Jules wrote:

Have you all heard what the nutters are saying now? That Obama got worried about the millions of angry parents and changed the speech dramatically at the last minute, removing all the indoctrination into socialism from the speech in order to save himself. They see this as a victory for the conservatives.

They’re just making stuff up now!

Remember when one of Shrub’s staffers dismissed dailykos.com as “the reality based community”? Republicans do not believe in objective reality. They create their own reality.

In fairness, when George HW Bush gave a similar speech to school children, the Dems in Congress held hearings so it seems Republicans aren’t the only ones who can overreact. 

I listened to the speech on the radio, I liked it overall.  I thought it was a good message for students to hear.  It is my understanding that there were some handouts prepared that were withdrawn.  I didn’t review them exhaustively but they seemed to be pushing a cult of personality a little bit more than any specific political position.  They looked more like a pain in the a—than anything else though.  My understanding is the handouts were withdrawn. 

I would agree that Repubs overreacted.  I too liked Merludwig’s point that the Repubs should not be protesting the deliverer of such a message.  It reminded me of how several years ago Clarence Thomas was initially invited to speak to honor students in the DC or Baltimore area.  A vocal group of parents got the invitation rescinded but eventually it was re-extended.  Justice Thomas talked about his humble origins, his grandfather who raised him and the same themes of personal responsibility President Obama mentioned.  There were protesters outside the speech and it seemed an odd message for the protesters, some of them parents, to send the kids about a guy who basically said “work hard and study.” 

Fotobits, one third of Dems believe to a varying degree that Bush has criminal complicity for 9/11.  A majority of those voting Dem also want creationism taught in science classrooms.  Is it really that Repubs are delusional by themselves or just that the political parties in this country just operate under different delusions? 

Occam, I normally respect what you have to say, but the Nazi comparison is a bit much isn’t it?  Why does someone always have to be the Nazis in a political discussion in the US?

JRM5001 - 09 September 2009 10:47 AM

Fotobits, one third of Dems believe Bush has a varying range of criminal complicity for 9/11.  A majority of those voting Dem also want creationism taught in science classrooms.  Is it really that Repubs are delusional by themselves or just that the political parties in this country just operate under different delusions?

That is an excellent point, but the Republicans are over the top. Yes, Democrats can be idiots too, but mostly they are simply ineffective. Republicans are not only protesting Obama, they are bordering on dangerous, and getting closer to stepping over the line all the time. Democrats rarely engage in hate speech, and when they do other Democrats usually shout them down. This makes the Democratic Party somewhat more self-regulating than the Republican Party.

Democrats are incompetent. Republicans have become a national embarrassment.

Both parties are a national embarrassment.  Wait until we default on our enormous debt.  You hear about the deficit, but rarely about the exploding debt.  Bush sent the national debt through the roof and amazingly Obama has doubled down by increasing the debt even more. 

Both parties have presided over ever increasing deficits and instead of facing the problems have made promises for more without even thinking about how to pay for it.  Watch and see, this will be like musical chairs.  When the you know what hits the fan, whoever happens to be in power will get 100% of the blame from the other party when both are guilty. 

Rant over.

Quoting JRM5001:

Occam, I normally respect what you have to say, but the Nazi comparison is a bit much isn’t it?  Why does someone always have to be the Nazis in a political discussion in the US?

  I think you misunderstood my reference.  While I agree that making some group in U.S. politics the Nazis is destructive name-calling, I certainly wasn’t implying that anyone here was a Nazi.  Rather, I was using that as an analogy to refer to the tendency of the more rational people to be quiet when the extremists on their side launch vicious attacks, rather than distancing themselves and criticizing the demagoguery.

I think we have to be careful to not let “political correctness” inhibit our use of various words when they fit the situation and aren’t used in a pejorative sense.

Occam

JRM5001, let me remind you that Mr. Clinton brought the budget into surplus. The dramatic decline was created by Mr. Bush, and Mr. Obama was forced to continue on that path by the financial disaster that he inherited from Mr. Bush. We are now at the point where the fiscal discipline required to bring the budget back into balance is more than the American people are willing to accept. So we’ll have fiscal discipline crammed down our throats by circumstances. But I don’t think that in this case it’s quite fair to blame both parties equally. The entire fiscal disaster was cooked up and foisted on the economy by the Republicans. Now the Democrats are stuck with the mess the Republicans made.

You’re right, Chris. Clinton did leave office with a small budget surplus, then the Republicans won the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. This gave them the ability to implement their plans to invade Iraq(1), and the 9/11 attacks gave them an excuse and the needed support of the American Public. Bush/Cheney transformed worldwide goodwill into worldwide contempt with their haste to invade Iraq, disdain for building an international coalition, and outright lies to justify the invasion. They are war criminals, and the Democrats are going to do nothing about it.

(1)See Project for the New American Century, a coalition formed in the mid 1990s with plans in place to invade Iraq with the goal of stablizing the region and protecting its oil fields for American interests.

Chris,

I don’t disagree that Bush failed in his capacity at overseeing the financial markets.  Bush also drove up the federal debt at a record level, but he didn’t do it alone.  The freezing up of the economy last fall for example had many sources.  The Dems made “affordable housing” a priority during the Clinton Administration and the over-lenient lending standards resulted in artificially jacking up real estate market values and over extension of peoples’ ability to pay off loans.  That aspect of the crisis I would primarily blame on the Dems. 

The failure of oversight does also extend to the Dems.  “Countrywide” Chris Dodd got preferential mortgage loans and millions in contributions from financial sector contributors and insurance companies.  They didn’t give him millions out of a sense of charity, they did it to buy him off—as they did with a lot of other pols from both sides of the aisle. 

As far as complicity goes, I don’t care whether one side is 51%, 60% or 80% responsible because the minority took the money and sat on the sidelines.  When Bush worked out the free meds for seniors, he exempted big pharm from having to pay bulk prices to the gov’t.  When Obama struck his original health care deal a few months ago, big pharm was again exempted and now they are paying for a $150 million ad campaign to help out Obama.  “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

As for Clinton, he may have had some small budget surpluses towards the end, but overall the national debt grew significantly under his watch and over the course of his 8 years, the national debt rose as a percentage of GNP as well.

I won’t argue that the Democrats are blame-free on this. My version is that the Republicans bear most of the blame for the screwups arising from their eight years in power, but the Democrats deserve some portion of the blame even so. Now the Democrats are running the show (although the Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent the Democrats from getting anything done.). Whatever does get done we can blame on the Democrats. Whatever doesn’t get done we can blame on the Republicans. Fair enough? 

JRM5001 - 14 September 2009 12:56 PM

Chris,

I don’t disagree that Bush failed in his capacity at overseeing the financial markets.  Bush also drove up the federal debt at a record level, but he didn’t do it alone.  The freezing up of the economy last fall for example had many sources.  The Dems made “affordable housing” a priority during the Clinton Administration and the over-lenient lending standards resulted in artificially jacking up real estate market values and over extension of peoples’ ability to pay off loans.  That aspect of the crisis I would primarily blame on the Dems. 

The failure of oversight does also extend to the Dems.  “Countrywide” Chris Dodd got preferential mortgage loans and millions in contributions from financial sector contributors and insurance companies.  They didn’t give him millions out of a sense of charity, they did it to buy him off—as they did with a lot of other pols from both sides of the aisle. 

As far as complicity goes, I don’t care whether one side is 51%, 60% or 80% responsible because the minority took the money and sat on the sidelines.  When Bush worked out the free meds for seniors, he exempted big pharm from having to pay bulk prices to the gov’t.  When Obama struck his original health care deal a few months ago, big pharm was again exempted and now they are paying for a $150 million ad campaign to help out Obama.  “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

As for Clinton, he may have had some small budget surpluses towards the end, but overall the national debt grew significantly under his watch and over the course of his 8 years, the national debt rose as a percentage of GNP as well.

Funny, as per usual, you don’t find much fault with the repubs.  The outline you gave for the failure is wrong, again.  You posted this before, and I disputed line by line.  You, of course, did not rebut, which is your right.  But if you are going to keep this up, then I’m going to keep rebutting your flawed logic. 

“Affordable housing” claim is the fall back of conservatives who want to blame everything on the poor and put no responsibility on the wealthy.  Well, here are the facts:
A new study has found that higher-cost subprime loans were responsible for 84 percent of foreclosure lawsuits filed in Cuyahoga County during 2005 and 2006.
Roughly the same percentage of higher-income black borrowers received subprime loans as lower-income blacks.
The top 20 originators of subprime loans in Cuyahoga County during 2005 and 2006 accounted for 82 percent of all foreclosure filings. ( http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/06/cuyahoga_county_foreclosures_8.html )

All of the above is from a study of an Ohio county.  You can read more if you go to the website.  If you believe that the whole financial crisis was fostered by foreclosures, then you need to place blame where it belongs.  There were banks that behaved badly and encouraged a large growth in subprime mortgages with ARMs that no one, not even the wealthy, should take.  Mortgage lenders depended on their targets lack of education on mortgages.  To blame dems is ludicrous. 

However, what was a small economic downturn catapulted to a economic tsunami because of the mortgage backed securities.  You can read about the evolution on an number of sites (I recommend CNN because of the dumbed down factor).  Thanks to a republican majority, Glass-Steagall was repealed (yes billie signed it).  Now the investment banks could play with the commercial banks, and commercial banks could get capital for all kinds of new goodies, aka mortgage backed securities.  This allowed Wall Street risk takers to find a new avenue of wealth in the supposedly booming real estate market.  The subprime mortgages were bundled and sold as if they had an intrinsic value and then they were traded and made their way into banks across the globe.  When the subprimes began to fall, that triggered a number of things to fall, but mostly it resulted in our banks becoming insolvent.  Had Glass-Steagall still been in place, this economic crisis would have been small and remained the problem of the predatory lenders and not the whole world. 

It isn’t that hard to understand that the fault lies with this act of Congress and, if you like, Clinton.  Wall Street is made to take risks and make money mountains out of mole hills.  However, all of our livelihoods were jeopardized when the investment banks and the commercial banks were allowed to co-mingle. 

Your comments about Dodd are simply more partisan rhetoric.  Everyone in Congress is bought and paid for by one special interest or another.  If you are going to call out Dodd, then you need to call out everyone.  Especially the repubs, they get the majority of their campaign contributions from the wealthiest most corrupt industries (e.g. oil, insurance, big Pharma, etc). 

To equate Bush with Obama, when we haven’t even seen the legislation or the effects of it is, again, just showing your bias.  Big Pharma should pay, but they make a better ally than foe in this health care debate.  Obama needs all of the allies he can muster since the repubs have pulled out every hate-based, fear mongering group they can to oppose this legislation.  It may not be perfect, but it isn’t the same as the “only the wealthy” attitude of the Bush years.

You are the only person alive who refers to the Clinton surplus as small.  Any surplus in an industrial powerhouse like our nation is a feat.  You only dismiss it, again, because your mind is made up.  You are a repub and therefore no dem could do well in your eyes.  It is so tiring, but important, to refute all of the ignorance and partisan biased information you like to post.

I know Obama and the current dems aren’t perfect, but they are 1000% better than Bush and the repubs!

Chris, fair enough. 

Since they had control of the Congress and the Executive for 6 of the last 8 yrs it’s hard to argue (and I don’t) that the Repubs have a majority of blame.  I never was a fan of Bush’s domestic policy and he really let us down in his failure to oversee Wall Street.  That was his job whether the Dems were getting rich on lobbyist money or not.  I come across on this forum as more of a Bush supporter than I am.  The viewpoints here are mostly left so that’s probably inevitable and I like a good political argument. 

One point, it is somewhat unfair to Bush to simply compare him to Clinton.  Clinton came into office right as the “peace dividend” with the huge defense cuts.  He also benefited from one of the greatest increases in efficiency in our history, the advent of the computer and internet era.  On top of that, the US did not have any major foreign policy headaches. 

Bush came in as a recession was beginning and within 8 months the Towers were hit which was an economic disaster Clinton never faced.  Al Qaeda was a unique and difficult challenge unlike former foes.  There is certainly a lot of fair criticism to be made about the Iraq decision and about Bush’s irresponsible spending.  I always thought Bush’s ultimate place in history wouldn’t be determined until the dust settles in the Middle East, but the economic woes of 2008 will damage Bush’s long term legacy no matter how Iraq turns out. 

That was a long fair enough.  Sorry.

Chicken,

I don’t always have time to respond to all the posts I want to, life tends to get in the way.  I welcome your rebuttals even if I don’t get a chance to respond.

Perhaps I didn’t elaborate on Repub complicity b/c it’s pretty obvious.  If you look at the first part of the email though, I blamed Bush for a failure in oversight.  See my response to Chris Crawford for a more full statement. 

I never attacked poor people in my post so there’s no need to go bold in your response.  You assume too much from, what I wrote.  That seems to be a consistent problem for you and may be part of the reason you think my logic is flawed.  If you read my original post more carefully you will see I was attacking the policy.  In the long run getting someone a mortgage they can’t afford doesn’t help them.  In this case it hurt a lot of people who weren’t sub-prime too because there were so many people buying houses, prices became artificially inflated causing everyone to overpay for real estate. 

The irony here is that in an effort to make housing more affordable, the Dems’ policy made it harder for the poor to get a mortgage and in the process wrecked the real estate market.  Bush and the Repubs failed to curb Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s spending and totally failed to regulate instruments like MBS. 

Your comments about Dodd are simply more partisan rhetoric.  Everyone in Congress is bought and paid for by one special interest or another.  If you are going to call out Dodd, then you need to call out everyone.  . . .

I know Obama and the current dems aren’t perfect, but they are 1000% better than Bush and the repubs!

I found these two quotes in your response interesting.  First, I said Dodd was bought off as were “a lot of other pols from both sides of the aisle.”  In case it wasn’t clear, “both sides of the aisle” means Repubs and Dems.  You said “everyone in Congress is bought and paid for.”  You called my post partisan rhetoric and yet it seems we agree.

Second, you claimed the Dems are 1000% better than the Repubs and yet you also state everyone in Congress “is bought and paid for by one special interest or another”  That doesn’t sound 1000% better to me, in fact it sounds about the same. 

—————-

You cite Big Pharma as one of the “wealthiest, most corrupt” special interests.  How does that affect your opinion of Obama when he makes a secret back room deal with that special interest?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

Does it bother you that there is no tort reform in any plan submitted so far?  The reason for that is the trial lawyers are one of the Dems’ biggest donors on both the state and fed level.  Is it a problem that the Dems and Obama are in bed with trial lawyers and Big Pharma as opposed to the insurance lobby?  What’s the difference,?  Aren’t all of them are supporting a policy that will make them money? 

As for Obama, he did cut a deal with Big Pharma on his healthcare plan.  In exchange for very favorable terms, Big Pharma is running a $150 million ad campaign for the plan.  Bush struck a similar deal with Big Pharma back in 2002 for medicare drugs for patients 65 and older.  There is a similarity there whether you like it or not.

JRM5001 - 15 September 2009 11:57 AM

Chicken,

I don’t always have time to respond to all the posts I want to, life tends to get in the way.  I welcome your rebuttals even if I don’t get a chance to respond.

Ok, I’ll accept that the reason you don’t respond when I counter your points is that your schedule is just too hectic.

Perhaps I didn’t elaborate on Repub complicity b/c it’s pretty obvious.  If you look at the first part of the email though, I blamed Bush for a failure in oversight.  See my response to Chris Crawford for a more full statement. 

I read you response and you believe an off-handed comment and then an indictment of the dem policy is fair handed.  I disagree.

I never attacked poor people in my post so there’s no need to go bold in your response.  You assume too much from, what I wrote.  That seems to be a consistent problem for you and may be part of the reason you think my logic is flawed.  If you read my original post more carefully you will see I was attacking the policy.  In the long run getting someone a mortgage they can’t afford doesn’t help them.  In this case it hurt a lot of people who weren’t sub-prime too because there were so many people buying houses, prices became artificially inflated causing everyone to overpay for real estate. 

Your “affordable housing” claim states that inherently poor people can’t afford homes.  That is bogus, there are lots of poor people who were able to get houses and did not default on their mortgages.  This is because not only were they properly vetted, but they were not forced into ARMs and ridiculous fees, penalties and interest rates that ENCOURAGED foreclosures in so many instances.  You, as many conservatives using this argument, assume that being against the policy of “affordable housing” is not against the poor is way off base.  “Affordable housing” is a good policy meant to encourage upward movement in our mostly stagnant class system.  Predatory lending and bad mortgage lenders led to the overinflated market and foreclosures, NOT poor people defaulting on loans and NOT “affordable housing” policies by the dems.  I’ve read your posts very carefully.  It is always a poor defense to claim that I “assume” this or that about your position.  If you were effectively communicating, then there would be no misunderstanding.  If you feel I misunderstand you, then simply try to restate your opinion and focus on the areas that you “felt” were misunderstood.  However, this paragraph only further represents that I did not misunderstand.  If you are against “affordable housing” policies then you ARE against the poor.  The bold was to represent quotes and stats, don’t be offended by typeface.

The irony here is that in an effort to make housing more affordable, the Dems’ policy made it harder for the poor to get a mortgage and in the process wrecked the real estate market.  Bush and the Repubs failed to curb Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s spending and totally failed to regulate instruments like MBS. 

Here you are avoiding republican’s REAL responsibility in the crisis, which I outlined.  As I stated before, if Glass-Steagall were still in effect then the mortgage crisis would NOT have been global, or as bad, and would have most negatively affected the predatory lenders and not ALL OF US.  The Dems didn’t make policy that resulted in poor people having a harder time with mortgages.  You should look more closely at the mortgage protections in the Stimulus.  You should also realize, that the repubs blocking “affordable housing” policies, which you support, makes it more difficult for poor people to get mortgages.  Failing to “curb Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” would not have resulted in any better economic situations now.  Of all the loans that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae service 98.3% were current or less than 60 days delinquent and only 0.12% had foreclosure initiated. This is from last year.  If you can find more current statistics, by all means try and refute this.  I don’t think you’ll prove your point, though.

I found these two quotes in your response interesting.  First, I said Dodd was bought off as were “a lot of other pols from both sides of the aisle.”  In case it wasn’t clear, “both sides of the aisle” means Repubs and Dems.  You said “everyone in Congress is bought and paid for.”  You called my post partisan rhetoric and yet it seems we agree.

But you felt the need to call out Dodd.  I’d feel better if you’d drop the partisan jabs and stick with something everyone can agree with, i.e. everyone in Congress is bought and paid for.

Second, you claimed the Dems are 1000% better than the Repubs and yet you also state everyone in Congress “is bought and paid for by one special interest or another”  That doesn’t sound 1000% better to me, in fact it sounds about the same. 

The same?  Not even close.  We don’t torture, NOW.  We are investing in the middle class instead of sticking them with the bill for the tax cuts for the rich.  We are ending our involvement with that sham war in Iraq and reinvesting in ending Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (although it was made a bunch harder thanks to W).  Obama signed in the Lilly Ledbetter legislation and extended health benefits for children.  Obama and the Dems are LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than Bush and the repubs.  1000%!!

You cite Big Pharma as one of the “wealthiest, most corrupt” special interests.  How does that affect your opinion of Obama when he makes a secret back room deal with that special interest?

I already addressed this.  As I said, big Pharma should pay, but it is better to have them as an ally due to the ridiculous effort by the repubs.

Does it bother you that there is no tort reform in any plan submitted so far?  The reason for that is the trial lawyers are one of the Dems’ biggest donors on both the state and fed level.  Is it a problem that the Dems and Obama are in bed with trial lawyers and Big Pharma as opposed to the insurance lobby?  What’s the difference,?  Aren’t all of them are supporting a policy that will make them money? 

Does it bother you that Repubs had the majority for 6 years and never did anything with torte reform or insurance or really anything of substance? 

I know there are dems that are against torte reform.  It would be awesome if they would get this monkey off of their back.  More than the repubs have ever done.  Obama referred specifically to doing this, but you need to be careful with the wording in the legislation.  If a doctor, hospital, drug company ruins a person’s life and livelihood, they have to be able to sue.  And to answer your last question, everybody is trying to get money, that is the BIG problem with capitalism.  That is another topic, though.

As for Obama, he did cut a deal with Big Pharma on his healthcare plan.  In exchange for very favorable terms, Big Pharma is running a $150 million ad campaign for the plan.  Bush struck a similar deal with Big Pharma back in 2002 for medicare drugs for patients 65 and older.  There is a similarity there whether you like it or not.

What is funny is that, not only have I already addressed this, Obama touts this as a big difference between W and his administration.  W did a favor for big Pharma and asked nothing in return.  Politics as usual.  Obama is giving them a deal in order to get their support.  It is sticking with the devil you know.  It isn’t perfect, as I mentioned, but at least it is progress.  I’m not so stupid or naive to believe that Obama can fix everything.  It isn’t going to be pretty for a long while. 

Still 1000% better than W!!!

Chris Crawford and “fotobits” trampled history with their version of events in posts 21 and 22 in this thread.

You’re right, Chris. Clinton did leave office with a small budget surplus, then the Republicans won the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress.

The Republicans won majorities in both houses of Congress in 1994, the midterm elections after Bill Clinton took office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994

This is important because it is easy to give President Clinton too much of the credit for budget restraint.  Clinton certainly deserves partial credit because his economic policies were truly centrist.  He campaigned on Welfare reform, for example, and signed a Welfare bill that dismayed many Democrats.  Clinton did, however, do quite a bit to advance the subprime mortgage industry by forcing banks to allocate capital specifically for that purpose.

It is oversimplification to the point of dishonesty to blame one party or the other for either the present economy or the banking fiasco.  I grant that any such dishonesty is not necessarily of the immoral type.  Simply not knowing any better might serve as an adequate excuse.  But those who do not know any better should watch their tongues.

This gave them the ability to implement their plans to invade Iraq(1), and the 9/11 attacks gave them an excuse and the needed support of the American Public.

And, lest we forget, regime change in Iraq was set as U.S. policy during the Clinton years (the fault of the GOP-controlled Congress, perhaps?).

President Obama’s idea of giving Social Security bonus checks to Social Security recipients to make up for the lack of a benefit increase justified by inflation makes for a perfect illustration of the fiscal responsibility of Democrats.  Even the liberal rag in my town condemned that one, calling it a “bribe.”

Bottom line:  You’re not going to get centrist economic policies out of President Obama under unified government (that is, the executive branch and both houses of Congress controlled by one party).  The DNC is too far left for that to happen.