http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080404/economy.html

Thats what happens when you have a democratically controlled congress.

Everything was going along great, until the demo's took charge of congress, then a economic downturn.

"Thats what happens when you have a democratically controlled congress."

You are so right!
Damn them for not reversing 30 years of Republican policies in a year and a half!

Frikin' slackers!

30 years? ah the republicans didn't take control of congress untill Clintons 2nd term. and in the last 30 years, 12 years were under demo presidents.

Okay, so you blame the democratic congress for the recent downturn in the economy, even though they've only had control for a year and a half. By the same token, can we blame the Republican controlled congress for the downturn in the economy in the late 1990's and the ensuing recession at the start of Bush presidency?

Like it or not, the Republicans have a long tradition of mishandling the economy, dating back to the Hoover administration. During the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford administrations, we had five recessions. Under Kennedy and Johnson we had none.

The failed economic policies of Bush Republicans have turned record surpluses to record deficits, given tax cuts to only the wealthiest Americans, and failed to address critical issues like rising health care and energy costs. Concerned about the struggling economy, voters will increasingly look to Democratic candidates for solutions to the economic issues facing the country.

Economic analysts are already using the frightening term "worst since the Great Depression" to describe the escalating crisis our economy is in. Government debt has risen SIXTY PER CENT under George W. Bush. The economic con artists have been building a financial house of cards, and now it's crumbling, as the deepening mortgage meltdown attests. Right-wing Republican economic idiocy has caused this dilemma. And yet, many of you want to vote for someone--McCain--who has pledged to keep the same failed policies in place, or even accelerate them.

Much of the blame lies in the fact that YOUR COUNTRY WAS LIED AND MANIPULATED INTO A NEEDLESS WAR. That war has killed over 4,000 of our best young people, wounded more than 30,000 others, often cruelly, and mentally shattered countless others. It has killed perhaps more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, driven 2,000,000 other Iraqis into exile, and immensely strengthened radical Islamists in Iran. Iraq is again descending into civil chaos after a brief lull. Every one of the stated premises for the war has turned out to be false. And yet, many of you want to vote for the one man--McCain--who will keep this monstrous conflict going indefinitely, and who even hints at wanting to expand the war into Iran.

Finally, 80% of the country does not want to be in the war business. Period.

Andy, what liberals do best is bitch about the Republicans and especially the war.

I haven't heard a single solution for ending it from any Democrat other than to have our troops wave a white flag, put their hands in the air and retreat.

What then?

We've done all that we can, should or need to do. It's time to go.

http://responsibleplan.com/

Oh my god, I am so proud to be liberal! It's a blessing really, not having to deal with all those personal self-denial and repression issues. My kids self-identify as liberal, my close friends, many of my neighbors, and a whole lot of other great people identify as liberal.

Unlike Republicans, who bring us wars, bad economies and corruption, Democrats --in particular the liberal kind, get at the truth, accept it and build solutions around it.

Republcans are the problem right now Deane. Republicans worked hard to turn the nation away from the fine Democratic party New Deal. It's been an ugly side down for a very long time.

It all has peaked in this current Republican Presidency. Worst ever --and that's a Republican, backed by a lot of other Republicans. This war is a Republican war Deane. Your whole party is owned by this thing, defined by this thing, and will lose out huge because of it.

Nobody wants to be a Republican right now. Look at them running like rats! They know, you know, we know. It's over for the party, until they rebuild and try something new.

We are now hitting 80 percent disapproval buddy! We get to bitch about the war. We get to bitch and bitch and bitch about the Republicans that brought it to us on a lie!

The idea is simple. We need to not let people forget how we got here and who the Republicans are that got it done.

"What then?"

I suggest adding a Dollar $ign and the current body count of both troop and civilian casualties on that white flag.

Oh yeah, forgot long posts are kind of tough for some people here.

Get the plan to leave Iraq here:

http://responsibleplan.com/o/2757/images/responsible_plan.pdf

"Andy, what liberals do best is bitch about the Republicans and especially the war."

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. 80% of the country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction, Deane, and we both know that all 80% are not "liberals."

"I haven't heard a single solution for ending it from any Democrat other than to have our troops wave a white flag, put their hands in the air and retreat."

Again I must point out that you are bypassing a lot of facts in evidence. You haven't "heard" a single solution because you have blocked them out. The war in Iraq is a disaster by any stretch of the imagination. Phasing troops out is not waving a white flag, because the real enemies of freedom and the U.S. are only there because we are. To attack these true enemies of freedom the country must pursue them at their jugular (Afghanistan, mainly) not at the tips of their tentacles. Mr. Obama has emphasized this, but again, you don't want to "hear" his plans because he's a "liberal." So don't post that you haven't "heard" any plans, because it's only because you don't WANT to hear it.

"What then?"

Besides redirecting resources at al Queda's heart? For one, taking care of our veterans has not been a priority of the Bush administration. They sent troops into battle without the resources they needed, have not given troops the rest they need rather rotating them quickly back to the war, and have largely underserved the wounded and mentally anguished members of the military. Not to mention how experienced military leaders whom have tried to present facts in opposition to the Bush interpretation of progress have been excused. Not to mention the failure of Homeland Security to secure borders and ports, also a Democratic priority. So Deane, here are some answers that are all not being heard by you, but most definitely been proposed by Obama and the rest of the present and former primary candidates. Why is that? Is it because you believe the country is on the right track? Is it because you are too obstinate to realize that Bush's inability to run the government in the best interest of the entire United States? Is it because your own financial well being is based in a war-industry economy?

You complain about the rest of us criticizing the Bush administration all the time, but you never really say why you think we're wrong. You comment and offer very little except counter criticism. Is it that you think everything is hunky dory with the war and the economy, and doing ANYTHING different is "waving a white flag?"

I give the board facts. If you don't like the way I filter and present, you have every right to disagree. But if you want some credibility with the lions share of readers, you are going to have to do more than post a one liner piece of rhetoric. If you think the machine ain't squeaking and there's no need to oil it. say so.

Now Deane, that was a rational presentation of another point of view. I especially like how Andy addressed specific issues and took them out to their conclusion.

Your turn.

"We've done all that we can, should or need to do. It's time to go."

What then?

Deane, come on. You and I both know you won't hold up your end of this conversation.

So pardon me if I laugh in your face for a while.

Andy, I will give you credit for a thorough, well thought out, and non-confrontational response.

First of all, most people wish we weren't in Iraq. Whether we should have gone there in the first place is and will be open for debate for some time with no good answer forthcoming. Problem is, we are there. That's where our thinking has to begin, not what if we hadn't gone in.

All I'm hearing is we should start bringing the troops home. Any dummy can say that. The question I ask is "what next?"

That's where the answers fall apart.

"So pardon me if I laugh in your face for a while."

Go ahead and entertain yourself however you like.

Thanks. It took me a while to realize that you just like to sucker me in just so you can abruptly drop it all when someone is really trying to talk to you. I was a fool to think each time was going to be different. You act all calm and collected as if that means anything at all. No passion. Just a distant belief that you are somehow pulling some strings. Never for anything good - just to manipulate things - feel powerful. I can't help but wonder what that is compensating for. I'm going to go with " Wife-related issues." Your first wife, I mean. The happy one.

But like McCain, sometimes it takes me a while recognize greatness. I'll let you know when I do.

"what then?"

Gee, I don't know...perhaps W could admit that he was tragically wrong in his assessment of Iraq's possession of WMD's and that he was wrong in using fear to misleadingly garner support for our invasion of Iraq and then he could proceed to do whatever he possibly could to repair the US's tarnished image (by his own doing) around the world.

And since this is completely a pipe dream, perhaps he and Cheney could resign from office.

"Gee, I don't know...perhaps W could admit that he was tragically wrong in his assessment of Iraq's possession of WMD's and that he was wrong in using fear to misleadingly garner support for our invasion of Iraq and then he could proceed to do whatever he possibly could to repair the US's tarnished image (by his own doing) around the world.

And since this is completely a pipe dream, perhaps he and Cheney could resign from office."


This is typical of the simple thinking of the libs. No future plans whatsoever. Just bitch about Bush and Cheney and push for surrender in Iraq. It never goes any further.

"Thanks. It took me a while to realize that you just like to sucker me in just so you can abruptly drop it all when someone is really trying to talk to you."

I don't want to shock you too much, but I don't sucker you into anything. That sort of leaves you doing the repeated walking into the propeller all on your own.

You're right. That's true. It is my own fault. Each time I think you will actually hold a conversation - and by your own admission, you won't.

Deane, you've kind of ruined this place for me. And I don't like what I do when I'm around you. I take responsibility for it. You bother me. You have an effect on me. I don't really care what that says about me - it's true.

I don't want to come in here anymore.

You win.

"All I'm hearing is we should start bringing the troops home. Any dummy can say that. The question I ask is "what next?"

That's where the answers fall apart."

I thought I made it fairly clear. The emphasis has to shift away from the notion of Iraq being the heart of terrorism and recognizing that to defeat terrorism, it must be disabled at its heart and brain, in the hills of Afghanistan. I wrote that above, but you didn't "hear" it. Is that not an answer to "what next?"
Or, perhaps you mean the economy which after all is the thread title. Again, I previously wrote about securing borders and ports
(this creates jobs that would be funded by the money saved from not having to fight on the Iraq front, which in terms of money has been a key reason the economy at home is suffering). Some of the items I listed in my first post are also answers to "what's next?" Addressing health care costs, energy costs, and lopsided tax cuts are all mentioned in the post, but you didn't "hear" them. The Bush administration has failed on all three of these issues. There are no incentives for large or even medium size corporations to keep jobs in the U.S. The outsourcing debacle may not have been initiated by this administration, but they have done nothing to limit its growth and now it has become a major contributor to our failing economy. Deane, if you are one of the wealthiest 2% its expected that you wouldn't want to lose any of the mechanisms that helps your wealth grow. If thats the case, so state it. Most of us around here are not in that group. Portland is not Detroit. We aren't all going to leave town when the going gets rough. But you need to know that it is rough for many of us. "What then?" OK, Deane, I covered the economy (in 3 posts), the war (in 3 posts) and some additional points in this post. Still not hearing anything? Like I alluded to Sie haben beinen in deinen Ohre.

"This is typical of the simple thinking of the libs. No future plans whatsoever."

And what exactly are the brilliantly complicated future plans the Republican administration are putting forth?

"The emphasis has to shift away from the notion of Iraq being the heart of terrorism and recognizing that to defeat terrorism, it must be disabled at its heart and brain, in the hills of Afghanistan. I wrote that above, but you didn't "hear" it. Is that not an answer to "what next?" "

That is certainly a start, but it would have to include dealing with "the hills of Pakistan" also. Just like we faced in Korea and again in Vietnam. It needs a plan.

"Addressing health care costs, energy costs, and lopsided tax cuts are all mentioned in the post, but you didn't "hear" them."

I heard them, but they aren't part of walking (or crawling) out of Iraq.

There is no money to save to spend on something else in getting out of Iraq. That's all borrowed money we don't have. So if we get out of Iraq, we stop borrowing to stay there, but we don't suddenly have a pool of money to spend on health care. And besides, nobody, but nobody has come up with a workable health care plan. Oh, I know, Obama will have all the answers just as soon as we strap a red cape on him.

Andy, I'm arguing with you, and my comments are conditioned by my overall disdain for the liberal overly simplistic viewpoint, but I respect the intelligent and well thought out points you are making. I'm far more likely to listen to them than I am many others.

CJ, I'm having trouble understanding what your problem is?

If you're wanting to get the best of me, that's probably not going to happen. Few people ever have.

This is what happens when the workaholic over achieving Capitalist Western world "swaps spit" with a largely 7 th century minded religious fanatical and lazy bunch of tribal societies that dont get along and havent for centuries, which many of them just happen to be sitting on 70% of the world's dinosaur juice and now selling it for a whopping 105 $/ barrel. Keep those checks rolling in you infadels !

Welcome to Planet Earth in the early 21st Century. The alien 'greys' are laughting their skinny angular asses off flying about in their anti grav saucers and planning their next sperm and ovarian egg harvest abductions to enhance their gene pool and genetic fitness.

"There is no money to save to spend on something else in getting out of Iraq. That's all borrowed money we don't have. So if we get out of Iraq, we stop borrowing to stay there, but we don't suddenly have a pool of money to spend on health care."

The reason that money is borrowed is highly dependent on the concurrent tax cuts. Bush led us into the war and simultaneously put the tax cuts into the equation. The revenue and interest lost by the federal coffers because of these tax cuts would have prevented the depth of the deficit even with the mismanagement of the Iraq war. Eliminating the tax cuts would restore these lost revenues and offset the cost of pursuing the war on terrorism and provide some monies towards funding other issues previously discussed. Clearly, those benefitting from the tax cuts are not in favor of this, but it is a big part of the reason we have to borrow so much money to conduct the misdirected effort in Iraq.

Do not for a moment think you will not be a part of the group who pays higher taxes if a Democrat is elected. This "tax the rich" thing plays well with small thinking libs, but it isn't the way it will be.

Deane I am ready to hear your plans. Please lay them out specifically.

I just love to hear know-it-alls tell me what's good for me.

Here's my question; why should a person who makes a lot of money pay more in taxes than someone who makes a moderate income?

Yes, they person who makes a million $'s a year will pay more $'s than the person who makes $75K per year, but their percentage shouldn't be any higher.

Do they get more benefit from the police, fire, ambulance and military than the $75K per year citizen? Nope.

Do they get better streets and highways to drive on for paying higher taxes? Nope.

Is their bus/Max ride any different? Nope.

If their kids go to public schools, are they any better schools than where the $75K kids go to schools (assume all government schools to be the same quality, even though they are not)? Nope.

So why then should they pay more taxes than anybody else?

Someone give me a good answer and try to convince me.

Answers like "They can afford to pay more so they should" don't count. I want good logical, justifiable reasons why one group of wage earners should pay more taxes than another.

Along with the reason why they should pay more taxes, I want an explanation of what better benefits they get that justify the higher taxes.

Oh, BTW, I'm a hell of a lot closer to the $75K per year than the million dollar a year salary range, so it's not like "tax the rich" would affect how much tax I'm paying!!!

Maybe we should take this to a new thread. If you want to start a new thread, let's call it "The Robin Hood Syndrome" thread.

"Do not for a moment think you will not be a part of the group who pays higher taxes if a Democrat is elected. This "tax the rich" thing plays well with small thinking libs, but it isn't the way it will be."

That is just not accurate, Deane. If the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are reversed, it will only put things back the way they were before.

As far as additional taxes, that is a separate issue. I do believe you are incorrectly labeling everyone in opposition to the Bush administration as a tax and spend liberal, but that is your miscalculation. The "tax the rich" label is your label. Reversing the misguided Bush tax cuts benefitting the few is hardly a case of "tax the rich" anyway. Look at the corporate profits running wild. Look at the ridiculous compensation packages being taken by CEO's while the work force is layed off. You can twist my words, and you will, but the failure of this economy is a direct result of Republican mismanagement and a president who doesn't have a clue.

"Deane I am ready to hear your plans. Please lay them out specifically."

Chris, I don't have any plans. You know my style. I'm a delegater. I delegate this task to the experts. That's the President, the Congress, the Pentagon.

"That is just not accurate, Deane. If the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are reversed, it will only put things back the way they were before."

I'm not among the wealthy, not even close. The Bush tax cuts saved me about $1800 per year in taxes. I suspect you've been listening to the Democrat tax the rich dribble so much you don't even realize how much is affects you.

"You can twist my words, and you will, but the failure of this economy is a direct result of Republican mismanagement and a president who doesn't have a clue."

That's the Democratic talking point, but it's a little ways from factual. Certainly the war has not done our economy any favors, but the recession we're in is a result of the housing industry collapse.

Wall Street greed is the root cause of that. Entities making loans to people on basis a boy scout could have figured out was going to blow up.

I know, it'll feel better all evening to jump back in here and bash Bush. Problem is, he's about gone and it ain't gonna do much good to bash him.

"Here's my question; why should a person who makes a lot of money pay more in taxes than someone who makes a moderate income?"

The simplest way to look at it is like this. Say a person making $20,000 is taxed at a 20% tax rate. That person is going to pay $4,000 in taxes, leaving $16,000. Chances are that person's going to have few options to reduce his tax burden, i.e., investments, owning a home, etc. Now take a person earning $100,000 who is also facing a tax rate of 20% his tax bill will be $20,000. However, there's a pretty good chance that person's going to have options available to reduce his taxable income, such as deducting mortgage interest, which would drop his effective tax rate to below 20%. Is that fair? The person earning more is actually paying a lower tax percentage than one earning less, therefore, in an effort to achieve an equitable tax burden, a progressive income tax is usually viewed as the fairest form of taxation, where the tax burden increases as the ability to pay increases.

CJ, the way it works with Deane is to just put it out there solid.

When he has nothing, you say that --solid.

From there, interact KNOWING that's the case, deflecting the pushing back, leaving the burden on him to take the point back.

Asking for it, is gonna get you nothing. However, just demonstrating it, and keeping the higher ground does.

Andy, what liberals do best is bitch about the Republicans and especially the war.

And that's ALL you guys did for 7 1/2 years while Slick Willy was in office.

Skybill, the simple answer to your question is, and we've had this discussion before, people like you would be paying your ENTIRE salary, that's right, 100% of your earnings, if everyone paid the same tax rate. The reason people that make more, pay more, is that there'd be no money to fund the government! Think!!!

I will never understand why moderate income folks want to pay more so rich people can pay less. It's simple math people!!!

"If you're wanting to get the best of me, that's probably not going to happen. Few people ever have."

Wow. In my 7 or 8 years here, That's one of the most arrogant, stuck-up, and fucked-up posts I've ever read.

(and I apologize for writing the actual F-word here. It might be a 'first' for me.)

Like I keep saying, the Deane of today is not the Deane of even 6 months ago.

He appears to have a somewhat diminished mental state these days.

What do we do about it, I don't know? Ignore him?

Her mental state has diminished but that's what's happened to the United States under the Bush regime.

"Like I keep saying, the Deane of today is not the Deane of even 6 months ago."

I believe that's about the time the Obama love-in started. I'm one of those who dares challenge the divinity of this sacred idol of salvation.

"Wow. In my 7 or 8 years here, That's one of the most arrogant, stuck-up, and fucked-up posts I've ever read."

You should read more. I can do even better.

Hey Trix.

Here is a little secret for you...

Deane is a guy!

http://www.deanejohnson.net/audio/KDWB_Deane_Johnson_Air_Check_5-21-70.shtml

Amus...
I know!

It would be much more effective to counter the "love in" with things that actually differentiate Obama from the Republican McCain.

You know, those things we are going to find electing another Republican worth doing?

Yeah, those. Let's hear 'em.

Given the dismal state of the economy, I’m taken with the hopes of US Congressman John Boehner of Ohio. Boehner, the House Minority Leader, is convinced that the Republicans will do surprising well this November. I don’t know what he’s smoking, but given the current state of the economy coupled with the war in Iraq, I don’t see victory for the GOP in the fall. Plus, McCain is a weak candidate for president. Where is the enthusiasm for McCain? Obama and Clinton are playing to huge and enthusiastic crowds all over the county. McCain is on his “Introducing Senator McCain to America Tour”. His current campaign effort is as exciting as watching paint dry.

McCain’s answer to the current economic morass is more of the same. Let the market correct itself. Sounds reminiscent of Herbert Hoover during the early days of the Great Depression. I’m not saying we’re in a depression by any means, but we have major problems with our financial services sector as amplified in a recent comments made by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Plus the whole mortgage mess. Not to mention the tax cut situation. Given the high cost of the war, it seems ludicrous to consider renewing the tax cuts passed early in the Bush Administration. From my perspective, they were a mistake to begin with.

We are heading for some major changes in the country. From Social Security to Medicare and everything in between, we’re going to need to make some very tough choices. The current pattern, which is a policy of borrows now and pays later, is going to ruin our economy if we don’t reconcile the books. This might mean increasing taxes. If the majority of Americans want these costly programs to continue, then we need to pay for them.

The other alternative is finding new solutions to old problems. I would never support repealing Social Security or Medicare. But something new –safe – and cheaper might need to be explored. Too, we need to get a handle on the rising costs of health care. It’s plain crazy that 50 million people in this country don’t have medical insurance. Not only is it crazy, but it’s a moral failing. Health care should not be a bastion of the moderately affluent, wealthy, plain lucky or government employee.