Go back and see, I was posting here at the time. I thought that republicans in charge of Congress, White House and Supreme Court was not a good thing and events proved to be so. I thought that the GOP assumed that they would always be in power and saw no need to curry favor with the opposition. I thought it was a mistake. First of all it begged for payback if things didn't work out well . . . and they didn't. Secondly, because they assumed all of the responsibility by not getting the democrats to have any investment in the wars or the deregulation controversies. When both went south, the democrats were not there to share any blame or cushion the fall. The democrats would be smart to remember this as they get their payback. In time, they too will have to pay until both wise up and start making concessions in order to move the country forward. And I don't see any minority rights issue at all in a elected democratic body. It is always the responsibility of the minority to get the votes from the people if they want to have enough to win a vote. First, I criticized the democrats for allowing the republicans to get so many seats and the White House. Then I criticised the republicans for not foreseeing the reversal of fortune that was sure to come. Any time when the numbers are close, and they have been for some time and shall continue to be, it pays for neither party to reject cooperation. Because the shoe could be on the other foot very soon.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who made a bonehead statement.:lol: How do you figure the stimulus worked when the great campaigner himself said that unemployment wouldn't go over 8 percent. Last I saw it is still hovering around 10 percent in many areas. If the stimulus worked at all it helped prop up states and jobs for about a year but they need a new stimulus now because the states and cities are now broke again.
What evidence is there of a slush fund? What evidence that political cronies were paid off? Who says the Stimulus cost 3 Trillion? This is just unsubstantiated rhetoric And this is a schoolyard argument. Grow up. Prove it.
If it could be proven, Obama wouldn't be able to get away with it. You are way too eager to defend Obama's every move when most people see what's going on.
I haven't defended Obama's move here. I have asked spikke to document certain charges, which I think are bogus. What are you afraid of hearing?
You work for an insurance company? I was just wondering when I can receive my insurance check since this health care bill sees to it that I am paid for them covering myself and my family?
Bush's programs are having an affect on today's deficits but so are every program passed by all past presidents. Why stop with Bush? Shouldn't we go back in history and blame the president's that are responsible for all the major entitlement programs we have today? It's all on Obama's watch now and as Rove said "in 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years." Obama along with a near super majority democratic congress is responsible for every penny spent. If "Bush's own Trillion dollar-over-ten-years health plan" and "No Child" is playing a major part in increasing the deficit then Obama should either rescind them or find a way to fund them. Instead he's been focusing on ways to create and fund an all new massive entitlement program. The end result is yet another new program that will undoubtedly add to the national debt.
