Let's just say that it got bad enough the American public revolted against it that 2004.

Certainly gridlock had a HUGE impact on maintain a balanced budget.

IAS, were those the years you were in lockup or something? There may have been a revolt around the health plan, not really on cost but more on the fear of losing control of doctor selection and whatnot. But Clinton worked as much with Congressional Republicans - NAFTA, balancing the budget, etc - than any President worked with the opposition in Congress in decades before or since.

Republicans have been screaming "tax and spend" for decades. Personally I think a lot of it is just dog-whistles to the Right to remind them that New Deal/Great Society programs really led to a lot of advancement for women and minorities. Yes, those plans cost money, but then again so does invading a foreign country or building a useless space-based weapons program. The main goal of Republicans for decades - besides the chrisianization of the world - has been to dismantle pretty much all progressive policy from the last 100 years. From trust busting through regulation to Medicare, Republicans want it gone. They want an 1880s social and economic environment, plain and simple.

As a moderately well-off white guy, I can say that most of the programs set up over the last hundred years hasn't really been for the benefit of well-off white guys. Most well-off white guys don't want a middle class, they want their shit and plenty of cheap labor to make sure they keep getting their shit with the minimum of cost and effort. Most will never be on welfare or use Medicaid or Medicare, or need Worker's Comp, so they don't give a shit about those programs and would rather keep the money than pay for something they will never use. It's basic greed on economic grounds, and basic fear of losing political control to minorities on social grounds. The rest is really semantics.

I just don't like being told what to do. Both sides have very specific agendas about how they want ME to behave and expect me to work to pay for the agenda that is being imposed on me as well. The left has a morality and code of conduct they believe in and feel they have to impose on everyone just as strongly as the religious right feels.

Whys does either side feel then need to tell me what to do when I am the guy paying the bills and not bothering anyone?

As a moderately well-off white guy who has got where I am from less than nothing, with no ones help and the government actively making things more difficult for me along the way the times I was down, rather than EVER helping in any way shape or form, I can say that unless you are crippled or retarded noone has any excuse for failing in America. Hence my lack of sympathy for losers who have their hands out.

Sancho, as an ex-con, of course you don't like government. Government is what caught you, convicted you and put you in prison. That said, not everyone "with their hands out" is a loser. You use a dozen government programs a day that you probably don't even think about, and someone had to pay for those. Some is more overt - like welfare checks and food stamps. Some is more covert - like tax deductions and insurance subsidies.

Hell, I don't have anything that even resembles a tax deduction so scratch me off that list.

I bet you the dozen government programs I use every day cost a tiny fraction of the overall budget, and the vast majority of the Federal budget goes to stuff that is either of no benefit to me or that is detrimental to me.

Of course, the same goes for everyone. I don't use food stamps or Medicare or Medicaid, nor do I receive crop subsidies. The vast majority of the Federal budget goes to shit other people use, which of course is wrong since you don't use it. At least, that's the Republican mantra, and as I've written, that attitude is basically this: "the stuff I use is important and should be paid for by the government. The stuff I don't use is wasteful and should not be spent".

With an attitude like that, you get what you get in the end. Without government support there would be no Southern California since the earthquakes and wildfires would destroy infrastructure and the local water supplies would only support a small fraction of the current population. But with government, a huge society lives there - because governments taxed the money to build everything and to protect everything.

I don't say there is no role for government. Indeed government has it's place. But HUGE intrusive government that has it's say over every damn thing I do is a problem.

And paying for this HUGE intrusive government on credit with no solid plan or even far out implausible scheme of how we can ever pay for it is unconscionable.

Sancho, are you forced to live in one location? Can you change jobs? Travel when you want? The amount of government intrusion in the US is the lowest of pretty much any industrialized country that I know of.

That's why we are richer than other countries. Yet going forward we are endeavoring to emulate countries that are less successful than us.

Yes, things are so much worse now than they were back in the good ol' days:

In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2% of their income in taxes. By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2% of their income in taxes. Thank Reagan and Bush...

In 1955, the proportion of federal income from corporate taxes was 33%; by 2003, it decreased to 7.4%. Thank Reagan and Bush...

In 2008, the top taxpayers pay the same percentage of their incomes in taxes as those making $50,000 to $75,000, even though they doubled their share of total U.S. income. Thank Reagan and Bush...

Oh, those pesky deficits brought about by reducing the tax burden on the wealthy while actually increasing federal spending and the size of government? Thanks Reagan and Bush...

And another piece of good news: Wealth concentration continues to grow in the US, and we now more closely resemble countries like Brazil and Sierra Leone than we do any western democracies. In that respect, Republican tax policies have allowed the US to not only emulate poor countries, but to exceed them. In 1955, the 400 richest people in the country were worth an average $12.6 million, adjusted for inflation. In 2006, the 400 richest taxpayers increased their average wealth to $263 million. This would be good news if we saw similar growth in wealth in the middle class, but no such luck. The rich have gotten much, much richer, the poor are still are poor, and the working class has seen income and wealth completely stagnate and then decline under Republican policies.

I must say, though, to be fair, Bush did do some cutting of government. He thoroughly gutted many of the regulatory agencies, especially those dealing with the financial and energy sectors. And who benefitted from those actions? Main Street Americans? No. But Bush's wealthy campaign supporters were paid back in spades.

Obama calling the Cambridge Police Department stupid without knowing the facts.....Lets see how this plays out!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly

I think he said the cop acted stupidly in arresting a guy for breaking into his own house. I think that's how it's going to play out.

Screechman,

Why are you wasting your time on trivial issues like this when the real ticking time bomb is whether Obama was born in the US. All of your kook friends are calling for an investigation. Why aren't you on the bandwagon? This is the big one!

Especially since McCain was born in Panama, and I don't recall the Constitution saying that "dependents of naval officers born on foreign bases are considered native-born". In fact, when I was doing all of my DoD work back in the 90s, I remember multiple times people joking that their kids born on-base at the base hospital could never be President. Oh well, he lost. Let's see how far the "Birthers" get.

I'm loving the way the Republican Party just keeps stepping on their own land mines. Tom Coburn doing his Ricky Ricardo impression at the Sotomayor hearings, crap like that. 70% of the country just thinks these guys are fucking crazy, and that's great since they are.

Cat; Your wrong about the dependents being born overseas not being able to run for president. They changed this a while back, so that people like McCain could run for president. Not sure about the details, but they did make the changes.

Well, unless there was a Constitutional Amendment on the subject, there's no way to change it.

The basic fact of the matter though is that Republicans cannot accept that a black guy is President. It makes their blood boil. Another guy not born with a silver spoon in his mouth has worked the system, got into the best schools, got elected and worked their way into the White House. So they yell about birth certificates and crap of that sort. Luckily the vast majority of Americans aren't believing the bullshit, but the picture they try and paint is pure, 100% Republican dogma. Immigrant guy, maybe not a citizen at all, illegal family members, black, he's a socialist/marxist/communist, he's an atheist/muslim/whatever, wants to cut everyone a welfare check, kill white people by destroying their health care.

Basically, all the shit from the last 45 years of domestic social warfare that they're throwing at the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

Shouldn't you guys have saved the race card for something good?

Thank you all for playing it now though, because it has derailed the dialog on health care that was supposed to be the news cycle this weekend.

Catacony. Could you accept that allot of Republicans don’t like Obama’s POLICIES and that if he were white we still would be attacking his policies. You sound like an ignorant moron when you blame all Republicans of being racist because they are opposed to Obama’s policies. May I suggest you are the narrow minded one.

Although Catocony may have overstated the case a bit about it applying to all Republicans, this "birther" movement, which seems to have sucked in more than a fair share of Republicans, really does seem both racist and only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to modern-day Republican "thought."

As to health care, probably the best way to get it passed is unfortunately to do it under cover of night, i.e., without too much media coverage of Republican nut job objections to it, aka Republican office-holder ass licking of their health care industry campaign contributors. So, I don't see saturated media coverage of unrelated issues as necessarily detrimental to passage of a health-care bill.

At least that is my Thai perspective on things.

Reporting from Bangkok,
LAguy

What policies are they against? All of them. What are the Republican alternatives? They don't have any. That's the real problem. Other than cutting taxes, pressing fundamentalist christian bullshit on others and invading foreign countries, Republicans don't really have much of an agenda.

As for the racism, do you think for one minute that they would go after a white person as being "muslim"? That they would be insisting a white person isn't a citizen because one of the parents was a foreigner, or that they lived in a foreign country when they were a kid? Barack's mom had jungle fever, no problem with that. She didn't seem to have much time for white guys in her life, so that's the big strike one. As long as her mixed-race kid doesn't grow up to be President, she's just white trash and no one gives a shit. He does grow up to run/be President and all of this comes out? "He was born in Kenya, he's not a native-born citizen. No, he was born in Hawaii but his father was a foreigner so that's why he's not a native-born citizen". "Wait, he was born a native-born citizen, but then his mother moved to Indonesia and got married and thus he lost his citizenship when the step-dad adopted him". Blah blah blah.

Politics is politics. You guys went after Bush and Palin and Joe the Plumber and every other Republican you can think of with EVERYTHING in the book. No stone unturned. No minor discrepancy to trivial to go after if there was a minor point to be made. Digging up dirt is par for the course in politics today. Fair enough. But then you label folks on the other side as obviously racist when they play the same sorts of games. It's going to get tiresome really quick if you guys are going to cry racism every time someone takes a political shot at your guy. He's president. He is taking allot of controversial positions and pursuing them aggressively. Opponents will attempt to dig up any dirt they can for political gain. Get used to it. It's politics, not racism.

I am sancho-

These liberals complained how stubborn Bush was when he was wrong.....and now Obama is being even more stubborn and is setting back race relations in this country when he fully admits that he made judgment on a situation where he didn't have the facts. Look what a black officer on the scene had to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_arresting_officer;_ylt=AkXHKsGfILhia0amQ5

Just like the Stimulus Bill he signed before he read and had the facts....he is trying to pass Obama Care without the facts.

This Community organizer is trying to shape this country exactly as he did as a community organizer in Chicago....excuse most all bad behavior of black people and justify it on racial profiling!!!!!!

Yes, calling a cop stupid who arrests a man for breaking into his own house is completely equivalent to invading a foreign country under false pretenses. Yep, ya betcha, you stupid fucking Florida retard.

I am Sancho - dick + (- 50 IQ points) = Beachman

The Gates Arrest Fiasco could have been avoided, both individuals could have handled the situation better.

Professor Gates should relax, the officer was investigating a possible home break in. He should be happy that the officer didnt enter the home with his gun drawn and demand the both of them to the floor until he could verify their story!! If Gates wants to be offended, he should save his anger for when he truly has an issue, not this BS!!

The officer was equally wrong. Massachusetts law says that police officers are required by law to give their name and badge number when requested. Officer Crowley did not have the option of saying "no" and walking away from Gates demanded his information. If he had just given his information, then Gates wouldnt have had to follow him outside asking for his ID.

From Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason:

I have to admit it: I didn’t realize the “birther” movement—the nut cases who think that President Obama isn’t an American citizen—was still going strong until both network television and cable news gave these loonies two straight days of coverage. It all began with a woman at a Republican meeting in Delaware waving around her birth certificate, claiming that Obama doesn’t have one, and rousing her fellow idiots to jump to their feet and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I was glad that TV showed this footage, along with a copy of Obama’s birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, because the whole scene was frankly scary—what one imagines a bunch of future Nazis might have looked like in a German beer hall in the 1920s. An official copy of a birth certificate is a fact, not an opinion. In a media environment saturated by opinions presented as facts—and dominated by the false idea that truth always lies halfway between two points—is it possible to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion of any truly controversial public issue?

As the stories went on, audiences were treated to the sight of GOP political analysts claiming that the “birthers” were the equivalent of Democrats who think that George Bush and Dick Cheney are guilty of war crimes. And here’s the problem: none of the millionaire TV pundits pointed out that a birth certificate is evidence, while the accusation that Bush and Cheney are war criminals is a belief and a matter for debate. The inability to distinguish between facts and opinions lies at the heart of this nation’s crisis of reason and knowledge. In my view, the fact that so many Americans—on the fringes of politics or in the middle—are not educated to think logically is the worst problem our country faces.

Sounds like she's talking about Beachman.

Now that IAS has pointed it out, I am feeling really really guilty about going after Joe the Plumber. I wonder whether there is anything I can do to make it up to that foremost Republican thinker.

Incidentally, I have witnessed a couple of really interesting things recently. While flying across the Pacific I saw, using my high powered binoculars, a man swimming in the middle of the ocean. As I focused the lenses, I saw that on his back was a sign that read: "Swimming to Thailand to Monger. Will not use federal programs such as air control, or airline bailouts to assist with the trip. Must swim." I thought that was admirable. Oh, and the message was signed "IAS," whoever that is.

Also, as I was feeding my own consumer demand, I was in BestBuy, when I saw someone (probably the same guy) with an IAS t-shirt on asking the clerk whether they stocked any products that were not in the store as a result of a government program, whether it be use of interstate highways or ports to deliver the goods, stop lights on the local streets, or what have you. The BestBuy guy told him if he really wanted something that did not rely on government programs, he should go out back and eat some dirt. I thought that was really good advice.

As to me, I bought a lot of stuff as us well-off people tend to do, thereby making greater use of these federal resources than do the poor, who cannot afford to buy much and generally do not benefit to as great a degree as well-off people do from the infrastructure and other things the government provides..

(Message edited by LAguy on July 24, 2009)

History is going to show a lot more bad things about the Bush administration than any other to date. How about this one, Cheney wanted to send army troops into Buffalo, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TERROR_DOMESTIC_RAID?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Laguy, I am not for either side, I am for neither side. my point is it doesnt matter which side they are on, not all but the great majority of politicians are scumbags. Each side gets what they want, they just take a different approach to the same end.

Well, I agree even some Democrats can get on my nerves. For example: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/congressman_demands_to_know_who

Skip Gates....another of Obama's tax cheat friends!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/skip_gates_corrects_his_founda.html

This guy knows what he is talking about!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/skip_gates_corrects_his_founda.html

Just How smart is Obama ?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/just_how_smart_is_obama.html

So, are you saying that you don't think that Obama is smart? What is your basis for that?

"I think Cashill's rather convincingly demonstrated his thesis that Obama never authored the two books which are cited as proof that he is some kind of literary genius."

This is the best; a quote criticizing Obama's ability to write and the quote is not even written in correct English.

Well, although he was President of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude, one has to admit he didn't attend something like five colleges/universities in six years, the most prestigious of which was the University of Idaho, as did Beachman's hero Sarah Palin.

Maybe if he had attended Regent University or Patrick Henry College he would be considered to be smart.

Hey Mitch, don't forget Liberty. Virginia is blessed with three fundamentalist madrases. Patrick Henry is probably the worst since it's a college that's for home-schooled Christian kids. It's stated goal is to get graduates employed anywhere on Capitol Hill. It's out in the western part of Loudoun county, about an hour outside DC.

Liberty is Jerry Falwell's madras down in Lynchburg, there most recent act of academic achievement was to ban the Young Democrats this past spring. That's also where they encouraged/told all of the out-of-state students to register in Lynchburg so they could vote Republican last year, in an attempt to stop Obama from winning in Virginia.

As far as Regent - formerly known as CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) University, down in Virginia Beach, that's Pat Robertson's school. Of note, the current Republican nominee for Governor, Bob McDonnell, was an early graduate of it's law school - when it was not yet actually accredited as a school of law.

Thankfully I'm in Fairfax, the richest county in the country and 60% Democratic. But go a half-hour west or south of the county and you're pretty much in Alabama.

From what school did the Bush administration mine for most of its talent? Harvard, Princeton, Yale? Nope, Patrick Henry College.

I did not forget Liberty. I kinda consider Liberty and Oral Roberts to be yesterday's backward religious right schools.

Patrick Henry is the kookiest spot in the US. After reading a piece about the school in the NYT I went to their website and read all about the place in their own words. That is one scary place, and the academic credentials of the faculty are the worst I've ever seen. What do you make of a "college" that offers exactly two math courses--geometry and statistics--and three science courses--two of which are devoted to debunking the theory of evolution and promoting creationism and intelligent design? They teach hardly any science because science forces one to think critically, and Patrick Henry College believes more than anything else that the world needs fewer critical thinkers. The world needs more good Nazis--errr, I mean good fundamentalist Christian soldiers.

Graduates of PHC were practically guaranteed a job in the Bush Administration, just as were graduates of Regent U. Law School (those fuckers infiltrated the DoJ, which explains the miserable performance and morale of the DoJ during the Bush years).

When I refer to PHC as a madras, I'm actually pretty serious since I think that's an accurate name for it. It's had huge trouble with accreditation since it really is not a college but more of a kook institute. They fired a couple of professors a few years back when they refused to sign a contract confirming the proper use of baptism and crap like that. They only have/had about 16 faculty members, and very few students, but they have a lot of support from fundamentalist Republicans like John Ashcroft (his wife is on their Board of Trustees) and Tom Coburn and Tom Delay. Even though the diplomas aren't worth wiping your ass with since the "school" isn't accredited, the "students" never seem to have a problem getting internships and jobs with Republican offices.

Liberty is practically liberal compared to PCH and CBN, er, "Regents".

It's really creepy that the previous administration was filled with these lunatics and the press just never followed the story. These people literally made important decisions for eight years and were completely unqualified to do so.

In 2004, out of 100 White House interns, 7 were from Patrick Henry - which had 240 students at the time and was not accredited at all. Its now accredited by the "Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools".

I know plenty of people in the real world with fancy degrees who are complete fucking morons and plenty of people with no degree at all who are geniuses. I give very little credence to anyone's degree or school in and of itself. They have to prove themselves to me.

I will grant that Obama is smart(although misguided) based on observation of him in action, but telling me he is smart because he went to Harvard doesn't mean shit to me. I couldn't really give a shit less if someone went to Harvard. I GUARANTEE there are plenty complete fucking morons walking around out there with Harvard degrees that says they are a genius.

And something you might want to know about the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools- They are in fact an officially recognized accreditation body, by the US Department of Education. BUT...they became an official accreditation body during the Bush Administration only because the Religious Right begged Bush to approve them so that their shitty little religious--make that "Christian"--schools could claim to be accredited. If you go to their website you'll be struck by the significant collection of podunk, worthless institutions of Christian higher education that exist in this country. None of the other fundamentalist colleges mentioned by Mitchc and Cat are on their list of schools because they actually have just enough going for them that they can get accredited by serious accrediting bodies. The existence of the colleges on the TACCS list is the strongest evidence yet for PT Barnum's claim that "there's a sucker born every minute."

IAS-

Find me a "moron" from Harvard. I've spent plenty of time at Harvard, and while I met some weird people there, I never met a moron. Even the kids who used to get in as "legacy" admissions were pretty fucking bright. My experience, having lectured in several Harvard classes, is that the kids ranged from very smart to brilliant, but some were socially and emotionally fucked-up. Still, they were hardly "morons."

Now Yale is a whole different story. There's that Bush kid they admitted. He was a sorry case.

Sancho, while I agree a bit with you - plenty of guys with advanced degrees, like George W. Bush, are total morons and a lot of guys without a degree, like Bill Gates, are plenty smart, it's only those who never finished a program or never went to college at all who give little credence to college education/degrees.

A college education does mean a lot, be it for only a year or two without finishes a degree program or someone with multiple PhDs. While not everyone with a degree is smart and uses their head, and while plenty of people who never spent a day in college are smart and use their heads, in general, I'll hire the college grad over the non-grad 9 times out of 10.

Independent of whether Bill Gates has a degree or not, he has created the largest charitable organization in the world. Which means he is a liberal and therefore bad for America.

QED

I am quite sure there are plenty of geniuses at Harvard as well. I'm just saying that in my personal life I have learned not to trust a piece of paper alone to tell me if someone is bright or not. I know strait up cult members who have some REALLY off the wall beliefs yet can tackle a a really complex problem and quickly come up with an innovative solution better than anyone. I am at a loss to explain how allot of really genuinely smart people strongly hold allot of seemingly ridiculous religious beliefs...... yet I have seen again and again that wacky religion is not related intelligence or lack thereof.

Actually, there have been several studies suggesting that intelligence IS related to religious beliefs. Studies using a national longitudinal data set have been examined by several research teams who found statistically significant associations between intelligence test scores and religious beliefs, with lower scores among fundamentalists and evangelicals and higher scores among mainline Protestants, Jews and non-believers. No one believes that religion makes people stupid. The interpretation supported by the data is that stupid people are drawn to fundamentalism and evangelical religions. And that's not to say that all fundamentalists and evangelicals are stupid (or stupider than the other groups). But on average...

Some members of Congress were so upset with these findings that they threatened to defund the on-going data collection. Fortunately, the Flat-Earth Caucus in the House failed.