The Usurper:AGain, Bush has nothing to do with the question I was addressing.  It had ONLY to do with Clinton.  It's true that there was a Republican majority in Congress.  It's true that they made it very difficult, if not impossible for Clinton to go against their will.  They controlled the congress.  He had to tailor things to suit them or nothing could get done.  And it's also true that Clinton began the banking deregulation.  He convinced the republicans to go along with him, and they did.  They are at fault for this whole mess too.  But as I said, the question I was addressing had only to do with Clinton.  Bush isn't in the picture.

Artful Dodger: Trust me, I'm not defending Clinton. I know how much harm he did to the economy. But the budget was balanced during his administration...and without his cooperation, it couldn't have happened. If you prefer to think the Republican Congress muscled him, that's your prerogative. Again, I refer you to history. They didn't likewise "muscle" Bush. And Bush is as much a part of the point as is Clinton, and Reagan, etc. Narrow political boundaries hardly begin to address our predicament.

ScarletRose: I think she's already gone through it. Something about being gone with the wind...lol But one can sip margaritas and discuss politics! Indeed, it is often required.

Tues.. where is that door?? Please.. where there is no man.. where a female can sit and sip margaritas in peace.. without politics and major mind stuff?? LOL

The Usurper: Bush is not the point.  Historical facts are historical facts.  Clinton was kept in check by the Republican congress.  Period.  And Clinton lifted the lid on the banks.  He's the one that opened the pandora's box and it began with him.  Others are responsible too but he began the whole mess. It's history.  It's clearly a fact and can't be disputed.  Bush has nothing to do with the point.  1999.  Bush wasn't president then. 

"Thinking people sometimes have intellectually honest differences of opinion, and often examine themselves critically. Unthinking people have no intellectual honesty and precious little self-insight."

Artful Dodger: Funny, they had no problem letting Bush spend it. And our economy is in far worse shape now than it was under Carter. Can Obama make it better? Very doubtful, because he won't address the core issues. Fiscal Conservatives should be impressed neither with Obama nor Bush nor Reagan, nor Nixon, nor Johnson, etc. I don't see how anyone can believe we are represented by either party, whether in Congress or in the Oval Office.

The Usurper:He balanced the budget because the Republicans controlled congress.  They wouldn't let him spend all that surplus money. 

Obama's economic plan will go the way of Carter. 

Artful Dodger: It goes back to Reagan, who first set the record for government debt, before Bush Jr. broke his record.

But it really goes further than that...to Nixon, who removed the gold standard. Then back further, to Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve into law.

Roosevelt tooks steps to help the economy. Clinton hurt the economy in the long run with Nafta, but nevertheless he balanced the budget, and provided a surplus...used up by Bush (and more!) to fund an illegal war.

The Usurper:It goes back to Clinton.

Artful Dodger: You can thank Bush, his illegal war & his oil-sipping buddies, not to mention Wall Street high-rollers...for that.

Artful Dodger: Earth to AD...the America you know no longer exists. It hasn't for some time. I can see that nothing I've said for the past 3 weeks has made a dent. lol Seriously, Americans in general need a new perspective, in my opinion. I'm afraid we're all headed down, down, down...with little hope of escaping from the Matrix (in the short run).

As to Obama's stimulus package, it doesn't seriously address this country's economic problems, I agree, but I'm not sure anything can short of an entire restructuring of how we do business (repealing NAFTA, stopping outsourcing & forcing companies to manufacture in America, reestablishing unions, etc.) And...in spite of its weaknesses, Obama's plan WILL help some people who NEED it! That means it is both more efficient & more ethical than Bush's bailout.

Tuesday: I should say you are in Heaven.. which door did you take??

Think about it... we could really be in Hell.. and yet when we die.. we are actually going back to a place where we are given another chance at Heaven... hmmmm!!

The Usurper:I don't agree with your Fox analysis.  I've seen Bush's policies smacked around plenty.  O'Reilly routinely criticized his administration for the blunders in Iraq.

Artful Dodger: Actually, I must confess I wasn't following the argument to which your straw man was a reply. A bit befuddled & off-focus. I was mostly just teasing.....

About MSNBC....you are correct. Likewise, Fox News is the Bush channel.

Tuesday: According to Bon Scott, "hell ain't a bad place to be." (notice quotation marks...lol)

Tuesday: What if.. we are already in hell.. ???

The Usurper: WEll, duh. MSNBC is the Obama network.

Tuesday: They laugh because he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He says no pork and then signs the bills containing billions in pork.

The Usurper: Clearly you know what a strawman is? If so, then you understand that there is no refutation required on my part. If someone refutes and argument I'm not making, all I need to do is point that out. If then, they insist that I am making that argument, I can ignore them. The onus is upon the other to show I have actually said what they say I've said. The smart thing of course, is to ask for clarification, instead of building a straw man and then blowing over.

If I say, "I'm against gun control."

and you say, "Oh. So you're in favor of criminals murdering innocent citizens then."

you get one of these:

Strawman  Your argument didn't address my own, but nice try.  


no refutation is needed as your argument speaks for itself

Artful Dodger: "Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is a GE company."

Further proof that our media, while "private," is not neutral. A half-dozen groups own ALL the major media in America. It is not possible, with such a consolidation of interests, that we can get the full picture by watching/reading it.

http://www.propublica.org/special/earmark-creep-in-the-stimulus-package-090202

I especially like 88 million to move an office,

Tuesday: I'm afraid he's not kidding us indeed, read this.

"$1.7 million for "Swine Odor and Manure Management Research" ...

Pedro Martínez:  I have to agree.. I think they would have been better off giving each person so much to where they could use it to pay off bills and make purchases they would like to buy.. it then goes back into the companies.. and leads to job security.. I heard the amount of money they spent could have given each family a pretty good lump.. enough to really stimulate things..

Artful Dodger: Now I'm doubly confused. I'm afraid you'll have to put the two pics side by side and explain more fully. Preferably you'll back up your explanation with evidence & links to the source. I still believe those are Wicker Men!

Just an aside....if the arguments are straw men, in what way are they so? Ought a picture really to be considered a thorough refutation? I mean, I know that works for O'Reilly & Hannity, but come on... :o)

Pedro Martínez: No, I'm not jesting at all.

Obama is getting a new fleet of new helicopters. Hmmmm, 11.2 Billion dollars. Yeah, like one isn't enough.

But the topper is when he said he "is proud that we passed a recovery plan that is free of earmarks."

Really? He's either lying or he's stupid. Neither choice is good.

There's language in this "recovery package" that requires the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers (more that three million of tax dollars). That's an earmark.

Three billion in extra transit money. Another earmark.

Fifty million for habitat restoration in the San Francisco Bay area. Another earmark.

1.2 million for products from these companies: General Electric, L-3 Communications and Reveal Imaging Technologies. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is a GE company.)

More Earmarks.

There's the 189 million provision for Filipino World War II vets, most of which don't live in the US. Another earmark.

This is supposed to be emergency legislation.


And then there's the 2 billion for battery research? Emergency legislation? Maybe Obama is just redefining earmarks. Kinda like Clinton did with "is."

There 800 million for carbon capture projects.

And yes, it's true. There are 200 thousand dollars for tattoo removal? Seriously.

Tuesday: I'm not blaming your son for taking the money, I'm sure he's a good person (he's your son after all ), I'm blaming the government for giving it to him.

Artful Dodger: Now it's you who's jesting, no doubt.

Tuesday: I think it's just wasted money. Too few and too scattered to be able to help the plants reopen or to help corporations in general, yet too much if you count it altogether. I can imagine a number of better ways how to stimulate the economy.

Bernice: I can agree with that. Wrong people, wrong reasons.

Pedro Martínez: Some of the stimulus money went for tattoo removal.

Pedro Martínez: if it was in the form of food stamps (excluding cigarettes/alcohol), clothes stamps, bus fares stamps, education (as in fees,books etc) stamps, it would be a good thing.

But as in Australia, they are giving it to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

Tuesday: Oh, I see. Not a good idea, if you asked me. :)