Ok..i'll Admit It - I Voted Democrat Because

[hickoryhouse]

You seemed to left off a few details.... It went down during the entire year of 2008... a full year before Obama became President.

The problems started in last administration...if not why the bail out in Sept by Bush. ???

It had dropped 5200 points under Bush and 1500 since then.

And I'm sure Pelosi, Reid and Company had nothing to add to this...

no no no... you know very well that Pelosi and co. had nothing to do with this. The congress with the lowest approval rating in recent history, possibly ever, could in no way have anything to do with the downturn..... Bush was still in office, it is all his fault.

[Eagle1855]

I like discussions of politics because they are rarely ever divisive, people are always completely rational doing their best to hear out the other person and lastly, it almost always results in someone changing their position once their opponent proves their point.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I like discussions of politics because they are rarely ever divisive, people are always completely rational doing their best to hear out the other person and lastly, it almost always results in someone changing their position once their opponent proves their point.

Agreed...very productive.

[UNTFan23]

This will be the liberal game plan for the next two years. It's all Bush's fault. It doesn't matter if the market drops to 3000, that, too, will be Bush's fault.

It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama's policies lead us into a prolonged depression, that will be Bush's fault, much like FDR's failed policies were blamed on Hoover.

I'd like some of the left leaners on here to tell me exactly when Pres. Obama becomes responsible for what happens with this economy. Next year? 2011? Never??

Seriously, WRITE IT DOWN NOW. Lets see how many respond.

Time to look forward, not backward. To quote someone I read somewhere FIX THE PROBLEM (which for the fed govt means let the problem fix itself)

[EagleD]

This will be the liberal game plan for the next two years. It's all Bush's fault. It doesn't matter if the market drops to 3000, that, too, will be Bush's fault.

It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama's policies lead us into a prolonged depression, that will be Bush's fault, much like FDR's failed policies were blamed on Hoover.

I'd like some of the left leaners on here to tell me exactly when Pres. Obama becomes responsible for what happens with this economy. Next year? 2011? Never??

Seriously, WRITE IT DOWN NOW. Lets see how many respond.

Time to look forward, not backward. To quote someone I read somewhere FIX THE PROBLEM (which for the fed govt means let the problem fix itself)

Are you suggesting that at this time in Bush's presidency is when he took total control. And everything that happened after that is his responsibility? Well, hell. Nothing BAD happened, did it?

[UNTflyer]

Are you suggesting that at this time in Bush's presidency is when he took total control. And everything that happened after that is his responsibility? Well, hell. Nothing BAD happened, did it?

Jesus, blaming Bush for 9/11 is just idiotic. Period.

[EagleD]

Jesus, blaming Bush for 9/11 is just idiotic. Period.

Where did I blame him for 9/11? Nobody says he was responsible for attack. He was in charge of our security, though. And in so doing, he failed.

[meangreenacct]

Actually, capital gains are triple taxed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb64...33/ai_n29237117

Tax #1 - My paycheck is taxed.

Tax #2 - I take what's left after being taxed and buy 100 shares of GE. The income of the company is taxed, and what is left over is earnings for the company.

Tax #3 - I sell my 100 shares and I'm taxed, not on the amount I EARNED but on the amount the stock is worth when I cashed out.

You do realize in step 3 you are taxed only on the appreciated value, correct?

[UNTflyer]

Where did I blame him for 9/11? Nobody says he was responsible for attack. He was in charge of our security, though. And in so doing, he failed.

No, presidents are not "in charge of security". It's ridiculous to even say so. They are commander of the armed forces, the boss of the directors of various intelligence and policing agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc).

But I assume since you apply such a silly standard, you feel Clinton "failed" as well.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

[KingDL1]

No, presidents are not "in charge of security". It's ridiculous to even say so. They are commander of the armed forces, the boss of the directors of various intelligence and policing agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc).

But I assume since you apply such a silly standard, you feel Clinton "failed" as well.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

Man, Flyer how did you forget the USS Cole?

12 October 2000 - The USS Cole bombing was a suicide bombing attack against the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen American sailors were killed.

[UNTflyer]

Man, Flyer how did you forget the USS Cole?

12 October 2000 - The USS Cole bombing was a suicide bombing attack against the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen American sailors were killed.

Oh yes, the USS Cole. Clinton sure did FAIL when he was in charge of security, didn't he?

[EagleD]

Oh yes, the USS Cole. Clinton sure did FAIL when he was in charge of security, didn't he?

At times, yes he did.

You are changing the argument, though. The original criticism was dems would blame W. for 2 years. If this is the moment where dual responsibility in the white house ends, then we can apply that same time line to George W. Bush. The funny thing is, when I heard the rhetoric from the right on the build up to the Iraq war, it was that Clinton had failed to keep us safe and now we needed to go bomb the crap out of somebody. Forget how utterly ridiculous that argument is, now you've discredited that argument by saying W.'s administration was in charge.

But when it comes to catching Osama bin Laden, which should have been his top priority, George W. Bush has ultimately failed. If this had happened on a dems watch and bin laden had not been caught within 6 months you would be outraged. But somehow the man who does take responsibility for the bombing of the Trade Center got a pass from W. and Cheney. And instead we went after "The man who tried to kill my Pa."

Since you bring up Clinton. When Bill Clinton prodded NATO to use military force, it wasn't the cluster f^&% George W. Bush got us into. The corruption and greed associated with this illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq has been the drag on our country and the world for WAY too long. And Cheney should be tried for War Crimes.

I don't blame W. for everything. I mostly blame his party for letting this happen.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- The GOP leadership is sure not what Truman represented .. who said "the buck stops here".

---The financial crisis started on the GOP watch and they had been in control nearly eight years and had controlled Congress as well most of the time. Anyone who ignores this is just blindly sticking ther head into the sand. They are not 100% to blame but to read some of these posts ... you would think Obama has messed it all up by himself in past two months. What he is doing may or may not work...but he did not start this mess ...and is trying to do his best to clean it all up.. He will need the help of both parties. We are both Americans and that what should be done. For politicians to stand on the sideline and assign blame is wrong... [ Americans would be better off if Rush and the other radio guys ..both extremes would just shut up.. they divide America and make a personal fortune doing it... it is about their personal greed.. not about being patriotic and wanting to be helpful] . This is serious stuff... not a political game. They are elected to serve America ..not to serve a political party.

---Almost all of this entire thing goes back to problems with Wall Street and the Banking industry... which pretty much what the problem was in 1929. They because of personal and corporate greed can not be trusted to do what it best for everyone. I am not including smaller financial institutions such as home owned banks. Blame who you wish but the controls left from Wall Street el. al. should have never happened. Granted P.Gramm is not fully responsible but his name is on many of those bills and he was taking credit for them... to me he still gets a lot of the credit.

--I am not near as party oriented as some think... for vote for both groups... but Iraq and doubling national is not something I agreed with. Doubling the debt is not conservative at all.. as as for being morally conservative.. both parties have have way too many scandels. neither is any better (or worse) than the other....despite come claims. I do not consider myself a liberal even... just not blindly conservative that I accept everything any party claims as true or accurate or that if you oppose anyone you are a unpatriotic pagan socialist... some has been done often the past few years. If that is true you could make the same claim about those who oppose the current group in Washington.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I realize the "creater" of this thread .. said for fun..

Would KingDL1 please explain why is first post is supposedly funny... most of us see no humor in in those claims. In fact-- list which ones are funny might be a great idea. I always need a good laugh....especially with the way the economy and stock market (includes my investments) has tanked starting last summer... you remember... starting back when Bush was President.... who later bailed out Wall Street and resulted in large CEO bonuses.

Edited March 8, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You people suck at having fun.

Since you posted this... Indicate why the first post is funny. I just can't see the humor.. sorry.

[KingDL1]

At times, yes he did.

You are changing the argument, though. The original criticism was dems would blame W. for 2 years. If this is the moment where dual responsibility in the white house ends, then we can apply that same time line to George W. Bush. The funny thing is, when I heard the rhetoric from the right on the build up to the Iraq war, it was that Clinton had failed to keep us safe and now we needed to go bomb the crap out of somebody. Forget how utterly ridiculous that argument is, now you've discredited that argument by saying W.'s administration was in charge.

But when it comes to catching Osama bin Laden, which should have been his top priority, George W. Bush has ultimately failed. If this had happened on a dems watch and bin laden had not been caught within 6 months you would be outraged. But somehow the man who does take responsibility for the bombing of the Trade Center got a pass from W. and Cheney. And instead we went after "The man who tried to kill my Pa."

Since you bring up Clinton. When Bill Clinton prodded NATO to use military force, it wasn't the cluster f^&% George W. Bush got us into. The corruption and greed associated with this illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq has been the drag on our country and the world for WAY too long. And Cheney should be tried for War Crimes.

I don't blame W. for everything. I mostly blame his party for letting this happen.

"illegal and unnecessary war"

Illegal war? Seems that everyone who had to vote on it did. Maybe you should ignore your propaganda a little more. This started at a time when the vast majority of the country wanted it, the Democratic party as well. Remember the biggest reason this started was because Iraq would not comply to the UN resolutions and allow UN inspectors back in the country. Not to mention that Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate. [4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.)

[UNTflyer]

but to read some of these posts ... you would think Obama has messed it all up by himself in past two months. What he is doing may or may not work...but he did not start this mess ...and is trying to do his best to clean it all up..

I don't think anyone is saying Obama messed it up... they are just saying that the market's reaction to his plans are scary. A 20% drop since he took office. My main point is that Bush is not to blame. I heard on CNN radio that one analysis states that over half of these mortgages that went bad were made during Clinton's administration. And I'm not saying he is to blame either. There are so many factors that caused this, but politicians speak in soundbites and place blame where it doesn't belong. The prevailing myth is that deregulation under Bush caused this, even though regulations actually increased during his presidency.

There's so much blame to go around... Fannie/Freddie, home flippers, mortgage security brokers, buyers signing exotic mortgages they could never pay, oil prices, GM/Chrysler/Ford's bad business model, etc, etc.

And I don't think Obama is doing his best to clean it up... he is doing his best to use this crisis to expand government and raise taxes, both of which will have the opposite of effect of stimulationg the economy. Now he proposes a budget that exceeds the largest deficit on record by $1.5 trillion.

[KingDL1]

I realize the "creater" of this thread .. said for fun..

Would KingDL1 please explain why is first post is supposedly funny... most of us see no humor in in those claims. In fact-- list which ones are funny might be a great idea. I always need a good laugh....especially with the way the economy and stock market (includes my investments) has tanked starting last summer... you remember... starting back when Bush was President.... who later bailed out Wall Street and resulted in large CEO bonuses.

Do you really need help seeing general stereotypes?

The humor is in the truth that these are several of the perceived splitting points between the parties. Please lighten up.

I am not sure what CEO bonuses have to do with anything, I know in the airline industry the companies would go out and find the CEO to help them and offer these great deals and guarantees to entice these people to be CEO. So when the CEO exercises his contract it is now evil? If anything the companies should not make such deals, or at least restructure the guarantees. Personally I don't think the government should bail out most of these companies period, let them restructure it will make them more competitive. Handing out money just prolongs the problems and causes inflation.

Regardless who we point fingers at, even though we all know the Democrats started all this crap in the 70s, there are economic cycles, but fuel prices with the inflation caused by ethanol mandates for gas is what caused this downswing, Period. When the lower income/some middle class was having to pay double for fuel, electricity, and up to 30 present more for food they started having problems paying for house payments. This impacted the banks, they slowed down loans, national growth stopped and the dominoes keep falling. But it was under Carter in 77 is where the housing mess finds its roots.

Edited March 8, 2009 by KingDL1

[UNTflyer]

I am not sure what CEO bonuses have to do with anything, I know in the airline industry the companies would go out and find the CEO to help them and offer these great deals and guarantees to entice these people to be CEO.

It's the typical talking points of the Bush Haters. He "bailed out Wall Street" and they took the bonuses, most likely they funneled a part of those back to George W. Bush's secret account in the Caymans, which is where all the oil profits went as well.

Also, ignore the fact that only a fraction of the TARP funds have yet made it to the companies. Also ignore the fact that Congress has told the American people they have no business knowing where that money is goes.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I don't think anyone is saying Obama messed it up... they are just saying that the market's reaction to his plans are scary. A 20% drop since he took office. My main point is that Bush is not to blame. I heard on CNN radio that one analysis states that over half of these mortgages that went bad were made during Clinton's administration. And I'm not saying he is to blame either. There are so many factors that caused this, but politicians speak in soundbites and place blame where it doesn't belong. The prevailing myth is that deregulation under Bush caused this, even though regulations actually increased during his presidency.

There's so much blame to go around... Fannie/Freddie, home flippers, mortgage security brokers, buyers signing exotic mortgages they could never pay, oil prices, GM/Chrysler/Ford's bad business model, etc, etc.

And I don't think Obama is doing his best to clean it up... he is doing his best to use this crisis to expand government and raise taxes, both of which will have the opposite of effect of stimulationg the economy. Now he proposes a budget that exceeds the largest deficit on record by $1.5 trillion.

--Listen to all the conservative radio... they are implying it.. (Obama fault. as for the 20% drop under Obama... true.. it dropped 40% during the previous administration's final months... asnd it dollar value that is FAR worse (5000 points vs. 1500). I don't hate Bush... just his decisions. He once lived a half mile from me and jogged by my house at times.

As for the trying to divert blame to Clinton now*** (true he signed it... ok... but he did not invade and your statement about no UN observers in place prior to the Iraq invaison.. is not true at all ... Hans Blix.. of Germany was there and requested that the USA back off... and we didn't and went in on faulty information that the German government said was unreliable. This had been discussed enough... We just flat messed up .... He was the first US President EVER to invade a major country without first being provoked. 9-11 doesn't count.... no one from Iraq was involved.

*** this is whole point about everything--- blame someone else for everything, don't admit any errors. ---- Iraq, the economy. or whatever. as I have heard so often in my work ... "IT IS NOT MY FAULT" -- it is time to grow up a bit and take responibility when wrong and quit hunting an escape goat. .

Edited March 9, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulessismore]

You may get that wish. He's pissed off a lot of people, and Democrats typically sit at home in mid-terms. "Huh? Wha- What election? Didn't we just have one two years ago?"

I agree, divided government is good government. My favorite time in politics is when Congress adjourns... means they aren't making laws to make us miserable.

There was a saying, I heard it was from New York State in the early years of the Republic, but I'm not sure, to the effect that, "No man's freedom or property are safe when the legislature is in session".

Although, a Democrat, I agree with that sentiment (feel that way about legislators of either party), and for state as well as national legislation; except of course that I would like legislation favorable to UNT passed by the State of Texas.

[UNT90]

Are you suggesting that at this time in Bush's presidency is when he took total control. And everything that happened after that is his responsibility? Well, hell. Nothing BAD happened, did it?

Again....we are looking forward.....when does Pres. Obama become responsible for this economy....WRITE IT DOWN!!!!!!!!!

[UNTflyer]

Again....we are looking forward.....when does Pres. Obama become responsible for this economy....WRITE IT DOWN!!!!!!!!!

He doesn't. It's all Bush's fault. It might take 8 years for Obama to recover from Bush's Blunders!

[UNT90]

At times, yes he did.

You are changing the argument, though. The original criticism was dems would blame W. for 2 years. If this is the moment where dual responsibility in the white house ends, then we can apply that same time line to George W. Bush. The funny thing is, when I heard the rhetoric from the right on the build up to the Iraq war, it was that Clinton had failed to keep us safe and now we needed to go bomb the crap out of somebody. Forget how utterly ridiculous that argument is, now you've discredited that argument by saying W.'s administration was in charge.

But when it comes to catching Osama bin Laden, which should have been his top priority, George W. Bush has ultimately failed. If this had happened on a dems watch and bin laden had not been caught within 6 months you would be outraged. But somehow the man who does take responsibility for the bombing of the Trade Center got a pass from W. and Cheney. And instead we went after "The man who tried to kill my Pa."

Since you bring up Clinton. When Bill Clinton prodded NATO to use military force, it wasn't the cluster f^&% George W. Bush got us into. The corruption and greed associated with this illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq has been the drag on our country and the world for WAY too long. And Cheney should be tried for War Crimes.

I don't blame W. for everything. I mostly blame his party for letting this happen.

No, my point was the dems will blame Pres. Bush for this economy as long as it is bad. Period. If that means Pres. Obama (yes, I show him respect by referring to him as Pres., not by using his middle initial) runs in 4 years with the economy still in the crapper, he and the Dems will blame it all on Bush, and will be seconded by the national media.

You really show your ignorance (in the truest websters definition form) with your comments about war crimes. Congratulations on your indoctrination.

[GreenBat]

He doesn't. It's all Bush's fault. It might take 8 years for Obama to recover from Bush's Blunders!

Good Job Flyer. It's good to see that you're finally getting what many of us have been trying to tell you.