jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (139 posts)

Blame it on Obama? Blame it on Bush?

  1. profile image0
    chasingcarsposted 7 years ago

    Isn't anyone else out there sick to death of people blaming Obama for the mess we are in?  Recently, during Obama's State of the Union speech, which thank God, did not fall prey to Wilson high melodrama, McCain turned to another GOP and said, "Blame it on Bush."  My question to him and the GOP is, who else should be blamed?  You or the idiots who voted you all into office for 8 miserable years or maybe both?  By exactly what stretch of the imagination is any of the mess we find ourselves in Obama's fault?  The Republican Party should man up and take responsibility for what they have done to our country; maybe then they would begin to get some of their credibility back.

    1. marcofratelli profile image73
      marcofratelliposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I blame it on the boogie. big_smile

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Democrats should man up and stop trying to ruin this country as they blame it on Republicans.
      Obama and most Democrats are like spoiled children with no curfew and no discipline.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      it's pointless to think that one party is responsible for the mess we're in. It's nothing more than hopeless to even hope that one party will be the savior that will take our ills away.

      Obama hasn't fulfilled any of his promises yet, Bush started two wars and increased spending after saying he would lower spending and he began torturing people (which probably didn't begin with him), Clinton bombed foreign countries and spent like a sailor, Bush before him started a war and increased taxes, ...

      This can easily go back all the way to FDR, or even further to Lincoln, or even further to Hamilton.

      The thing we need to focus on is The Constitution: 90% of the stuff that each side is pissed off about directly pertains to our federal government usurping power from the states. 90% (if not more) of legislation passed currently is unconstitutional, and there hasn't been an actually-declared-war since WWII. (NO, our current mess is a "military authorization granted by Congress" not war)

      I've been explaining this a little bit in my recent hubs - check em out. A lot of my stuff aims towards economics and I have a series teaching the basics of Economics for those who have no idea why things like "the interest rate" is important, or what the heck "fiat money" is, or "what the heck is money, anyway".  Check it out!

      1. profile image0
        sara.keatsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        i am total agreement.
        assigning blame to a particular party is just petty and certainly won't get anything fixed anytime soon.

    4. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This mess we are in is of our own doing.  The American electorate is a product of the American dream.  Something for nothing the motto and it is reflected in our lack of thought and care when it comes to electing the slime to represent us.

      We complain about big business buying favor with politicians and their vote yet we do nothing to curb it.  Money and lobbying is the destruction of us all yet we allow even corporations to be recognized as citizens. Take the money out of the election results and that may make a dent in the process.

      Unless we get a hold of the congress and reel in their corrupt practices we will have no control of our money, our homes or our freedom.

    5. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "Isn't anyone else out there sick to death of people blaming Obama for the mess we are in? "


      NO.

    6. tobey100 profile image61
      tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You're doing basically the same thing.  I don't blame Obama or Bush.  I blame Congress.  Guess who's been controlling Congress with a majority since the start of 2007?  Democrats and not just Democrats, Liberal Democrats.  When things go south suddenly they didn't have anything to do with it?  Obama was one of those Democrats.  He bears no fault whatsoever?  Come on, get real.  Take a minute and check out his voting record, that is when he actually voted instead of just saying 'Present'.  We were all sold a bill of goods in Obama.  Even Obama supporters know it now but pride keeps everybody from admitting we were taken in by a self proclaimed Messiah unqualified to lead.  Jez, the man's never even had a real job.

    7. profile image58
      Entilzarposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Republican Party should man up...etc...

      Our current problems are all our own fault. We sat there and let the Democrats spend eight years finding every little bit of dirt they could on the Republicans just so they could get anyone - note the unqualified person in "charge" now and how many Dems are jumping ship - into office. Now we sit here and watch the Republicans do the same thing, for no reason other than to get a Republican into the oval office.

      What we need to do is start to pay attention to the issues instead of the dirt. Pay attention to what are elected officials are actually doing instead paying attention to a bunch of mudslinging and propaganda. When you see that these elected officials are NOT trying to do their best to improve the condition of our country, then vote for someone else. We do not need to vote either Dem or Rep, we can vote in whoever we think will do the best job for us, not someone will spend their time figuring out how to make multimillion dollar companies more money.

      Unfortunately, Americans are being taught from an early age it is always someone elses fault. We need to start looking in the mirror and asking ourselves what we can do to make things better.

    8. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Obama definitely deserves a share of the blame, but so does Bush, and Clinton, and every other president going back to FDR, the greatest socialist America has ever known!

      Gone are the days when the men in government "served" reluctantly and for the good of the people, to protect freedom and abide by the constitution! Now they all want "careers" in government, it's in their interest to grow government, not for the sake of helping people but for generating wealth, and fame for themselves!

      These problems we face today have been a long time in the making, both parties have contributed because they have strayed from the powers allowed them and have ignored the values of the principled founders that built this nation and left it to us, free of debt, prosperous, and full of promise and hope.

      That's all gone now... frittered away by egos that have sought to make themselves more important, more wealthy all at our expense. Obama is just the latest in a long parade of liars cheats and thieves using taxpayer money like lollipop rewards in a country barber shop to maintain their hold on power and enrich themselves! It's all quite disgusting to watch really, and to see so many support him and his socialist agenda spreading our wealth around and stripping us of our freedom!

  2. MikeNV profile image71
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    Both parties are bought and sold.  Both are controlled by the Bankers who control the Monetary System.

    Control the money control the people.

    Neither party is doing anything to address the Federal Reserve... which creates money from nothing, gets a mandated return every time money is borrowed, and slowly goes about it's business of acquiring the assets of the American People.

    We will experience a complete Depression that will make the first Great Depression look like an ordinary recession within the next 10 years because neither party will address the Monetary System.

    Money backed by nothing and controlled by people whose only interest is themselves.

    So until people can look past the Politicians to the real problems we can expect more of the same.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100214/ap_ … cit_crunch

    Debt is NOT capital and for some reason the average person and the politicians don't seem to get this... works perfectly for the New World Order being slowly implemented by the Bankers.

  3. Arthur Fontes profile image86
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    At what time does the man who holds the job take responsibility for his office?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Obama took responsibility the day he was inaugurated, and was working on the issues from the time he was elected. Accepting blame for the bucket of s**t he was handed by Bush is another matter. It's fair to hold the president responsible for the decisions he made or failed to make after he was inaugurated, but not for the time required to bring us out of the Great World Recession bequeathed to him by Bush, nor for his inability to pass a health care bill thanks to the Party of NO and a couple of Blue Dog Demorats. Same for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are continuing with no end in sight.

      He can fairly be blamed for some actions he's taken that didn't require passing bills in Congress and some actions he could have taken and should have taken but didn't that don't require approval by Congress. And of course he will be held accountable for the surge in Afghanistan if the war drags on much longer. Persistent high unemployment whoever is to blame can be fatal to second term presidential elections. That's why the Party of NO is obstructing Obama's efforts to improve the economy.

      1. William F. Torpey profile image80
        William F. Torpeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Blue Dog Demorats.  I love  it.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The Truth is that Obama hasn't fulfilled a single one of his campaign promises (none of the big ones, anyway) and he's been spending like a drunken sailor.

        Bush was a god-dam'med idiot who got us into two quagmires, spent money like it was going out of style, and made torture a national pass-time.

        The truth is - BOTH parties are screwed up, and the solution is a return to the Constitution.

        Check out my hubs for more info.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sheesh.

          If I were a Democrat or even more "progressive", I'd be very very happy with what Obama's done.  He has single-handedly succeeded in demoralizing this nation in general.  I say "single-handedly" because he's in a position of such power that his words and even his horrible opinions DO have an effect on many many people, including Americans.  A President is supposed to be a leader.   Obama's trying to lead us straight to hell.

          Bush at least had some morals.

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, he did.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              So did Hitler.  We all have morals of some kind. W's much resembled Nixon's.  A perverse morality that allows death and suffering for political epediency.

              If there actually is a God, as many of Bush's supporters believe.  He has a place in Hell reserved for George W.

              1. Sab Oh profile image57
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Do people really need to take their political views to this kind of radical extreme? I don't see what purpose that serves.

              2. profile image0
                Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No, Hitler didn't. But it's ok, I don't really expect you to be able to see the difference smile

                1. profile image0
                  china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Hitler certainly did have morals -

                  and that is the problem with them, morals are only yours and when they conflict with someone else's that is called intolerance which then turns into war,
                  and is one reason why religion is usually implicated somewhere in every conflict as part of the justification process.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image57
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    If "morals are only yours" they aren't really morals, are they?

                  2. profile image0
                    Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Care to outline which ones they were?

              3. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Now that really ticks me off.

                If I had said that outright about Obama, I'd most likely be accused of extreme hatred and intolerance and racism.

                Well....hmmm....it's actually Obama whose actions AND words are hugely non-Biblical and hellish-seeking.

                There.

              4. myClone profile image60
                myCloneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Oh brother.  Look, if we all want to get overly technical about this, there are all sorts of morals, and they can be as objective or subjective as you wish to make them.  Morality comes from the Latin word moralitas which means "manner, character, proper behavior" .  So yes, Hitler had morals--manner and character that is.   Not sure about the "proper" behavior, unless you think that killing millions of Jews is "proper".  If you are human (and some may question if Hitler was even that) you have morals.  Now at this point, we are going to get really philosophical about morality, ethics, and moral skepticism...and I won't subjugate anyone here to that.  lol. However, maybe it would be a great new thread to expound on? Hmmm...

          2. profile image0
            chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Which set of morals would those be?  He declared to a large group of Republicans/conservatives at a dinner which only the rich could have attended that they, those rich moneylenders were his constituency, and he proceded to let big business in as an equal partner in his administration.  He lied, tortured, called the constitution a "f***king piece of paper, and got us into two damned wars which have bankrupted us
            What is it with your party/persuasion that you so love to live in irony but are blind to it?.  You are still talking Turdblossom, the language of the conservative party.  What has Obama done which is immoral? Blind loyalty is not a position for a free person in a democracy to hold.  It is your responsibility to question authority, but  your questioning should be based on knowledge and facts.

    2. tobey100 profile image61
      tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Dang.  Good.  Point.  Arthur.  This clown doesn't take respinsibility for anything.  Nothings his fault.  The true sign of a child.  Joey made me do it.  It's not my fault!!!!  I get tired of hearing it.

      1. tobey100 profile image61
        tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And another thing then I'm leaving before my blood pressure goes to high.  Do people realize he's blaming us, the people, for his failures regarding healthcare?  It's because we don't understand what he's trying to do for us.  We've become confused.  I, for one, am totally insulted everytime this man opens his mouth.  I don't like being lumped in with his swooning followers like Chris Matthews.  My leg don't tingle.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Obama is a lot like Clinton, just not as smart!

          1. tobey100 profile image61
            tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            smile

  4. Bill Manning profile image72
    Bill Manningposted 7 years ago

    If your talking about the recession we are in, I blame it on the people! The people who borrowed money they could not afford, the greedy bankers, the real estate agents, the house flippers, the ones who thought everything could only go up.

    In other words, US! No matter who was president, the mess we are in would still have come. I don't blame anyone in the white house, it was all of the greedy people all over the country.

    People give the president too much credit for what they can do. It's what the people do with their money and choices they make that decides the shape they are in now.

    1. World Marketing profile image49
      World Marketingposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.

  5. Sab Oh profile image57
    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    I wonder if on the very last day of his term Obama supporters will still be trying to sell this angle.

    1. profile image0
      chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You mean like you Bushies?  When would you guys ever admit failure?  Yes, your political and economic adventures have proven to be failures.  You lost the last election to a much better man, get over it.

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        We have gotten over it in almost every election since 2008.  we are getting over it very successfully.

        Thanks Barry'O

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yup!

        2. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          smilesmilesmile

  6. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    We each make our choices and do so without ever seeing the consequences of the actions we choose to take.

    The entire country is at fault.

    From the normal homeless man, woman and child, to the wealthiest of citizens, are responsible for the shape of the Economy in America.

    We only have ourselves as citizens, to place the blame on and not the leaders only. Yes, the leaders of our nation, don't appear all that bright. However, they were elected to office by the citizens.

    So, yet again, if the representatives who are elected are not doing their job, then it falls on to the citizens, who apparently didn't use due diligence in the efforts to find a good candidate.

    Then again, corruption from business probably isn't helping. Greed is a corruptible power, it can manipulate people to sway from morality. So, integrity is thrown to the wind in favor of selfishness.

    Just a thought. smile

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "From the normal homeless man, woman and child"

      Are homeless men, women, and children 'normal'?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They may not be "normal," but there seem to be more of them lately.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Any data on that?

          1. itakins profile image77
            itakinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            43 million homeless in the USA

  7. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    Yeah, spending one's way out of debt always works smile

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You and several other hubbers need to read up on John Maynard Keynes or Paul Krugman or almost any contemporary middle-of-the road economist. Ignorance of economics is rife in the land. The analogy of personal finance, spending and debt only applies to the U.S. economy in the long run. We aren't spending ourselves out of debt; we are spending ourselves out of a deep recession. The only argument among economists is how much do we need to spend and how should we spend it.

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Keynes was an elitist snob with delusions of grandeur. ALL of his hot air had to with corporations and how they should "control" the economy for everyone else. And here I thought democrats hated big evil corporations. My bad . . .

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Keynes was genius. He is one of the fathers of modern economics as taught in just about every university economics department in the world.

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, so that's why everything is a mess all over the world.

          2. myClone profile image60
            myCloneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I thought Adam Smith was the father of economics?  Oh yeah--you said "modern" economics-fine then. Well, he may have been a genius, but personally, I think Milton Friedman was more of a genius in terms of modern economics.  Keynes was a elitist snob (thanks Madame X!) and just because his economic model is what our country has unfortunately aspired to be doesn't mean its the correct way to be.  Keynes was an advocate of regulated capitalism, not free market capitalism which I believe our founding fathers envisioned and wanted for our country. Where are the good monetarists like Uncle Miltie when you need 'em?

        2. profile image0
          chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          He and anyone breathing has a better handle on economics that the gullible dupes who bought into "trickle down economices", "a thousand points of light" (in our pockets), and spend but don't tax, you know, like the Republicans traditionally do.  What part of "you can't bring down the deficit by reducing taxes" do you not get?  As Deeds said, Obama had to get money back into circulation;  those getting the money, including those who have lost their jobs, will circulate the money at the rate that big moneyed individuals cannot.  If you listen to anything but Fox News, you will note that the Chinese got back on their feet almost immediately by following the Keynesian economic model.  Oh, and how does Obama bear any blame in your losing your oil field job in Colorado?  Why not blame it on the oil companies who scrape off their own huge profits before they reinvest in their own businesses?  Many people have been laid off because employers want to protect their own big profits.  They just turn the few they still do employ into slave laborers who cover several jobs and who will take any kind of cut back on their benefits to keep a job.  Oh, and did you not get the memo that the stimulous package covered an extention to unemployement funding, which were fading at the speed of light?

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The part about putting more money into the hands of consumers to spend, and therefore grease the wheels of commerce, as you state below.



            "big moneyed individuals cannot"

            So, who was it that got the bailout money again?



            The Chinese have never been "on their feet" economically - unless, of course, you're referring to the few at the top of a tyrannical government and those they choose to include in their profits.

            1. profile image0
              chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You are absolutely right that they do not have a middle class yet, but it is building.  Except for the drag of other economies, they, as a nation, are in the black again.  Isn't it ironic that the socialist/communists nations which dabble in capitalism do it so much better than we capitalist nations.  Food for thought.

          2. myClone profile image60
            myCloneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Lets not forget also that following ANY kind of economic model, and its subsequent success or failure has more to do about the economic situation and economic system in place at the time the crisis occurs.  I think what has gone wrong in this country is that we have become enslaved to our economic system, and let the federal government and the federal reserve dictate to us, the people, what we can and cannot do with our money.  Additionally, historically, you will be hard pressed to find an economic solution to recession that includes a tax increase AND an increase in government spending.   Food for thought.

  8. Arthur Fontes profile image86
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    For over a year now the Democrats have controlled Congress and the White House.
    There was no reason to get the other parties approval they did not need them.
    They could have accomplished anything they wanted.  "Party of No"'s approval was unnecessary and is a propaganda campaign to scapegoat the opposing party into accepting the blame for the Democrats ineptitude to accomplish anything worthwhile under their regime.
    The Republicans have also failed to insure the peoples security.

    The fact is the American people have become enslaved into a mounting income garnishment coupled with an accelerated rate of inflation while bankers are reaping the lionshare of profits.

    We are to blame and until we are willing to take responsibility for our own welfare we will continue to be oppressed. The currency is ours not some omnipotent world bankers and its time we take it back and guarantee it with solid assets.

  9. aware profile image71
    awareposted 7 years ago

    blame is ours not one mans  .

  10. IntimatEvolution profile image80
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    Bush had morals?  Not three words I thought I would ever see in one sentence, let alone together.

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And how do you feel about people who would villify Obama because they don't like his politics?

  11. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    I've seen 'em lotsa times.
    People just want to overlook the fact.

  12. myClone profile image60
    myCloneposted 7 years ago

    The President of the United States has supreme authority over determining fiscal policy for which all the Federal banks must abide by.  This authority is in the election (or retention) of 12 Federal Reserve Board of Governors and these governors make up in part, the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC).  These individuals in turn develop the fiscal policy (either increase federal spending, increase taxes, decrease taxes, and decrease federal spending--or a combination of any of these).  This "mixture" of policy in turn influences the Gross Domestic Product via aggregate demand and aggregate supply.  When aggregate demand and aggregate supply curves slope upward and shift right, our economy is in good shape.  However, in a recession, the curve slope shifts to the left.  This corresponds to less spending, less demand, and therefore, contracted supply. Contracted supply leads to higher production costs, which are then passed down to the consumer.  In some cases, this can cause cost-push inflation.

    As you can see, these actions have a "trickle down effect" to individual consumers, private lenders, and so forth.  Hence is why it is often very difficult to have foresight over when a country is really heading into a recession, and being able to curb its effects in a timely matter.

    The current economic crisis is the result of a combination of policies and circumstances that compounded, and as a result, created the deepest recession we have seen since the mid 70s.  First and foremost, the housing market crisis is the direct result of loosening restrictions on lenders via the repeal of the Glass-Steagell Act of 1933 (in 1999)  and its "replacement" the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.  Note the names of the latter act, and the fact that these guys were GOP.  However, it was President Clinton who willingly signed this legislation into law.  He had ultimate authority over saying whether or not this would be a good idea or not.

    Obama actually cited this as one of the causes of the financial meltdown, and he is correct.

    However, Obama is currently guilty of perpetuating the problem by adopting an expansionary fiscal policy that promotes excessive government spending AND an increase in taxes...both of which are contradictory to what most economists believe is the "best" recipe for recovery from a major recession.

    So who is to blame?  It is most certainly not the people.  People (consumers) respond to the market effects of supply and demand and this is the direct result of federal fiscal policies, legislation, and rules which are passed to the lenders.

    Is Obama to blame?  Not entirely.  The past 3 presidents have done their share of pulling us into this current crisis.  It would be unfair and incorrect to place blame on any single individual.

    Sources:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In … risis.aspx
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
    Economics by McConnell and Brue, 17th Edition, ISBN 0073126632
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/012005.asp

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Great post! Too bad the socialist democrats here won't bother to read it... besides there's no room here for them to insert their socialist agenda. The current collapse is the result of government interference in free markets through progressive regulation designed to "help" those "less fortunate" as well as ending certain banking regulations.
      Bush made a mess of things with his foolish spending, but Obama is already spending double what Bush did and he is only in office one year!

      1. profile image0
        chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you even know what a socialist is?  You guys throw that term around like some sort of mantra.  Did you know that there are many iterations of socialism?  Chuches, for instance?  The fact is that there is only one avowed socialist in congress, Bernie Sanders, and he is one of the lights of the joint.  He has consistently taken up for the people, and he is a real statesman rather than a political hack who slips around surfing polls.  Did you also know that the Scandinavian countries are socialistic democracies which, by the way, have a very low to nil poverty rate, a huge educated middle class, and one of the best life styles in EU?  They are quite financially solvent, thank you very much. The Democratic Party, yes, we need an adjective there, is made up of liberals, progressives, conservatives (bad dogs), and independents.  They are slower to respond because they are more democratic in their make up and less homogenous than the Republicans.  I am a progressive who believes that a democracy cannot survive as a democracy without a large, economically sound, and educated middle class. (We need to know how to vote our best interests and understand the difference between propaganda and facts).

        1. myClone profile image60
          myCloneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Awesome.  Well I could tell you were progressive from your first post.  People of moderate backgrounds can smell your utopian scent hundreds of miles away.  smile

          I have been to Norway, Finland, and Sweden.  I do indeed know these countries are social democratic.    I also had to PAY MONEY to go use the bathroom at the airport and the train station.  And frankly, the bathroom wasn't all that clean, so I think the money was going to the woman who was sitting in the bathroom WITH ME, listening to me urinate.  Wow, so that's what social democracies are like eh?  So of course they have zero unemployment and poverty!  First of all, they don't have as many people as we do!  Second, they do have a poverty/homelessness problem, but like in this country, it is widely ignored and craftfully hidden from view.   Third, in this country, you are expected to produce to earn money, not sit on your butt and listen to people urinate.  Fourth, being employed in a privilege in this country, not a right.  So I suggest, if you really loath this concept and believe that humans have a right to earn money regardless of their abilities, education, and skills, then move back to the land your ancestors most likely came from.   I lived in Ukraine for 3 weeks.   I waited in line at the crack of dawn for 4 HOURS in what I guess you could call a breadline, although I think I ended up getting some rancid chicken (I was quite ill the entire time I was there), a pint of sour cream, a loaf of bread, and 3 cucumbers.    The currency was so deflated, it took 400 Hryvnia to purchase one ice cream cone... that equates to less than a US penny on the US dollar.


          So, while I admire your progressive spunk, don't go there with me because I have seen it with my own two eyes, and personally, I kissed the ground when I arrived back home both times.  If you think your political ideology is great, go to a country where its being practice for real and live it and breath it and then, if you like it so much, come back here and tell me all about it, but as far as this country is concerned, we live in what is supposed to be and what was intended to be a NON-progressive political and economic system. 

          Oh, and about an educated middle class--I hate to inform you of this, because of your holier-than-though progressive ideals, but the truth is, most of middle class folks ARE educated!  Lol.  Its just that they aren't educated to vote the way you think they should vote.  Moderates rule, progressives drool.

          1. profile image0
            chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Turdblossom! You are good at it.  Very condescending.I, too, have traveled all over the world.  At one time I would have said we have an educated middle class.  That was before the last eight years when anti-intellectualism became the norm, and people who actually spent their lives trying to learn and to be good at their jobs became a conservo joke.  Now any fruitcake who sees snow and attacks Gore for pointing out what scientists, you know, ignorant intellectuals (oxymoron) have reported to us gets more respect than the people who actually did the researach.    Now, we depend on "common sense" (read that going back 100 years to the good old days when civil rights were just a glimmer in our progressive eyes, the Middle Class had two cents to rub together,  and voters were white, male, landowners only).  Those are your "good-old'days."  I believed we were educated  before the Holocaust deniers, the birthers, the deathers, the climate change deniers, the corporations-are-people days. That was before Regan enstated his "trickle down economics" which  began the country's death dance with penury, and the GOPs beloved rich redistributed wealth  from the Middle Class to the wealthy.  That was before Carl Rove, Turdblossom, added spin to our language--read that lying, cheating, war mongering, torturing people became a moral mandate and  invading another country without provocation was understood to be anything but murder.You never saw a war you didn't like because you are cowards.  You are afraid of facing the world unarmed and without healthy young people standing between you and someone who could hurt you, never mind how many others' lives you have ruined in the process.  Europeans take a terrorist attack, clean up after, and get on with it.  Americans whine about it and cringe for years afterward.  I believed in an educated Middle Class before the religious "right" began to assert their right to do whatever-in-the hell they wanted but who believed in their absolute right to dictate to everyone else what their rights would and would not be henceforth.  And you lot, you self- righteous conservo twits, were gullible enough to keep the crap going. You have not, and never will accept responsibility for your abject stupidity; you are proud of being dupes and serving your rich masters.  You made the mess, and you have done everything you can to keep the current administration from having any success in cleaning it up because that would show you up.  You would rather have America fail  than 1) admit Obama whipped your asses, and 2) you messed this country up with your backward, regressive, stupidity.  And as for working, I worked two jobs to build a pension IRA, and it took your economics one year to reduce it by 2/3rds, thank you so much for that!

  13. Flightkeeper profile image72
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Barack_Obama_with_Superman_cropped.jpg

    All he really wanted to be was Superman not president. lol

  14. brimancandy profile image80
    brimancandyposted 7 years ago

    If you ask me, all of this started with Ronald Reagan. Our economy wasn't the greatest under Carter, but, at least he tried to get things under control, and then Reagan came along and spent trillions of dollars on worthless defense projects, and, Pork projects multiplied tenfold.

    When Bush senior became president, he basically continued doing what Reagan started. A kind of Gung-ho approach to Government. A like it or not approach. Why people liked Reagan is beyond me. he was nothing more than a puppet, always having to re-tract comments, and attempting to approve projects that anyone else would find pointless. It was so obvious that he was scripted years later, that it is actually kind of scary.

    Clinton came along and did things that no other President did. He met with middle east leaders and made attempt at making peace, while Reagan and Bush pushed wars. He also was the first President in a long time to substantially reduce our debt, and put out a balanced budget. While the republicans did everything they could to blacklist him, as a corrupt adulterer, because they were getting their asses kicked.

    Then along Comes Bush Junior, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. The economy tanks, we're back fighting daddies wars, and, people are not at all happy with this guy who sued his way into office. And, people want to blame Obama for all this? Do they even pay attention? or have they have just been blind and deaf for eight years.

    Obama walked into a huge mess, if the past presidents couldn't get their shit together, what makes people believe that he should? But, I will say one thing about Obama, he is trying.
    The republicans are blocking everything he is trying to do, the same as they did to Clinton. If anyone can't see that, it is because they don't want to.

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "Our economy wasn't the greatest under Carter"

      Wasn't the greatest?! Have you forgotten what it was like? That's like saying Kirstie Alley isn't the slimmest gal at the party!

      "Reagan came along and spent trillions of dollars on worthless defense projects"

      Worthless?! Those projects played a very large role in bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War!


      "Clinton came along and did things that no other President did"

      Oh other presidents had done those things, they just had much better taste in women!

      "
      Then along Comes Bush Junior, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. "

      And prevents another terrorist attack on our home soil.


      "Obama walked into a huge mess"

      Every president faces on-going challenges as he comes into office and every president blames the one before, but at some point a leader has to take responsibility. Still waiting for that to happen.

      1. profile image0
        chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The point is that under every Democrat, the country has ended with a surplus, and under every Republican, Reagan and Bush were the worst, we ended up with huge deficits.  Why do you Republicans have such a problem with the truth?

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No surplus when there is a debt! Why can't you people understand that?

  15. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Same ol' whining about how Obama supposedly "inherited" a mess.

    The man's a fool and a manipulator.

    I'd LOVE to see or hear something good he's said or done.

    I can think of only one thing, and that's a stretch to even be able to compliment him on that---

    He said (or his speechwriters said! LOL)----

    "We are willing to lend a hand if you're willing to unclench your fists". 

    In reference to foreign nations, I assume it was.


    But indeed his stances have, so far, gone along the line of

    "I'll cater to your aggression and hatred 'cause I'm sooooo wise and tolerant, and to hell with American sovreignty and patriotism".

    1. profile image0
      chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No that would be Bush.  What your persuasion does is called projection.  It's a Freudian thing.  You project your own worst fears, and there are a lot of them for you, and your sins on everyone with whom you do not agree.

    2. laurana1 profile image58
      laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Are you serious???

      I'll admit I haven't been thrilled with what Obama's done in the last year, but that's because he's been blocked at every turn- Republicans are making sure of that. It's like using someone else's arm to hit them in the face and then saying "Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself???" How can you say he's done nothing good when it's your party that's stopping him from doing so???

      Not only that, but I suppose it doesn't matter to you that he has greatly improved the rest of the world's view of our country. My family's from Texas and I've been raised in America since I was two, but I have friends from lots of other countries. My friend from Singapore has said that their view of America has done a complete 180 from how it was before, and they now respect us again. My roomate studied in England last semester and all of her friends over there have said the same thing. He's not being ANTI-AMERICAN, he's being RESPECTFUL to other countries and their cultures. We are all a part of this beautiful planet, so it's time we grow up and start acting like it. Believe it or not, America ISN'T the center of the universe.

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Obama has not needed one republican vote to accomplish anything.  The democrats has had a year to pass any legislation they wanted to.  If they did not do it it is because of their own incompetence.  Blaming the republicans is a futile attempt to form a scapegoat instead of accepting responsibility.

        It does not matter what the rest of the world thinks of Barry as of now they are not eligible to vote in OUR elections.  Irrelevant!!!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Do you support any of the things Obama has been proposing? It seems a bit cynical to criticize him for not accomplishing things that you are opposed to. Are you one of those people who whines because Obama hasn't been more successful in reducing unemployment and in the same breath calls his recovery program socialism?

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
            Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I support the capital gains cuts for small business that he proposed in the state of the union speech though I doubt it has any real priorities to him.

            I am not criticizing him for not accomplishing anything of worth during the past year.  I am simply stating that blaming republicans for blocking legislation is just plain silly.

            Not one republican vote was needed and the democrats could have passed anything they wanted but failed to do.

            I am content that his agenda was a failure that's right I said it "I am happy he failed!!"

            I disagreed with Bill Clinton but I admire him for signing some great legislation during his term.  True American Bipartisanship.

            I do hope Obama moves to the middle like the majority of the country.  I hope he works with both sides to accomplish great things before his term is over.

            Anything that interferes with states rights is a no go in my book.  I am not happy when the state sticks its nose in my cities business.

            The entire Government is flawed across the board on both sides.  I would be happy to replace them all.....

            Scott Brown 2012

            ps:  Reid is not looking too good in the polls Ralph!

            1. laurana1 profile image58
              laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Is that what this country should come to, that everything is partisan? President Obama has been appealing to both sides, yet only one side seems to be showing any response. I can't believe you are such an advocate for voting based on party lines... People should be voting based on whether or not they agree with the legislation, not based on political affliation. Because Republicans currently in office have been so stubborn and uncooperative as a whole, every single Democrat's vote would have been necessary to get anything passed. Our government has become a place for partisan bickering, and that is why nothing is getting done. It is certainly not for a lack of effort on President Obama's part.

              And if you truly think the rest of the world's view of our country is "irrelevant", then I suggest you think again. International Relations is very important to this country.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Wow! My Representative BETTER vote the WAY I WANT HIM TO VOTE, If he has opinions of his own then good for him, but when he votes he votes the way I want him too.

                A majority of people who think like me elected him to represent us, we do not want him voting with the other side!

                1. laurana1 profile image58
                  laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  My point os that their unwillingness to cooperate is what is keeping President Obama from moving forward. You think that is a good thing, and I respect your opinion! But you can't blame him for not getting anything done why simultaneously supporting those who are preventing him from getting anything done. Choose your position,

                  1. laurana1 profile image58
                    laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Grr, typos. >_<

                    *My point is
                    *for not getting anything done while

                  2. Arthur Fontes profile image86
                    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps the choice is not to follow somone over a cliff.

                  3. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't want him to get anything done, never said I did! The only thing I want done is his sham of a Presidency!

      2. Sab Oh profile image57
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "Not only that, but I suppose it doesn't matter to you that he has greatly improved the rest of the world's view of our country"

        No, it doesn't matter to me. Certainly nowhere near any of the serious issues facing our nation.

        1. laurana1 profile image58
          laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          9/11 was caused by extremists who were angry with America because we were interfering in their country. It is possible that if we took a different approach, 9/11 might not have even happened. Almost 3,000 deaths in the attacks might not have happened. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lives that were taken in the War in Iraq might have been spared, not to mention countless people who have been injured. Billions of dollars, possibly even trillions, could have been saved, which would at least help with our National Debt crisis.

          This is just one of many examples of how important good International Relations are to our country. I'm sorry that those hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars that have been lost are not "serious issues" in your mind.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Did Spain invade Iraq? They have been the victim of Muslim extremists several times, your theory is flawed...at best!

            1. laurana1 profile image58
              laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You seem to be missing my point. My point is that International Relations ARE a "serious issue" for our country. We can't go around stomping on everyone else like we have been. We have to try and work together. I never said that anything would definitely be different, just that it's a possibility. Are our relations with the rest of the world really so unimportant to you?

              1. Sab Oh profile image57
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Complete and total outrage of apologist excuse-making to suggest in any way that we were to 'blame' for the cowardly terrorist attack of 9/11. Nations have been interacting, trading, negotiating, and seeking advantage in the global arena for centuries and there is NO reasonable justification for responding to one's own failures of culture, strength, and economy by deliberately and purposefully targeting civilians in such a manner. Those flea-bitten mongrels did not even represent an aggrieved nation or people (or faith) but rather a radical fringe element of nihilistic cowards who would lash out at the world in frustration at their own impotence. It's not a matter of "interference" or "unfairness" but merely simple-minded, suicidal children who would not only overturn the board because they can't win - they would attempt to murder anyone who is winning. It is indefensible on any level and has brought shame to millions of people not deserving of sharing their ignonimity.

                1. laurana1 profile image58
                  laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  *Sigh* I think I must have phrased it badly, because you misinterpreted my meaning... No, 9/11 was not America's fault. In no way do I believe that. It was a national tragedy, which led to an international tragedy, and the ones to blame are indeed thos that you say- the extremists who took those many lives on that fateful day.

                  As you said, such extremists come from all countries, all cultures, and in support of various "causes".

                  I do not mean to blame our country or any of our people. The only ones to blame are the terrorists, I would like to make that clear. I suppose my point is more that it could have been prevented. I'll use an analogy to illustrate my point.

                  Say there is a mentally unstable student in college. He feels alone and misunderstood, so one morning, he takes a gun and kills three of classmates, wounds others, and then takes his own life. Whose fault was it that those people died? It was his. It was his decision to take their lives, his finger that pulled the trigger. There is no one else to blame. Their deaths were his fault, and I'm not disputing that.

                  But now let's say that there may have been a way to prevent such a tragedy. Perhaps if his fellow students had been more welcoming, more understanding, he wouldn't have felt the need to go to such extremes. Perhaps a better counseling program would have turned things around. Maybe the attack was brought on when a group of his classmates made fun of him or said horrible, nasty things.

                  Was it the others students' fault that those people died? No. Was it the school's counseling department's fault? No. Should we blame those that made fun of him? No. At the end of the day, it was still his choice. He was the one to take those lives. In this same way, it is by no stretch of the imagination "our fault". The only ones to blame are those who chose to take the lives of others.

                  But at the same time, shouldn't we look for ways to avoid or reduce such tragedies? While it is most definitely not our fault, had we taken a different approach, there is a possibility that such a travesty would never have come to pass.

                  I do hope you don't think I'm attacking you, because I'm not. Our opinions are probably closer than we think... And I do hope we can at least find some points upon which we both agree.

                  Thank you. I really do mean that... thank you.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              One of the big issues fueling Al Qaida against western democracies is their resentment of support for Israel on issues involving its conclict with Palestine.

      3. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How exactly are the Republicans stopping Obama from his agenda?

        1. laurana1 profile image58
          laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Republicans in office have repeatedly shown that they refuse to cooperate with President Obama and the left. It is worse than it has ever been before, with no efforts to reach a common ground, despite the numerous attempts our President has made. I, for one, don't believe this is how the Founding Fathers intended our government to work. They believed in the two-party system, in the hopes that both sides would balance each other out, not stubbornly refuse any and every suggestion that was not their own based on sheer principle.  Although partisanship is running rampant on both sides, with no signs of stopping, I have seen it the most with Republicans.

          They're acting like a little kid who doesn't want to go somewhere- they simply go limp and are now dead weight, making it so much more difficult to move anywhere.

          If you'd like specific examples of how Republicans have been hindering President Obama's attempts, I'd be happy to provide you with many... Just let me know!

          Oh, and where in Texas are you from, btw? My family is from Dallas, and my siblings were born in College Station and Waco. smile

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry about your College Station siblings luck.

            You cannot provide evidence of Republicans obstructions, but I can provide proof that they can't obstruct anything! Remember that stimulus bill? Not a single Republican in the house voted for it and yet it passed! How? THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS! Republicans can't prevent a damn thing the Dems want to do, now provide proof that they can.

            Beginning to see how it works?

            1. laurana1 profile image58
              laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Not ALL Democrats are siding with the left on every issue. However, ALL Republicans ARE siding with the right on every issue. Just because they passed the stimulus bill doesn't mean every piece of legislation is that easy.

              But maybe you didn't know that officials aren't required to vote with their party in every case?

              Very well.

              http://ca.entertainment.yahoo.com/s/cap … gridlock_1 
              The 41st Republican elected to the Senate now gives Republicans the power to block ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THEY WANT.

              http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/15/oba … s-delayed/
              An article on how Senate Republicans have repeatedly blocked President Obama's nominees, which is in turn delaying his legislation.

              http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … NIiPBaLGcw
              Blocking

              http://www.rollcall.com/news/36303-1.html
              More blocking

              http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/16/san … struction/
              Attempt to delay

  16. manlypoetryman profile image67
    manlypoetrymanposted 7 years ago

    Meanwhile...while politicians play the "blame-game"...life is still going on at 100 mph. "Hey...Get off your fat rear ends...and start doing something about the mess...instead of whining! Last time I checked...You spent millions of dollars...and traveled millions of miles...and got millions of supporters...so that you could be...right exactly where you're at! Now...do something with it...for Pete's sake...and by all that is holy...GEEEZ!

    1. TamCor profile image80
      TamCorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      AMEN!

      Or, if you're not a believer....DITTO!

      smile


      Tammy

    2. myClone profile image60
      myCloneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Love it!  Thank you for this!

  17. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    I don't know that there are all sorts of morals myClone. Everybody knows when something is right or wrong - and it's not a set list either. When you get subtle about it something may be right in one situation and wrong in another and the situation has to dictate which is which.

    But did that apply to Hitler? Well, let's see. . . .

    he thought murder was ok - 30 million dead in death camps
    he thought rape was ok - the nazis set up brothels for themselves with female prisoners
    he thought theft was ok - the nazis stole countless works of art from other countries
    he thought torture was ok - just for the sadistic pleasure of it
    he thought medical experimentation on healthy people was ok - Josef Mengele
    he thought lying was ok - he blustered his way into Poland and took over the govt with a lie about his troop strength

    Hmmm, what's left?

    My conclusion is no, he didn't have any.

    But I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject smile

    1. myClone profile image60
      myCloneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Umm--Madame X, did you READ my post? smile  I did not discount the fact that he was immoral, but to say he's immoral would be to admit he does have morals of some sort, and whether these are "proper" morals based upon what you believe is right or wrong.  I personally believe whole-heartedly that Hitler had morals, but of the wrong kind-- the way way way wrong kind...for all the reasons you state above.  He was not a good man in any sense of the word.  But I cannot discount that he had morals, good or bad.

      Like I said before, its a very philosophical debate and it boils down to whether or not you believe that there is only one true form of morality to base people's actions on.  I take on the dualistic approach that just as though there is good and bad/evil; light and dark, there is also good morality and bad (im)morality.  You cannot have just one type of morality, for to apply a set of ethical traits to one side, you must also have an antithesis or opposite set of ethical traits.

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I did read your post. I guess I don't agree that an antithesis of morality is still morality. It is the absence of morality. Everything is not equal and yes, there is a right and a wrong which is not based on opinion. For example, the list I posted about Hitler. Neither of us has any disagreement that those things are wrong. So you could say we have the same morals. But yeah, the subject is way deeper, and a different discussion from the OP smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh - you said "Hitler" - odd - I read "Catholic Church."

          I did love the way Christians stepped in en masse and stopped Hitler before he even got going though. The Catholic Church risked everything to stop him and never got in bed with Mussolini either. wink

          Wonderful...... Some morality there for sure.

          Dear me.......... Morals. I wonder if you even know what the word means?

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Do you have a single gracious bone in your body?

            Or do you even know what the word means?

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            "If fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

            [Variously attributed to Sinclair Lewis and Huey Long. Apparently it's not entirely clear who said it.]

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I'm gonna start blaming you Ralph!

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Be my guest, Tex.

                1. mod2vint profile image60
                  mod2vintposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL

  18. profile image0
    LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago

    I don't see why people blame the presidents for things that are clearly in the control and blame of congress. And I'd even go so far as to say that it is ultimately the blame of the people for electing the politicians into office.

    1. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I meant  to write "ultimately the fault of the people"

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That's part of the president's job - to take the heat. Besides, if he doesn't like what congress is doing, he certainly hasn't spoken out about it. So the only conclusion is that he agrees with them.

        So yeah, he's to blame.

        1. profile image0
          chasingcarsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The presidency is one part of a three part government, and the parts are supposed to balance one another out.   He is not a king, though Bush and company tried to slip that one by us when we weren't looking.  His only influence over congress (which is supposed to represent we the people) is as his party's leader.  He should take the heat for what he does, just like the Repulicans and Bush should take the heat for what they have done.  Teflon seems to be the chemical of choice for the GOPS and the conservatives.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            lol

  19. Eaglekiwi profile image73
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Blame it on ... midnight  wink

  20. Arthur Fontes profile image86
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    And if you truly think the rest of the world's view of our country is "irrelevant", then I suggest you think again. International Relations is very important to this country.
    laurana1

    It is irrelevant when it concerns internal politics.


    For example:
    There was several proposals for health care on the table but Pelosi acted like a dictator and literally locked the door on discussions.  This was no fault of the presidents but was definitely a one sided conversation in the house due to Nazi Pelosi.

    I would hope that our representatives vote what is in the best interest of the American people and the country as a whole.

    Negotiations cannot be a one sided conversation.  I would like to see all discussions in congress (except for national security issues) broadcast on cspan so we can see who and what is being said by our reps.

    The populace needs to educate themselves so we can take some kind of control of this country back to the people.  We need to monitor and discuss things to make sure our government is working for the peoples interest not that of bankers or corporations.

    This has nothing to do with right or left it has to do with right and wrong!

    1. laurana1 profile image58
      laurana1posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oops, I didn't even see this until just now! *Fail*

      Okay, my response... I completely agree with you.
      I have no comment on Pelosi (because I hardly know a thing about her). I don't trust her, I don't support her, I don't hate her, I'm indifferent. So I'll take your word for it... And if it is true that she shut out all reasonable dicussion of healthcare, then I agree with you 100%. We need to be working together during these difficult times.

      Absolutely agree with you here, as well. Voting should be based on the issues themselves and not partisan politics. It is this reason I am having particular issues with elected Republicans, but many Democrats are just as bad. Both sides are to blame.

      I couldn't agree more. We cannot simply say "it's my way or the highway" and expect everyone to agree. Concessions must be made. I personally believe President Obama has made a great effort to reach out to Republicans, but so far, they have refused to budge from their original stance. Many Democrats are not helping either. At this point, both sides must be willing to come together for the good of our country. I have no idea about seeing things on C-Span, as I already see many discussions being aired on television, but they're extremely boring to watch and people are just arguing with one another using fancy words rather than discussing actual solutions.

      Once again, I completely agree. Elites have run this country for far too long, and the government has simply turned a blind eye while simultaneously enabling them to do so. Our government needs a complete overhaul and honestly, the only person I trust at this moment is President Obama. Unfortunately, all of his efforts seem to be in vain...

      Absolutely! Our politics should not run based on party, they should run on POLICY.

      I agree with you on everything you said.

      Oh, the only thing I would say is that you're right- International Relations doesn't have to do with internal politics (in general). However, our President is responsible for much more than internal politics.

      The main poster said President Obama has done nothing, I said that one thing he has done was to improve our relations with other countries. My point was not irrelevant based on the context in which I made it.

  21. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago

    I think Immoral would be the absence of morals, when one decides to do the immoral thing that does not make the act somehow moral.

    Did that make sense?

  22. Niteriter profile image77
    Niteriterposted 7 years ago

    The real question, Tex, is how did you manage to reverse the aging process?

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I post old pictures

      1. Niteriter profile image77
        Niteriterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think you could shoplift a couple for me?

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Nope

          1. Niteriter profile image77
            Niteriterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Why not? I won't snitch.

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You just did

              1. Niteriter profile image77
                Niteriterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I think I meant Photoshop. I have trouble with words... which is why I want to be a writer.

  23. Niteriter profile image77
    Niteriterposted 7 years ago

    Tex doesn't need a reason; he just likes to disagree. President Obama is still trying (in vain) to fulfill his commitment to bipartisanship.

  24. Niteriter profile image77
    Niteriterposted 7 years ago

    Sab Oh, I don't think anyone applauds the perpetrators of 9/11 but maybe you could ease up on the cavalier attitude toward America's disregard for the cultural values of other countries from time to time.

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No such disregard exists.

  25. Arthur Fontes profile image86
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    lauranai

    What relations has Obama improved?  What great foreign relations accomplishment is there.  Not Iran surely!

    I know he received a nobel peace prize but I still have no idea why.

    Maybe it was the way he gave the Dalai Lama the bums rush through the basement.

    All bullys like appeasers as they are more likely to give up their lunch money.

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "Maybe it was the way he gave the Dalai Lama the bums rush through the basement"


      That was real classy, wan't it? Make a great spiritual figure sneak out by the trash exit.

      What a great leader we've got on our hands.

  26. mod2vint profile image60
    mod2vintposted 7 years ago

    You can't blame anyone person, corporate America, the banks, secondary lenders, the general public trying to live beyond their means, the credit card companies are all to blame. The list can go on and on. It will take more than one man to fix this country (if its fixable) It will take us all.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      True. There's plenty of blame to go around.

      1. ledefensetech profile image70
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Still at it I see, Ralph.  Now trying to spread the blame around.  Just admit that all of our problems had their genesis in governmental action.  Sure corporations have to shoulder some of the blame, but were it not for things like the Fed, the CRA and immoral politicians race-baiting for votes, we'd not be in the mess we're in today.

        1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
          Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What does CRA stand for?

  27. ledefensetech profile image70
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Community Reinvestment Act.  It basically forces banks to make loans to people based on color of skin even if they can't afford the loan.  Banks can get around that by, get this, donating money to "community organizers".  If this were tried in the private sector, the media would be all over it.  Oh wait, it is done in they private sector, they're called the Mafia.

    It's not hard to see how this was the genesis of subprime mortgages.  The reason banks made so many of them was because it was understood that Fannie and Freddie, look more government agencies, would stand surety for those loans.  That is what allowed banks to shift their losses onto the American taxpayer.  Not a bad deal for the banks even if they were forced to give money to groups like ACORN. 

    So, in fact, the irresponsible lending that lead to the housing meltdown was a product of government intervention in the economy.

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image86
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I know the Community Reinvestment Act. Wasnt sure by CRA but one of the reps from my state pushed through that legislation.

      Bawney Fwank

      1. Sab Oh profile image57
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yet another great moment in social engineering...

  28. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    "You're doing basically the same thing.  I don't blame Obama or Bush.  I blame Congress.  Guess who's been controlling Congress with a majority since the start of 2007?  Democrats and not just Democrats, Liberal Democrats.  When things go south suddenly they didn't have anything to do with it?"


    So, you don't blame Congress, actually, just "liberal Democrats".

    If one is looking to 2007 to judge the actions of legislature, one is missing the boat...five plus years of war later....after the housing schemes pushed and pushed by Bush, and passed by the Republican, conservative, legislature.....what were we left with?

    Let us not forget, it was a conservative Republican legislature that enabled both the deregulation of the banking industry, as well as the creation of the housing bubble...with good ol Trent Lott and Dick Armey as their leadership...

    1. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Let us not forget Rep. Fwank and the boys who were all too happy to promote an environment where lenders were all but required to give mortgages to people who no sane person could believe would honor them, as part of a great social engineering scheme that played a great role in creating the conditions that led to the housing crisis.

      Too much 'regulating' rather than not enough.

  29. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    Does Alan Greenspan fit into this blame game in any way? Just a thought a simple question. Wall Street can work itself out, no regulation needed. I think he did make an apology of sorts to Congress. Some of his former underlings are now in the cat bird seat.

 
working