Because of George Bush, my parents are struggling to survive. My dad lost his weekly bonus at work and sometimes he's only able to work four days a week because of this recession

I give my parents some money once a month but they're still struggling. My mom is having to use the little spending money she has to pay bills. They're barely able to make it.

If things get worse, my dad may be out of a job altogether and he may go under. Bush may have high hopes of getting us out of this recession but I have serious doubts.

Bush got us into this recession and many people like my dad are suffering. I doubt that John McCain can end this recession either.

Bush's dad also got us in a recession and it took a democrat to get us out of it. Republican Presidents tend to get us into recessions. Democrat Presidents don't.

President Hoover was a republican and he was the President when the Great Depression began. At the moment George Bush is as popular as Hoover and that's not very popular.

I doubt that McCain can do a better job than Bush. On November the 4th Obama is going to be my choice.

My thoughts exactly. My father, who is retired, used to pay his part of his health insurance; he was informed when he retired, that as long as he paid his part, the company that he used to work for would supply theirs; that company no longer does. Twenty years later they drop it.

Now look at the position our US economy is in. Those same CEOS are living fine while those businesses are looking for handouts.

My father and mother are going to be making the equivalency of house payments for the rest of their lives in health care -- and they own their own house, too!

I just wonder how some of these fired CEOS are making it on 40 million dollar severance pay outs?

Yes. Those Republicans are believers in small government alright. You may not see them raise your Federal taxes, but watch federal services disappear and your local communities and state ask for more money in November.

BTW: Welcome! I sent you a PM.

Can you please tell me how George Bush is at fault for the economy? What has he done that made the economy sink? Please keep in mind, the demon rats have had control of congress for 2 years.........

Two years?! Two years?!


For the past 8 years, a conservative was in the White House, with a very conservative agenda. For something like 16 of the past 18 years, the conservative dominated GOP has controlled Congress. Those are the facts. And you? You are thinking that two years has done this? Horse hockey!

I agree Grizzly. Its seriously delusional that Avenger seems to seriously think that Bush hasn't done anything to damage the American economy!

The party of less government -- Republicans. Horse hockey! Right now at this moment they're planning one of the biggest welfare reforms for BIG BUSINESS that has ever been accomplished for a long while.

Mr. Paulson is wanting to receive a BLANK CHECK without stipulations so that he can hand it to CEOS, so they can retire with that home on the beach in Bermuda -- servants included of course.

The audacity! The simple audacity!

You never answered what Bush's actions were, that caused this economy instability.

What was Bush's actions?! In my opinion, it would be, "what was his inactions?"

Avenger: you seem to be one of these conservatives that believe the President doesn't have anything to do with the economy, right? If you believe this to be a fact, than why don't you tell the President to quit dabbling in it?

(January 18, 2008)

You can read the rest at the provided link.

That was said on 01-18-08. I only wonder if he would now like some salt or pepper with those words?

The logic of one’s implied safety arising out one’s sense of prideful logic, that as they are on a sinking ship, always involved in some way in its operation to be only at the last, steering it on its course, just before it began to sink, then exclaiming somehow as unknowingly responsibly in excused blindness of its perilous condition and dangers as they ride their sinking ship to Davey’s locker. That logic gives safe harbor to all on aboard.

The logic of liberalism as it being but a part of the whole, it will, somehow, not equally die, if whole dies, is indeed the fabric of Euro-topian illogic?!

In the realm of failures by all governance of the part and whole, denial of but 1/4 of the responsibility, is just an excuse of the whole.[B] Failure falsely parsed in nothing but an ideology of excuse and denial, that leaves vacant ones part in responsibility and fate in and for the outcome that they participated in as the whole.

A team sport with a goal of all succeeding cannot be measured, as if, the failure of one part, even if the majority of the team, is not still a reflection of the whole team’s failure to reach its goal. For some on the team, who were in the whole game, all the time, to say otherwise, leaves vacant their participation in its failure, parsing the teams failure in responsibility for failing on to others, a convenient of forgetting, that history will measure the teams failure as the whole, not the part.


Parsing this in the langue you and Toky and similar yokes are familiar with, the ME, in you, whose goal if it is to succeed on your own. as you logic can be laid solely on some the part of why you failed, is but an excuse of the whole, a lie of the whole to excuse failures as you idiom were not even involved otherwise.




Это всё!!

Trader: placing an economy in to comparison with a 3-4 day cruise is just a bit anomalistic, is it not? Do you really think that an economy can deteriorate within two years -- just as bad as it is now? I don't.

Before you get carried away with your audacity, I do believe that NOT giving Paulson a blank check in the original "deal" worked out by the Democratic majority is the reason that McCain went to Washington, and which trip was very successful!

And, as far as Paulson's pedigree............errrrr......I think you should check out which side of the road he's coming from: It’s worth reminding you of Paulson’s instincts and the liberal allies he has installed at the Treasury Department:.

And, here. Paulson marched to his own drummer last Tuesday by naming Eric Mindich, chairman of Eton Park Capital Management, to head the Asset Managers' Committee of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. A former Goldman Sachs colleague of Paulson's, Mindich is a top-level Democratic fundraiser. He was in Sen. John Kerry's inner circle for the 2004 presidential campaign and backs Sen. Barack Obama for 2008.

On another note, the same site above gives these poll results that I think you and Tokisbaby were asking about earlier. I just today voted and got the following results:
Poll
Who won Friday night's presidential debate?
Sen. Barack Obama (19 %)

Sen. John McCain (71 %)

Tie (10 %)

Of course, I'm sure you both will declare this not an eligible site since it shows McCain winning, as the did the impromptu poll during the debate.

Solo: some articles written by Michelle Malkin and Robert Novak? And you and Foy will not read an article from The Daily Kos?! Yeah, right. I'll get right on to getting out my reading spectacles.

Grizz....



Did you not read that part of your article? Sheesh. You are putting my responses in your post! Are you making it easier on me?

No. No it wasn't. That plan was formulated by a Bush administration member known as Henry Paulson.

The Democrats are the ones that was telling Paulson no; the Republicans went in with their conservative-presidential-hopeful putting on a show.

Yeah. Thanks for showing that quote. Isn't that stupid of Bush to say that the economy is strong, yet later he contradicts it with that statement? Hey. You and him have a lot in common, huh.

OMG! Grizzz. You haven't been paying attention to the news............you are wrong! wrong! Yes, Paulson is a member of the Bush administration and if you'd read the links, you'd see why he was included.

You didn't even read the links, did you? Just a knee jerk reaction. The Democrats were the ONES THAT MADE UP THE ORIGINAL "DEAL" THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN PAULSON FREE REIGN OVER THE $700B BAILOUT.

I can't believe it. I cannot believe it. You're completely, completely blinded to the facts in order to get the facts to meet your twisted liberal views.

How funny! The Democrats were telling Paulson "no"..............Gawd! I give up. Talk about crazy. You are, Grizz. You are.




Since you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ the article, let me put a small bit here so you can't ignore it:

For a president who in 2001 brought faithful fellow Texans with him to Washington and named Republican activists to key posts, Bush's lame-duck Cabinet has virtual non-partisans heading three important departments. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is an intelligence professional and career bureaucrat. Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey spent his career as a prosecutor and judge. But while Gates and Mukasey look like non-partisan civil servants, Paulson comes over as politically androgynous.

In his third try, Bush found the heavyweight Treasury secretary he desired in multi-millionaire investment banker Paulson. The tradeoff is that the former Goldman Sachs CEO does not act or sound much like a conservative Republican to the GOP remnant at the Treasury. "It's not in Hank Paulson's DNA," one official told me. Is he loyal to Bush? "Hank is for Hank," he replied.

Paulson marched to his own drummer last Tuesday by naming Eric Mindich, chairman of Eton Park Capital Management, to head the Asset Managers' Committee of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. A former Goldman Sachs colleague of Paulson's, Mindich is a top-level Democratic fundraiser. He was in Sen. John Kerry's inner circle for the 2004 presidential campaign and backs Sen. Barack Obama for 2008. Republicans in the administration were amazed that the White House acquiesced in appointing a Democratic activist to lead a group "to develop best practices" for asset managers. These critics wonder why President Bush did not ask Paulson why he could not name a Republican financier for this position. I posed the question last week, and a Treasury spokesman replied that "we were looking for somebody who is well respected in the industry" to fill what is "not really a political position." By that measure, no Treasury job can be considered political.

So much for trying to "reach across the ranks." I can see he gets no credit for trying to consolidate the two sides, but gets plenty of hell when the ignorant fault him for the actions of his Democratic-leaning appointees. But, never condemn the Democratic appointees.

Sheesh! Now, that is "blind loyalty."

Next time, just keep the cabinet full of Republicans, NO DEMOCRATS!!! That's the answer according to Grizz.

BTW, Grizz, regardless of where the info comes from, Paulson's pedigree is on record....even if it were reported in the Pravda. Doesn't change the facts. What gives with you?



And, this is the result of the Republicans getting to get THEIR opinions inserted into this issue. Turning it from a bailout to a "work out," which is the solution from the Republicans which I've been hearing about since Monday (ie, Rove, Gingrich, etc.) Paulson was wanting free reign, with Democrats backing him, until McCain went to D.C. and got Republicans involved. At first, the Dems thought they could muscle their "deal" upon the Republicans, who hadn't been consulted in the deal, but when McCain arrived the Republicans rebelled. The Democrats need the Republicans vote on this (as they do have the majority in Congress and can pass any deal they want to) because the Dems didn't want to go down in history as the party that created this debt, so they were over the barrel. But of course, within a few years...........the liberal public will be blaming Bush's administration for the debt because of short memories (and just plain ignorance unless spoon-fed by liberal sites ) like Grizz is already doing.

Keep in mind what the Dems wanted as a complete give-away to the culprits (which were mainly made up by Clinton-era groonies within these companies) to the tune of $750B with NO restrictions upon Paulson or the giveaway. Now, at least, with this insurance, the companies will be footing the bill much as homeowners who pay PMI to insurance companies to insure the homeowners doesn't default. So, this will cost much, much less than the original $750B planned by the Democrats which they'd hope to pass before McCain came in and messed it up!!---the Democratic spin on the situation.

Not wanting to belabor the point, but........saw this on another forum.
See here.

Kill the bailout: More ACORN funding?!
By Michelle Malkin • September 25, 2008 10:26 PM

Just heard from several readers that Lindsay Grahamnesty told Fox that the Mother of All Bailouts includes a reported $100 million more in funding for the left-wing housing entitlement thugs and heavily tax-subsidized fraudsters at ACORN. Under the original bailout proposal, apparently, a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would go to Barack Obama’s good friends at ACORN with a smaller allocation to debt repayment. Readers heard him say it was 20 percent.

Told you not to trust Hank Paulson.

And I repeat: Fiscal conservatives need to be looking out for us tonight as they try to ram this thing through with a plethora of goodies for liberal shakedown artists.

***

Update: A Freeper writes, “Senator Graham is referring to Section 5 of the Dodd counter-proposal to the Paulson Plan. To summarize, it promises a minimum 20% of the ‘profits’ from the Treasury’s sale of assets to The Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund.” See here.

***

ACORN has been organizing protests across the country while maneuvering for their next handout.

Meanwhile, the watchdog Consumer Rights League testified on the Hill this week about rampant ACORN fraud:

James Terry, Chief Public Advocate for the Consumers Rights League, today testified at a joint House Administration and House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on “Federal, State and Local Efforts to Prepare for the General 2008 Election,” where he highlighted “corruption at every level of ACORN including embezzlement, cover-ups, misuse of taxpayer funds and voter fraud.” An excerpt of his testimony follows:

James Terry, Chief Public Advocate, Consumers Rights League:

“ACORN routinely says it will clean up its act. Yet, given its decade-long history of voter fraud, embezzlement, and misuses of taxpayer funds, ACORN’s pattern of fraud can no longer be dismissed as a series of ‘unfortunate events.’

“The problem of voter registration fraud raises serious questions for this committee, and the Consumers Rights League appreciates that the right questions are being asked.

“Here are the most important questions right now: We know about the thousands of potentially fraudulent voter registration cards turned in by ACORN and caught by officials. But given the size of ACORN’s efforts and the fact that the abuses appear to be systemic, we believe it is fair to question how many more fraudulent registrations have not been discovered, Furthermore, as this mega organization with a decades long history of violating the law is turned to get out the vote efforts, we believe it is fair to question how many fraudulent registrations may lead to fraudulent votes or what other activities they are willing to undertake to influence the election.

“These are serious questions, especially in light of recent election results which show that a just few votes can change the outcome of an election, the course of our country and the course of history.
“While we do not presume to tell this committee how to address this problem, we respectfully submit that our nation’s election system is facing a concerted campaign that raises serious issues that merit the committee’s oversight and attention.”

And fresh out of Florida this week:

Two suspicious Seminole County voter registration cards became a flash point Wednesday in the Republican effort to suggest the community group ACORN is committing fraud in its historic Florida get-out-the vote efforts.

An ACORN spokesman said the group spotted what appeared to be forged registration cards weeks ago and fired a worker over them. Seminole’s election chief, Mike Ertel, said he was still “tremendously concerned,” but stopped well short of calling the incident “fraud.” The Republican National Committee, though, levelled the accusation and blasted the housing and wage advocacy group in a nationwide conference call with reporters, saying this wasn’t an isolated incident.

In Orange County, ACORN staffers submitted multiple, duplicate registrations on behalf of six separate voters this summer. One individual had 21 duplicate applications. Election Supervisor Bill Cowles and his staff protested, noting in a June memo that ACORN had been submitting sloppy forms as well.

ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, changed procedures, disciplined some staffers and improved relations with Orange. ACORN has signed up 135,000 new Florida voters since January in just three counties: Orange, Broward and Miami-Dade.

That’s a fifth of all new voters. More than 58 percent are Democrats, who now outnumber Republicans by almost 500,000 voters — providing Barack Obama a potentially crucial edge in the neck-and-neck race in Florida

.

For some reason, Pelosi and Reid have suddenly determined that bipartisan support is mandatory for this debacle. Perhaps, the reason is in the above article?

Now the formerly irrelevant minority is poised to be labeled 'obstructionist' (or if you're Nancy Pelosi ... UnAmerican!!) for wanting to ditch little details like interest rates being dictated by judiciary and Acorn funding and who knows what ever other junk has been appended to this turkey.

Oh Fk, can't you all see what this post is all about? This is a volunteer for Osama. Nothing here but generalities about how everything sucks and the Republicans are to blame. The whole post is bullsh!t. We will never see this shill again.

Ya, I know. We've had our share of one-poster wonders visiting us. I wasn't writing to this guy........just the "folks" that were answering him (or her).

Say whatever Malkin and Novak and you want to say, Solo. The buck still stops at Bush's desk. And I do not need to worry about this being reported in the Pravda, because that paper -- as well as most other media -- won't have people crazy enough to try to persuade readers that Paulson or Mindich is partisan -- especially Paulson.

I have went to sites that tell me how much money that an individual has given to a candidate, and do you want to know what, Solo? You would be amazed as to what I have found.

One lawyer, from my local area, that has ran on a Republican ticket for City Solicitor has given money to the DNC and to John Kerry as well as the RNC. Ever wonder as to why he did that, Solo? You think for a moment and you should be able to figure it out. There are numerous others that has done the same as well.

Another example is this one fellow that came in to town worked for John Kerry, when he was running for President; now, later, I find out through one of my friends he is in another state trying to get a Republican (candidate) lawmaker in. Money talks don't it.

Do you really think that I need to learn this kind of stuff from Malkin or Novak?! Do you?!

It's like your article said: "Hank is for Hank". And you didn't know that there is a lot of people out there that are like that, Solo? I would be ashamed if I were you.

What is your point? Other than a big red herring?

Alright everybody, how about this for what Bush done to the economy;

"I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.

And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.

Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush."

"By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.

But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.";

Full story;

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...7/12/bush200712

(By the way there's 4 pages in that article ).

Anyhoo, it really is quite stunning that there are still people out there who don't believe that Bush has been terrible on the economy etc. The article above would be a good place to start educating yourself on such matters.



Hey Solonaff progress might have been made on the bank matter but no-one attributed it to McCain- just stating a fact !

oooh thats just silly. 32% of those who filed tax returns paid NO federal income tax because of deductions and credits.