrum about how Unamerican Obama is. He puts a plan in place to get out of Afghanistan and Republicans called him a traitor. Oh, by the way, Iraq is much better, troops not in as much danger, and there is much fewer troops there. I know Obama didn't pull a Greatest American Hero photo op and land on an aircraft carrier and declare mission accomplished, but it almost is. Are you paying attention or are you just paying attention to Fox News.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Obama has stated he beilieves in the mission in Afghanistan. He has ramped up the war effort. Of course republicans dont agree with cutting and running, but we are not talking about them. The question is ...does Obama believe in ending the war...and the answer is NO if you look at his actions. OH, and Iraq is much better thanks to a "surge" strategy implemented by the Bush admin and opposed by Obama and most democrats. If Obama had his way in Iraq a few years ago, it would have been a disaster.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

If Obama had his way in Iraq a few years ago, we would have left Iraq. What is wrong with that? Should not have been there is the first place. You can't give Bush credit for starting an illegal war then five years later finally putting enough troops in to win. Bush tried to fight two wars without enough troops or materials because he didn't want to pay for them. And if you don't think those wars have a direct effect on the state of the economy, you are mistaken. If you, and I, want to cut federal spending, those wars are a good place to start.

Yes, we all believed in Afghanistan. I did, you did, because they were the people who help attack us on 911. Only if Bush would have kept the focus where it belonged. But I am over it, I think you are too, as Osama appears to have moved away or died (who knows?), so Obama is getting us out, less troops, less money. What exactly is wrong with that?


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

OK....you didnt just say that we should have left Iraq a destabilized region a few years ago. This region has one of the largest oil reserves on our planet and could easily fall to Iran or Russia or others who are not exactly America's friend. I dont care to give credit one way or another...but if you are going to give credit for Iraq, It surely goes to Bush rather than Obama....right? But, these wars must end soon, I agree.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well we agree that they should end. But, could we have some oil please. Would have respected Bush more if he said what you just said about the largest oil reserve. Wouldn't have agreed to go to war, but would respect the point of view and at least it is honest. But we got no oil, we got nothing. Why did we go there again?


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

It is definitely about oil. It is the fuel that produces the energy for our world economy. It is not replaceable. It is naive to think so...at least for the near future out to at least the next 50 years. We must deal with that, in spite of liberals who think we can make it on solar and wind.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I agree, oil is today. But what is wrong with thinking about tomorrow. You say it will take 50 years, ok, then lets start that 50 years now.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

Bgpappa- it has started and has always been starting. The capitalist system always has a place for better ideas to be implemented. Where the environmentalist movement is going astray, is they are trying to force the changes of INFERIOR IDEAS BY introducing fear of "global warming" and other nonsense to force society to accept the inferior product. It is ridiculous. The markets will always be searching for the next great idea, and when it happens, THEN, and only then will oil be truly replaced. There is nothing on the horizon at the moment, and, still IDIOTS in government try to force stupidity on us such as ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and such.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Do you really believe everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot? Really? Or could there be two points of view. We are actually saying the same thing. You say oil is today the best source of energy. I agree. But I am saying we have to think beyond today. You are saying no we don't because tomorrow is not today. Agreed, but what about tomorrow? You say it isn't here yet. Fine but it is coming. You say but not yet. Whose on First, right, what, no whats on second.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

The difference in what we are saying is plenty. You think oil is destroying the planet (global warming, pollution,etc) and want us to change before we even find the better solution. Let me know if I am wrong. I say that oil is not doing these things, and that oil is king when it comes to the worlds energy source and it should stay that way until a legitimate better source is discovered. You see some dire time line because you have bought into the fear and misinformation from those who want regulate and tax and control.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I see a more dire need because I can't see the mountains near my house on a warm summer day because of Smog. I see a dire need because beaches are covered in tar. My thinking about the environment is different than most liberals. It is not some pie in the sky save the planet for the planet's sake. The planet is fine. People are screwed. And we have the ability to do better. We have the smarts, money, and know how to do better. And we should, just the right thing to do. By the way, when you look at the science, global warming is real. Science, not politics. Not Al Gore, but the actual science. So why not start doing better. Yes, oil is king, but lets find an alternative, you and I braud, lets think of an alternative, invent it, patent it and get rich of it. And, by the way, if it reduces our dependence, helps our environment so our kids and grandkids can play outside and buys me a big house with a pool at the same time, great. But we can and should demand better, it is what Americans do.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- global warming science is not real. They cant even back it up anymore and have turned to climate change. They had to re-name it as they were looking ridiculous as the country turns into a deep freeze every winter. BUt, even if it were real, now the next question that no one can possibly answer is this...Is it MAN_MADE global warming. This is where the con-job comes in as they try to blame man for what nature is doing. Climate has always fluctuated and man has very,very, very, little to do with that equation. Our capitalist system already has in place, incentives for the next great inventor. You should question government's interference into this equation as there is an agenda with less than noble intentions. Ethanol is a great example. This has done nothing to stabilize the so-called global warming issue. It has only dilluted our gasoline into a lesser quality product, raised the prices of refining the product, taken away some our food resources when parts of the world of starving, driven up food prices, and for what???? It has made a few people richer and played into some political favors, and done nothing else. That is government tackling our problems. NO THANKS!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Its called climate change because that is what scientists always called it. The "deepe freeze" you refer to is what scientists would said would happen. I agree with you on ethanol, it is too political. Of course, you never see a Republican say anything bad against during the Iowa caucus. I will say it though. Stop the subsidy unless all get one, including oil and coal.

So you don't want to come up with a solution with me. Ok, I will do it and when I do, you get oil.


braudboy profile image

braudboy 5 years ago from Long Beach, MS

bgpappa- I would suggest to you that you be more skeptical of "global warming" and look at the political movement behind it.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

''The Republican Spin Machine''

Check out this Series of articles tracking the stimulus money for solar and wind

. By Russ Choma

Blown Away: Tracking stimulus grants for renewable energy

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investig...

Ps Check the TV schedule for Sept. 7, 2011 and Sept. 8, 2011 President Obama addresses the Congress

MAYBE 2 DAYS OF ENLIGHTMENT?

Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, had erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed.

Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus.

Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1, 2009, the renewable energy stimulus program has handed out more than $5 billion to more than 1,100 projects, many of them small solar-energy projects. The largest amount of money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind farms.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Off topic Jon, of course, because you have no answer to the actual topic


mudslide49 5 years ago

are these republicans in denial,or just stupid?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I don't think they are stupid, just in denial and refuse to change the channel from Fox. Except for Braudboy, who I believe is passionate and believes what he says. I don't agree with him, but I respect his opinion as he brings facts and logic.

Thanks for reading


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Sorry Jon, no more spam


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

No more span Jon. Write a hub.


puter_dr profile image

puter_dr 4 years ago from Midwest USA

The point that I find amusing is the "patriotic" Fox News channel with all its flags and eagle images, is foreign owned.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Ironic isn't it. Of course, I think most networks are foreign owned at this point.

Thanks for stopping by


d.william profile image

d.william 2 years ago from Somewhere in the south

Great article and many interesting comments. Fox networks and their many followers certainly live in their own little universe of non reality. Funny how people compare Fox news networks with Rachel Maddow, CNN and others as being simply 'opinionated' networks the same as Fox. While the 'other' networks not affiliated with Foxnets are based in the real world universe Fox Network is based on a totally opposite view of reality. They don't 'report' the news they simply make it up.


mio cid profile image

mio cid 2 years ago from Uruguay

fortunatelly the Repubican Party keeps shrinking due to their own doing.they will still be winning congress races for a while and senate seats but they are already incapable of winning a presidential election because their electorate keeps shrinking and it will continue to do so irreversibly until it will reach a point that even with gerrymandering they simply won't have enough of a voter pool to win congress or senate seats and they will have to change or disappear .


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 2 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Agreed William. And I for one of tired of it. Of course I wrote this 3 years ago, but still applies today. Thanks for stopping by.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 2 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Mio.

I agree. Demographics are a huge problem for the Republican Party and denying the right to vote won't fix that. Their number dwindle every year because of the anti-woman/anti-poor/anti-white rhetoric. Sad part is - it is just the extreme that have extreme views. Most Republcians are good people with good hearts who are being out shouted. And we need honest debate. 1 side having too much power is never good, even if it is my side. Need honest debate from a wide spectrum. That is what makes a democracy work.

Thanks for stopping by.


mio cid profile image

mio cid 2 years ago from Uruguay

you couldn't be righter bgpappa


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 2 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Why thank you.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working