Wow, what a difference! Even the most partisan hack should be able to admit that Obama makes George W. Bush look like the braindead fraudster he really is.

President Obama was terrific. He explained his answers in such a way that was extremely credible and well thought out. Compare this to our most recent former president who made a mess of stringing two words together.

All in all, I thought his decision to speak to reporters and the nation in "prime-time" as opposed to 10am in the morning when the listening audience is much smaller says a good deal about how seriously he takes the tasks before him and how he wants to keep the public in the loop. How many prime-time news conferences did George W. Bush hold?

I didn't get to watch it live, but I just read the transcript:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/09/obama.conference.transcript/

Wow, how refreshing: answers full of intelligence and candor. Thank goodness.

Man, there really is hope for America.

Holy Hell! If all it takes for you people to have some hope is a politician giving lip service then this country is really messed up.

My life was great when Bush was here and guess what, its still fucking awesome.

LOL! No kidding mc! Haha, what a bunch of maroons.
Really, come on guys, how has your life changed for the worse in the past 8 years? YOUR LIFE, not some political concept you don't like, but YOUR LIFE in particular.
Truth too, not made up crap like your leader.

Well Dodger, let's see.

-The cost of energy has become unstable, and has climbed much faster than the cost of living. That affects me personally, so yes, my life has changed for the worse in the last eight years.

-I was a subprime casualty, put into much more of a house than I qualified for. I only blame myself for that, I'm not going to snivel and whine about it, because I DO blame myself, but THIS is what started the whole f'n mess we're in economically. Yes, in this case my life has changed for the worse in the last eight years.

-I saw firsthand how Bush's medicare changes have negatively affected my mother, and how some substandard care and lack of accountability tied in with it almost killed her. In this case, my mother's life changed for the worse, dramatically, the last eight years.

-The future of my stepchildren and the debt they will incur from the poor decisions of the Bush administration, from the economy to Iraq, has been compromised. Yes, THEIR lives have changed for the worse the last eight years.

-My ability to obtain credit for even simple things, for my business, has been harmed greatly. Yes, here my life has changed for the worse the last eight years.

The facts of the matter are this:

-In 2001, when George W. Bush took office, we had a budget SURPLUS. He set deficit records, while touting "fiscal conservatism".
-The average wage, NOT adjusted for inflation, dropped over his eight years. It is now lower than it was in 2000.
-Our dollar is at record lows, our stock markets at historic lows, unemployment at heights not seen since the 70s, our blue-collar work force has dwindled and been shipped to places like Vietnam, Thailand and Bangladesh.
-Instead of searching for energy independence, we rely on foreign, often adversarial countries to supply us with our energy needs more than at any point in our history. The middle and lower class is squeezed, and the oil companies show record profits, and multi-million dollar bonuses to CEOs.

There you go, Dodger. Many millions of others are affected much worse, you and I and most everyone in here has it very lucky.

I don't know if the Obama plan will work or not. I do know this: The George W. Bush plan did NOT work, and the last eight years have reaped the work sown by the administration, of course with help from Congress, the Federal Reserve, and others. It has to get better; it can't get any worse.

I only caught bits and snippets of the presser, but I am impressed with how he is coming across as results-oriented, with a minumum of bullshit spewed, and he seeks bipartisan help on this thing.

Uh, Dodger, buddy, here's one way it changed for the worse:

I lost over 1/4 of the value of my retirement fund.

"buddies": You give the president WAY too much credit for these items.
Most of your lists include SELF induced problems.
You bought a house you couldn't afford.
You bought stocks and bonds that you should have sunk instead into stable savings funds.
You did not cut back on your own energy use. As for GAS? Ya, right, W caused gas to go up, had nothing to do with OPEC or Venezuela, or Russia or anything else, nope it's all BUSH!
C'mon, like I said, get off the political rhetoric and REALLY tell me how BUSH directly affected you. So far, these are lame attempts to show your own folly.

Read my post again. I accepted responsibility for the house. I blame myself. Under Bush's loosy-goosy laws allowing all these subprime mortgages, to help his banking buddies, THAT is what enabled this. I am the one that signed on the dotted line. I accept that. During the Clinton administration, I would have never qualified. Now, I won't qualify. THAT is my point, there were a LOT of promises of "refinance in X time and you'll save $$$$", and millions of those people got popped.

The deficit at record highs IS DIRECTLY ON BUSH. He signs off on ANY budget, and presented the budget. There's one alone.

To clarify; it was my retirement fund (401K), not managed by me. Everyone lost. And Bush set the whole thing loose as you know. So it wasn't by MY choices.

Really, at this point, defending Bush is kind of a waste of time.

Besides, is that how we judge a President? Is it only about ME? What about the country as a whole? Are WE better off? I think we all know the answer to that.

I think MC and Dodgers zip codes are probably on the lunar surface.

Yeah. Going down this line of discussion is a waste.

Trying to marginalize the state of things right now makes no sense. We are in trouble, and we are facing a lot of work, that if we don't do as a nation, none of us are going to be able to say, "I'm ok, screw the other guy."

Dodger’s overly simplistic rhetoric sounds reminiscent to that of Chauncey Gardiner. Too bad the world is slightly more complex.

'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
-- Barack Obama

Christaylor: not lunar, just oregon. that was low, and I have always defended your vt faux jock thing, sorry to say.

"I like working in the garden".
No, Chauncey had it right dude. Life IS more simple than we make it.
You make of it what you want.
During both the Clinton AND Bush years, I saw my spouse and my own salaries increase, our taxes cut, we bought small homes and fixed them up then sold them for tidy profits enabling us to buy the home we really wanted and not be upside down, we carefully chose very solid secure investments and we were able to purchase our own private health care package. So, yes I am worried about me and MY family, just as you all are when the rubber meets the road.
To say otherwise is both noble and stupid.
I love my country, I support my country but I am not following the leader blindly, whether the current or former. I am merely pointing out that under the Bush years, which most of the people on this board seem to hate more than anyone they have heard of, this country did just fine, if the people of this country did what was wise and responsible.

Dodger: Christaylor: not lunar, just oregon. that was low

Right, and calling the people here you disagree with "morons" was, um, classy???

this country did just fine, if the people of this country did what was wise and responsible.

Are you paying attention to what is going on out there? Have you watch something besides FAUXNews? What do you say to all the lost jobs? Your blaming the people for losing those jobs?
WOW!
If DUHbya and Co. would have done what responsible then things might be so bad. Spending America into the stratosphere didn't help. Talk about responsible.....
Your a maroon!

I think you are confusing two important points. Whether or not a person has enjoyed affluence during the past eight years or sixteen years is irrelevant. It's about leadership. And in George W. Bush, many people felt he was an awful president. How would you explain an approval rating of 25 percent when he left office? The man was ill equipped to deal with the multiple tasks of being president.

I can think of plenty of people who benefited from the Bush tax cuts but feel he was a rotten president. Life is not all about money, real estate, stocks and bonds. If you view life through that very myopic prism, I can’t imagine it being very fulfilling.

'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
-- Barack Obama

Not that I support Obama or anything, but he never said that.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/change.asp

...How would you explain an approval rating of 25 percent when he left office?...

Easy. Two words; The Media.

Yeah, Bush was a great guy who did a fantastic job as president. But the media totally warped our perception. Yeah, that's it - the media's fault.

"I am merely pointing out that under the Bush years, which most of the people on this board seem to hate more than anyone they have heard of, this country did just fine..."

That's one of the dumbest quotes I've seen in a long time. I think you've been listening to too much right wing talk radio out there in the sticks. If the country was doing just fine, we wouldn't be needing to spend trillions to prop up the economy.

Let's review the some of the root causes for the 25 percent:

---

quote:

A devastating terrorist attack that Republicans had clear warning of...succeeded. Republicans deregulated every industry and financial entity that lobbied (bribed) them to deregulate. Then the Republicans placed those lobbyists in what remained of the gutted regulatory agencies, to 'oversee' their own industries. The Republicans passed tax cuts for the rich that 'redistributed wealth' from the poor and working classes to the top 10%, the majority of whom are, you guessed it....Republicans. Who promptly took that money out of the economy instead of using it to create jobs. The number of jobs in America steadily declined under Republican policies. The financial, economic and human catastrophe we now face was created, enabled and....ignored until it blew up in all of our faces....by Republicans.

Republicans started spying on American Citizens before 9/11. And as recent revelations confirm, spied on ALL Americans. The Republicans did this with no due process, no probable cause and no warrants. The Republicans established Gitmo. The Republicans thus dissolved Habeas Corpus, the basis of all law in Western Civilization, and began to torture the detainees. Many of which have been proven to be innocent...and in the process established the number one recruiting cause of an entire generation of new terrorists. Number one anyway, until the Republicans transported their torture techniques and regimen from Gitmo....to Abu Ghraib. Which brings us to...the Republicans invaded Iraq. Widely viewed as the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history, the Republicans are directly responsible for the deaths of up to a million Iraqis...and over 4000 dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of wounded ones.

All while the Republicans decimated every aspect of Veterans funding and allowed Walter Reed Hospital to become a scandal of Republican neglect of our troops...all while the Republicans were calling any and all critics of their terrible policies unpatriotic traitors....who didn't support the troops.

The Republicans exposed an entire CIA nuclear anti-terrorism network that Valerie Plame worked at, in order to punish her husband, a critic of the Republicans. Then covered it up and obstructed justice in the trial of convicted Republican criminal Scooter Libby. The Republican president then commuted this Republican criminals jail sentence.

A Republican Senator was arrested in an airport bathroom for soliciting gay sex. A Republican Senator admitted being diapered by a prostitute. A Republican Congressman was forced to resign for inappropriate contact with underage Congressional pages. All while the Republicans pushed their "Family Values" agenda against the GLBT community and the rest of America. And Terry Schiavo.

The Republicans subverted, corrupted and politicized the Department of Justice. To the point of Republican Attorneys General refusing to enforce lawful Congressional subpoenas against....any and all Republicans. Including any Republican politicians involved in the Jack Abramoff corruption case, in which only Republicans were implicated in corruption and pay to play. Republicans imprisoned a Democratic governor of one of our 50 states for political reasons. Republicans in the DOJ targeted many more political investigations against Democrats for political purposes.

---

It's like talking to a wall in here, so I will just quietly admit that I am an idiot, you are all very very smart and in 8 years when we are all well, prosperous and leading the world in peace and prosperity, I will check back in from my selfish and self centered unfulfilled life.
For someone to be expected to relay their entire life in a few sentences on a silly message board is not only insane, but unrealistic. To make judgements on one's "life view" based on same is also insane and unrealistic. I don't know your life and you don't know mine, but yanking a few chains on a message board is NOT fulfilling so I will stop. Wish I had more time but I still DO have a job, family and LIFE.

I don't think anybody thinks you are an idiot Dodger.

You do know that many of us here have been talking for YEARS, don't you?

The life stories shared are just a bit more complete than "a few words on a message board".

"the people", or "the country" is a generalization that doesn't really do much to help the discussion either.

I, for one, am not one of those people "who did NOT do fine", and am one that did what was "wise and responsible". And I personally have shared that to a degree where some sound conclusions can be made.

For what it's worth, "blind following a leader" makes no sense. I think everybody on this board, and most everybody I know would be 100 percent aligned with you on this!

What is not well aligned is your attempt to marginalize both the events that have impacted a LOT of people, the differences between our new President and the last one, and the serious nature of the situation we now find ourselves in.

It's understandable to get some push back on that, which you did! It's flat out an unsupportable position.

Instead of "quietly admitting you are an idiot", why not seriously consider the unsupportable nature of your position and learn from that?

That is why we do this you know. When somebody finds out they hold a view that's not all that easily supported:

1. Can do a dodge to avoid the issue, just like you did. (and I'll post up the dodge list for reference after this post)

2. Go do the work to demonstrate that it is, in fact, supportable. (I like that one, personally)

3. Come to some acceptance on that and reconsider a few things.

There are other choices too, of course, but those are the main ones.

I know it sucks to find out that perhaps those things you hear on the radio are not as true, and consistent and known as you think they are.

Current approval of our current direction runs in the high 70's. This means you've close to an 8 in 10 chance of annoying somebody with your statements made here, unless you do the work to support them more fully than you have.

will the bill, bailout the people/businesses who borrowed $ from the m0b or from some las vegas(or Chicago) gangsters?those reporters really gave him a free pass!!!!it was not F&B!!!??they should have had various Radio talk hosts asking the questions and follow-ups!!!!

Dodger, you're the one who started out calling people here "morons" - how would you expect to take us seriously?

I don't think George W. Bush is an idiot - he just acted like one. If he had a good grasp of the economy and the problems of the nation, he certainly didn't display it with his actions or his words. And I can't understand how any thinking person could look at the nation Bush left us after eight years in office and not see the huge economic problems, the enormous new national debt he piled up (in "good" times!!!!), the lowering of American prestige around the world, and of course the huge messes in Iraq and Afghanistan (no, Iraq isn't a vacation destination yet; western leaders still have to sneak in and out when they visit)...and proclaim, "Hey, everything is just fine for me - screw the crumbling world around me!" Sounds like nothing but blind partisanship to me.

I don't agree with Obama on everything but I think his presidency is a huge step forward in trying to clean up Bush's messes.

Hey Dodger. Here's a list of all the things people do when confronted in a fashion similar to what just happened here, on this thread:

(just FYI)

---------The Dodge List---------

1. Subject change (Nixon, Abortion)

2. False comparison (Like computers and cars, only it's politics and sex --or something goofy, that just does not present as goofy at first blush.)

3. Claim of too many opponents

(This one debunked for online venues as participants have all the time they need to research and consider their next point of discussion --they can collude too)

4. Silence (Ignore the impending point to be taken. Essentially, it can be used another day. Acceptance of that loss means loss of that point for a greater discussion in the future. Very potent for online venues)

5. (first seen from Deane) Claim to either be a member of, or opponents of discussion being members of club, with said membership somehow required to complete what is otherwise a non-rational conclusion.

6. Claim of overall subject and or implications of subject complexity being greater than scope of discussion; therefore, it's all a waste of time. (Herb and Deane on that one too.)

Both complex and subtle variations on the, "you wouldn't understand" theme.

7. Transformation of rational point at hand to emotional one.

8. The bible, which is a specific manifestation of subject change. Warranted because it's often used in tandem with the transformation bit. The next two on this list seen in this mess often too.

9. Redefinition of common words. This happens either via manipulation of time lines (historical), or via authorities, whose scope is limited to a sub-set of generally accepted authorities. (non peer reviewed, or non common, word use)

10. Personal attack. This varies too. Sometimes it's an attack on an authority. That form is kind of an indirect attack, as in, "you listen to that nutbag?". I'm lumping all of these together in one group. Don't know why, just am.

11. Obsfucation. (however you spell it) This might be redundant, given the word redefinition one above. I see this as half-answers, like if you have the same point of view, the answer is solid, but if you don't, it leads to questions and framing that puts non-aligned beliefs on the defensive.

12. Excess verbosity. (KSKD, CJ, Littlesongs, others) Hammer them really hard, hoping the problem will go away. It's both therapy and a dodge in one fell swoop!

13. Evoke unreal boundary. Most often seen with indignation. This is a variation on "too complex" and "you wouldn't understand", in that it limits the scope of discussion where it would not otherwise be limited if things continued to be rational. Once this has happened, discussion is no longer rational.

14. Implied claim that personal knowledge is a requirement to establish a point at hand, without actually stating it, and without that actually being the case.* (Deane)

-->the names are not personal slams, but compliments for particularly complex and potent ones!

"I know it sucks to find out that perhaps those things you hear on the radio are not as true, and consistent and known as you think they are.

Current approval of our current direction runs in the high 70's. This means you've close to an 8 in 10 chance of annoying somebody with your statements made here, unless you do the work to support them more fully than you have.

kskd: I don't listen to the guys on the radio, I AM a guy on the radio. I don't get my opinions (which is what all of this is all about, opinions, the points one makes, from whatever source are still just making your OPINION more easily expressed) from radio guys.
I am well read and educated. I do not get my information from the internet, nor do I care about other's opinions.
I am not "dodging" anything I just tire of the endless bickering that has come from these boards and the internet in general. Waste of time.
Andrew: it was "maroons" not morons. Give Yosemite Sam his props please. I don't take you serious. You are misled by the media and your own sources. I think, therefore I am.
thank you for your time.

"how has your life changed for the worse in the past 8 years? YOUR LIFE, not some political concept you don't like"

1. The air I breathe has gotten more polluted. Directly attributable to Bush in 3 ways.
a. Cutting out key provisions in the Clean Air & Water Act
b. Crippled the Superfund program
c. Cut the EPA staff, reduced fines and prosecutions against environmental violators

(there is more, but those are the key ones re: air. The same goes for water, the impact of which on Oregon goes back to the superfund issue, but also shook up Portland water as they had to plan to filter out contaminants we don't have ... not to mention the Bush coverup of the toxic slurry spill in Appalachia, but that didn't directly effect us here)

2. Drastic cuts in education funding resulted in a direct loss of clients to my consulting/engineering business. A lot more damage was done to groups larger than my group, but you asked specifically, so shall I answer.

3. George spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury. That effected all of us. The most conservative investments lost money. Real estate values stopped growing or fell. As they lowered the interest rates, even savings became no growth. As a result of Bush's mismanagement of the economy, my personal financial situation has become dismal. In short, under Bush my net worth sank like a stone.

4. Bush failed to protect the homeland against terrorism, allowing a lax security policy to fester and grow holes larger than imported swiss cheese. His tenure began before 9/11, remember? And let me tell you, Dodger, that effects all of us.

5. Energy costs: You just can't weasel out of it, Dodger. Starting with the secret Cheney energy meetings and ending with energy costs that have skyrocketed out of control, the lack of attention to climate change, researching new fuels and energy sources and his disdain of science and technology have made all of our lives more difficult.

Summary: Bush as a president was a monumental failure. The populace as a whole thinks it and the majority of scientists, economists and educators all agree. The burden of proof shouldn't be on us to prove malfeasance already documented, the burden of proof should be on you to prove the antithesis.

There you have it. No name calling. No insults. No bullshit. A direct answer to your question. And guess what, more folks feel like I do than you.

I couldn't care less what you think about Bush. He's gone and his legacy is in doubt, more so than any President in modern times. He damaged the country as a whole, and since we are all part of that country, we all are damaged. People like you just don't see it. Like most supporters of the most failed administration in the country's history, you thrive on rhetoric instead of facts. You forget that you are in a small minority, i.e. those who still give Bush a favorable rating as to performance in the presidency. Nothing anyone says here will change your mind, but the truth is out there for all to see. Open your eyes.

And speaking of my voice tracking....

I can think of plenty of people who benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

I'm one of them. But I wouldn't have DUHbya run a daycare let alone the United States of America. My dad and I have made tons of money in the last 8 years with DUHbya being in office but who cares if NOBODY can buy the stuff NOW that we have to sell. Our business is off 22% since January 5th of this year....

I'd like to see the source of the poll that says 8 out of 10 think we are going in the right direction. Are you sure you looked at the percentages the right way?

This released by Gallop:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, while the Democrats and, in particular, the Republicans in Congress receive much lower approval ratings of 48% and 31%, respectively.

The poll was conducted on the 6th and 7th of Feb 2009.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx

@Dodger: surely a well educated person, like yourself, would clearly understand the difference between figurative and literal speech. "on the radio" really just meant, "those trusted sources". Where ever you DO get your information, clearly isn't very well aligned with social, economic and political realities.

And, BTW, here you are just some guy who happened to contribute on a thread. That's it. As such, you get the same treatment anyone else choosing to contribute here does.

(I don't care if you are on the radio, if the above was not clear. Frankly, it's better all around if I don't know, so that I can just talk with you as I would anybody else.)

Now, you dodged. Go read the list. I'll enumerate them and detail how and where, if you like, but I think being well educated means you can figure that out rather easily.

This can take a while to see. Understandable. Give it some time. Let me know if you need some help with that. I'm here for you man!

As for your "opinions", they are not very supportable. Andy gave you a great answer, BTW. Brianl did also, as did Warner. I'll defer on mine as they are already here.

You stepped in here and called us maroons! If you are gonna deal some, expect to take some in return. That is how it works on these here "internets".

It's way better when you can detail HOW and WHY your opinions are worth greater consideration. People learn stuff that way. Get stronger, and grow. Dodging does nobody any good, and that just reinforces my earlier post stating that going down this road was a waste of time.

Want to even the score?

Step up and detail how and why:

-we are maroons

(with the implication that anyone who appreciates how Obama appears to be handling his Presidency is a maroon)

-people here are not telling the truth, and instead are trying to prop up some ideology

(and please do include your analysis of motivations that would support that idea)

-why our life changes are not either associated with President Bush, or are not significant enough to warrant any real consideration

(ie: marginalized)

-Obama is saying "made up crap", like we are.

In other words, don't come in here, with some sense of entitlement, thinking you can just post up some shit and not catch some flack. Support it, or stuff it.

@vitalogy, what I meant to write was that Obama runs in the high 70's. I used direction in a way that was ambigious. It absolutely would be the other way around; namely, just 23 percent of us like how it's going. Whoops!

the new crew has no clue at all on how to deal with economy, or Middle East!!!!!try this try that and hope to get lucky!!!!we will see.some of you might be beggiing for another Bush/Cheney/Rove if it dors not work out soon!!!

I don't consider myself a cheerleader in any way, and I think I have a different view than what has been expressed previously on this thread--and that few may care about: I think that the problem in the Republican party has been due to a focus on ideology above all else. I hope that the Obama administration doesn't fall into a similar trap.

As much as some hate George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, etc., I feel sorry for these people. The reason for this is that I believe that they were put in their respective positions to be leaders; instead, they were expected to be spokespeople for the party ideology. I don't think that it is possible to be an effective problem-solver (as a good leader should be) when one sees one's job as primarily being about dispensing rhetoric and staying true to some theoretical set of ideological expectations.

Had I not gotten involved with the Libertarians, I probably would not have been able to understand the ideological cult-ism that I think has infected the Republican Party. If you get involved with the Libertarians, I guarantee that you will meet a lot of ideologues (who don't necessarily see themselves that way). If you go to a convention where several people are competing for a run at the same office, you will likely see an impromptu cabal of people administering ideological purity tests on the prospective candidates, trying to see which one would most effectively parrot the party platform if elected. I find that tendency within any party to be disheartening and dangerous.

Although I think that Obama handled the press conference in a much more articulate and reassuring manner than Bush handled his, I think it is way too soon to project what kinds of results this administration is going to achieve. I found it interesting that Obama did acknowledge that some people have been advocating that no economic stimulus package should be offered. This view is very popular amongst conservative talk show hosts and amongst Libertarians. His acknowledgment of that view left me wondering whether his motivation for advocating a stimulus package might, in part, be that the public expects something to be done. I don't have a strong view either way, other than that I see any kind of stimulus package as something that the taxpayers whom it is supposed to help, will have to pay for.

"Really, come on guys, how has your life changed for the worse in the past 8 years? YOUR LIFE, not some political concept you don't like, but YOUR LIFE in particular."

I do not have the time to tick everything down the list, but I will give you one very personal example:

My friends here know that my uncle Lee was a victim of Hurricane Katrina. He was not killed by local decisions or state policies. He was killed by FEMA, plain and simple. He left behind three adult kids, a bunch of grandkids and an extended family that will never ever forgive the incompetence of our government nor the greed of their cronies.

"For someone to be expected to relay their entire life in a few sentences on a silly message board is not only insane, but unrealistic."

A very good point, though contradictory to your earlier request for at least eight years worth of details. In a sane and realistic nutshell, I was born with Nixon in the Oval Office. Obama only has to be competent to outshine every other President in my lifetime.

Old fashioned populism, community building and investing in infrastructure to spur economic recovery are proven American solutions. If you think that old fashioned populism, community building and investing in infrastructure to spur economic recovery is bad form, you need to find another country.

the new crew has no clue at all on how to deal with economy, or Middle East!!!!!try this try that and hope to get lucky!!!!we will see.some of you might be beggiing for another Bush/Cheney/Rove if it dors not work out soon!!!

Well...
DUHbya and the DICKster didn't know what to do either... Look at the mess we're in...

The point is that liberals are stupid enough to think the world is suddenly a better place cause a guy gives a good speech.

Aint nothing going to fucking change. New boss is same as the old boss. get a clue.

Has any President changed anything for the better, ever, Dr. ?

That's not rhetorical.

"The point is that liberals are stupid enough to think the world is suddenly a better place cause a guy gives a good speech."

I don't think anybody expects that all our problems will turn around right away. Changing direction is only first (but necessary) step.

Still, there are plenty of indications that the world became a better place when Obama was elected. Although I'll admit that at least half of the reason the world suddenly became a better place was Bush leaving.

LINK - LINK - LINK

"New boss is same as the old boss."
If you believe that, then you are the stupid one.

Here is your evidence based materials kskd, I have had 5 minutes to study a bit. You think the "pork" is good? You think that this stimulus is better than ANYTHING GWB has ever done? Look W was not the brightest bulb and HIS stimulus sucked but this one, this one is the biggest piece of crap in the history of the United States. I will be using my $13 to buy a movie ticket and popcorn to escape the reality of where I live now. Please, stop with the adoration and YOU take some time to read the news rather than your own rhetoric.
From CNN on the stimulus:

NEW YORK (CNN)
What a joke. Your Congress has voted to spend almost $790 billion of your money on a stimulus package that not a single member of either chamber has read.

The 1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken. I don't care if you're Evelyn Wood, you can't read almost 1,100 pages of the lawyer talk that makes up all legislation in eight or 10 hours.

The criminal part of this boondoggle is divided into two parts. The first is the Democrats promised to post the bill a full 48 hours before the vote was taken to allow members of the public to see what they were getting for their money. Both parties voted unanimously to do this ... and they lied.

It didn't happen. Why am I not surprised? Congress lying to the American people has become part of their job description. They can't be trusted on anything anymore.

I'm sure part of the reason there was no time for the public to read the bill was the 11th-hour internecine warfare between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

When Reid first announced the compromise had been reached, Nancy Pelosi was nowhere to be seen. And it would take an act of God for this egotistical, arrogant woman to miss a photo op where she could take credit for anything. But she wasn't there.

She summoned Reid to her office, where unnamed sources said she blew her top over some provision for schools that she wasn't happy with. Pelosi's snit delayed everything.

It's really too bad President Obama couldn't figure out a way to jettison these two who are poster children for everything that is wrong in Washington. The Associated Press called the birth of the stimulus bill "sausage making" in the best tradition of Washington politics as usual.

The second part of the crime is the contents of the bill itself. Far from being only about jobs, infrastructure and tax cuts as promised, the stimulus bill stimulates a bunch of other stuff as well. Eight billion dollars for high-speed rail lines, including a proposed line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. This little bit of second story work wasn't even in the House version of the bill.

It started in the Senate as a $2 billion project, and came out of the conference committee costing a whopping $8 billion. Gee, now who would that benefit? Oh yeah, the Senate majority leader is from Nevada.

Filipino veterans, most of whom don't live in the U.S., will get $200 million in compensation for World War II injuries. And: $2 billion in grants and loans for battery companies, $100 million for small shipyards and a rollback of the alternative minimum tax at a cost of some $70 billion.

The AMT provision is much-needed legislation, but it doesn't belong in the stimulus bill. It forced other things out so Congress could keep to its self-imposed $800 billion cap.

And when it comes to the tax cuts contained in the stimulus bill, experts have determined they will amount to about $13 per week after taxes for the average American. I'm not sure how much stimulation $13 a week buys. It depends on the neighborhood.

The biggest problem of all is the stimulus bill may not be nearly enough. And if the president has to come back asking for more, the next time might not be so easy.

So far, we have an anemic stimulus bill and some sort of vague proposal from the secretary of the Treasury to deal with the banking crisis -- a proposal that landed with a thud last week -- as the two first steps toward solving a financial crisis that is threatening to take down the country.

Obama better step up his game, or it's going to be a short four years in office.

That isn't news, it's opinion from Jack Cafferty, who always seems to be angry about something.

Remember, the economic realities of today are a result of conservative Republican policies. Those that broke the system really shouldn't be allowed to fix it. You had your chance, now let someone else offer a different way.

This WILL NOT be the only stimulus of the Obama Administration. The economy is so royally f*cked up right now another shot in the arm is probably going to occur sometime next year. Remember, it took almost three years before the economy in the early 1980's started to turn around. And in that recession, there were not the systemic problems that there are today. This is not going to change overnight. But if we follow the GOP’s tax cut for every ill approach, nothing of substance will happen. Eric Kantor can delight in being unified in his contempt of the current stimulus, but when the mid-term elections roll around, I’m sure they’re not going to talk down helping the unemployed, uninsured, on-going roads and bridges projects, et certa.

The New York Times has an article today about how GOP governors are supporting the stimulus. It’s the GOP idiots in DC that can’t seem to look beyond their own ideology. The GOP governors were clamoring for help from George W. Bush when he was president but he said no. The economy is in the tank yet the GOP DC Congressional set is jumping for joy. Sick SOB’s.

Well Dodger! Lots of stuff in there.

We are kind of getting off track some, but that's ok. Let's just take it from where you left it.

There is a mix of topics from both areas of the board.

Yes, I do think the pork is good. In fact, I would characterize this bill as mostly pork. The only non-pork in it is the tax cuts. Unlike tax cuts, "pork" or spending on stuff puts people to work, and as they work, they get their share of the pork, spend it, and we are off to the races!

Let's also call that the sugar to shit ratio. So, if we've got a bag of sugar, that's good. If there is some shit in there, we've either got to add a whole lot more sugar, or get rid of the shit, if we are to have something sweet right?

In your view, the "shit" amounts to a few percent of the bill as a whole. That's not very shitty!

In my view, the tax cuts are the shit, and that's a far greater shit ratio. Deffo shitty.

I'm inclined to completely ignore say, 5 percent shit and just call that "not shitty enough".

Fair?

That leaves then the tax cuts and the idea of spending in general then.

(as for publishing the bill, at least they did, and that's likely to improve. Not a concern at the moment, given the amount of crap our last administration hid from us.)

You've got a fair number of contradictions going Dodger!

You say it's not big enough, then bitch about a few percent of it being "pork".

The Republicans bitched about spending, and that it won't work, yet pushed for what we KNOW DOES NOT WORK, and that is tax cuts! You know, the shitty part? Yeah, like $17 a week shitty.

Before I can really entertain that whole mess, you need to sort it out some and take a position, other than the implied "Obama Sucks" one that's all laced with. So, let's start down that road.

And again, my original query to you stands: If Obama sucks, detail why and how.

What you posted speaks to the Republicans generally sucking more than it does Obama, but for the idea that he thought it wise to entertain them on that shit.

(lesson learned there, ideally!)

Not big enough?

Absolutely agreed!

It should be twice that size, if not more, but not until we think it through. That makes this first effort a fine start on the amount of sugar it's gonna take to sweeten the shitty state of the nation left us by W.

Paying off Iraq throughout this mess doesn't help either. That's your guy and his call there too. 100 percent Republican shit. And, despite the time that has passed, that is still smelly, fresh shit! The kind that just reeks, until it's cleaned up. Another deffo shitty scenario. Expensive as all get out too. Gets in the way of the sugar, if you know what I mean!

Now, why wouldn't it be easy to get more sugar the second time around? Would that be Republicans scared shitless over the idea that both their party and it's economic centerpiece stands a very good chance of being marginalized for the next 30 years, just like the last time they pulled this shit?

Or...

Is it just that they don't have any NEW ideas, and that the flagship ones are known shitty, so they punt and just hope Democrats don't have any either?

You know, level playing field and all of that jazz? Government doesn't work, so all we have to do is wait for it not to work?

Well, isn't keeping it from actually working kind of against the point?

I sure think so.

So then, before we go and hammer Obama for this bill, we need to ask what the Republican contribution was and if it stood a chance at actually adding value.

Tax cuts don't work, haven't work, are not going to work. If they did, we would have seen them working by now. That's all we hear in response to basically everything from the Republicans. Cut programs and cut taxes.

Doesn't work.

Does standing firm, almost to a member, saying "No!" add any value? Does it add any value without also having an alternative to that "No!" statement?

Hell no it doesn't!

So then, where are we?

Seems to me, Obama has been in office less than a month, and our "patriotic opposition" has done nothing but add shit into the bag of sugar!

And following the ratio, the more shit there is, the more sugar we've got to add before it ends up working for people.

That's it for now. At least you didn't dodge, so that's cool.

Let us know how we can help further. It's gonna be a long, ugly haul for the GOP loyal. This is again, understandable. Brutal even. I feel for you man! A big fall is never, ever good.

Cheers -->KSKD.

PS: I am NOT a Republican. Thanks for assuming so.
The Republican party is too far left for me.
Haven't found the party of choice yet.
This nation DID not need a stimulus. It needed the people of this country to get off of their fat butts and start working. It starts with our teenagers, who, instead of working as we did they are playing video games, then screwing around in school and not graduating or barely graduating, then they wonder why they are stuck in the crap job they have at 25.
Then, just like their parents they want a handout. "I deserve it". Meanwhile, the "bad rich people" who work their asses off for their money, are penalized to the tune of over 70% of the ENTIRE taxes paid to the Feds is paid for by the upper 5%.
The Middle class, hard working, home buyers pay the balance and are hard hit as well. The poor, just keep collecting the free money.
Now I greatly care for the poor, but only the poor who genuinely WANT to rise up. Not those who continue in their bad habits. I personally so many days of work with homeless and extremely poor people in our community. I see the despair, but I also see ones who clearly want more for their families, but want it via their hard work.
They have pride. They want the American dream. They don't want handouts.
Study Economics, you will find that the US economy is one that will straighten itself out on its own. It may take years, but it will. Part of that is the people working hard, saving money, spending carefully only on what is needed not wanted, careful investments, keep credit down, let business do what it needs to grow, government stay out and it will all come back to some sense of normalcy.
It always does and it always will.
If it does not, then we must prepare for a new economic reality, one that NO ONE will like.
This stimulus, along with the idiotic one that W enacted is a complete waste of time and money.
So, let me understand, they are taking money that does not exist (no gold standard to back it, so just print more), give that non-existent money to government agencies to spend, and then we all get that non-existent money to grow our economy? That's not madness? Wow, then please, enjoy the next few years. Oh, and enjoy the $13 per week. I am going to a movie.

far too left?

Ok.

Nice talking to you.

"The poor just keep collecting the free money".

I defy you to go through the federal budget and see how much the federal government spends on "the poor". In relative terms, it isn't all that much money. And please explain "free money?" I'd like to know where I can get my “free money” from the federal government.

The super rich don't work their asses off, they inherited it. Just like your idol GW Bush.

Some do, some actually work.

I don't have data to prove it, but I'd bet that at least 50-60% actually work for it.

Bill Gates didn't inherit his gazillon.

Again, the question; Why do the libs hate rich people?

I suspect because it flys in the face of their socialist programs.

This seems to be their mantra; "We don't want anybody to be rich, we want them on welfare so we can show what a good job we are doing by supporting them"

Thus the bumper sticker: "Piss Off A Liberal; Work Hard And Stay Off Welfare"

For every dollar the poor get it costs about four dollars more for some goverment worker to hand it out.

Again, the question; why do the libs hate rich people?

That's not true. There are plenty of “rich” people who believe government should play an active role in helping people through public policy initiatives. It makes good sense. Then there are those “rich” people who hate government and would slam it at every turn. Ironically though, it is those same rich people who would use their connections in government to influence public policy to help further advance their own wealth building causes.

As for the “socialist” programs, I guess that would include some the $350 billion dollars that has gone to help prop up banks like CitiGroup and insurance giant AIG? Not to mention the rest of that $700 billion yet to be released by the US Treasury. Plus all the money the Federal Reserve has made available to the banking sector as part of its effort at staving off financial ruin in this country? We wouldn’t want to call that “socialistic”? Plus we have GOP members of Congress calling for the possible “nationalization” of certain US banks? Another turn towards socialism?

If it's corporate welfare, that's ok. But to give an unemployed worker a few extra weeks of unemployment, that's socialism. Absurd.

Steve, you're adorable. I just want to attach you to my key chain and carry you around with me all day.

" Bill Gates didn't inherit his gazillon."

That's true. I wonder why he hands out so much money and doesn't keep it all for himself. By your rationale, he's a fool for helping in any manner. I will admit that doing so is HIS choice. But when you come right down to it, so is everything that our Government does. So it seems that it is voluntary after all.

And to that end, I read an interesting idea; Republicans that are so against the bailout / recovery / stimulus package should refuse to take any of the money being offered. Allow the greatest experiment to actually be conducted and see how it goes for various states and cities who refuse. And those Republicans ( and Democrats for that matter ) who voiced such strong opposition, should also hold many press conferences announcing thier decision and explain that they have better ideas that will work.

Seems reasonable.

My big question is why do poor conservatives think the rich shouldn't pay their fair share? Is it because they have the delusion they someday will be rich? And why do poor conservatives worry so much about even poorer conservatives getting a handout? Is it because they want the handout too?

When we value an entity more than we do actual, people, we are asking for trouble.

AIG, Citi, et al. are too big to fail, meaning they are also too big to exist!

Buy them, break them into nice, little, manageable pieces and keep the risk off the American People.

Sell off those pieces, once they are up and running nicely, for either a quick pay back to the treasury, or run them until they pay off, then sell them back.

Socializing their losses is unacceptable to me, unless we also socialize their profits.

Frontline last night will win an Emmy.

"Republicans that are so against the bailout / recovery / stimulus package should refuse to take any of the money being offered".

It's funny you should write this because yesterday, the New York Times published an article about GOP governors supporting the stimulus. These governors know who bad it is. All the while the GOP members of Congress are so blinded by their ideology they ignore the pleas of their own governors and mayors. The GOP members of Congress not only look stupid, they look truly insensitive.

Frontline last night was excellent. It did a very good job of explaining the meltdown.

Socializing their losses is unacceptable to me, unless we also socialize their profits. -- Perfectly said, Missing.

If it's corporate welfare, that's ok. But to give an unemployed worker a few extra weeks of unemployment, that's socialism. Absurd.

Unemployment is paid by an "insurance" premium that employers pay. I've no problem with unemployment (as long as the recipient is actively looking for a job. If they are just sitting on their porch drinking beer and smoking crack, then when their benefits run out, let them starve.

As far as corporate welfare, any concession that any government entity makes to a corporation should be considered a loan. It can be a low interest loan, but even if it's as benign as giving a company a tax break to build a factory in their city, it should be a loan and repaid when the company can.

Republicans that are so against the bailout / recovery / stimulus package

I'm not against a bailout. Just the SPENDULUS package that just got passed. There is so much pork in it that it should oink every time it is mentioned!

The libs bitch that Bush ran up a trillion dollar debt in his 8 years, Obama has gotten real close to that in less than a month. No democrat is bitching about that. Absurd.

My big question is why do poor conservatives think the rich shouldn't pay their fair share?

I've never said they shouldn't pay their fair share. But they shouldn't pay MORE than their fair share because as you so aptly put it in another post "They can afford it"

...about GOP governors supporting the stimulus...

Hell yes they do. They are getting a handout.

Would you turn down a mega billion dollar handout?

Didn't think so.

The war in Iraq is almost a trillion dollars alone. I think your numbers are way off. In eight years, Bush DOUBLED the nation debt (that is Bush spending roughly $5 trillion dollars he did not have).

And the money allocated for the "federal" extension of unemployment benefits does not come for employers. It's paid for by the taxpayer. And how many states have had to go to the federal government of late to borrow billions to cover their depleted state unemployment compensation funds? Too many to name.

As for "welfare", the system is not nearly as lax as it once was. The system was overhauled in 1996 and makes it more difficult to receive cash aid unless the circumstances warrant direct cash assistance. It may not be a perfect system, but it certainly isn't the system of old.

The GOP has zero credibility on fiscal policy. George W. Bush borrowed more money than all his predecessors combined. And for all the money he spent, what does he have to show for it?

Any money Obama has to borrow today is thanks to Bush as well. It will take trillions to clean up the mess he left behind.

Frontline last night will win an Emmy.

What was the title? Was it a rerun? I may have seen it in December.

STIMULUS POOL

Shortly after class, a student approached his economics professor and said, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?"

The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with a weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you."

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor stated that the project involved his swimming pool.

They went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can." The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it." The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.

The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.

The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?"

The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.

The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough; however, after the sixth trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad.

The student finally replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, if you don't mind my saying it, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you'll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, "Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill."