Remember the election in 2006?

Thought you might like to read the following:

A little over one year ago:

1 ) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2 ) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3 ) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1 ) Consumer confidence plummet;
2 ) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3 ) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase ) ;
4 ) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses ) ;
5 ) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6 ) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.


A liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own.

And Congress is part of the group referred to as "the current administration"!!!!!!

BTK

English, I take great exception to your definition of a liberal.

Miriam-Webster says "liberal" means: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample, full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
— lib·er·al·ly \-b(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb
— lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given <a teacher liberal with her praise>. generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift <a generous offer of help>. bountiful suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing <children spoiled by bountiful presents>. munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes <a munificent foundation grant>.

Princeton University describes a liberal as:

broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets


I've found that most liberals are generous to a fault -- not just of YOUR money, but their own as well. They are also eternal optimists, hoping that good will come of the use of those funds.

Personally, I see nothing wrong of being tolerant of change nor of being pro-civil rights. Favoring reform and progress isn't that bad of a thing, either.

As to your statistics, you make an easy assessment basically putting the blame on a Democratic Congress. Some basic realities are that "creative financing" for home purchases occurred in the late 90s and early 2000s. Those packages have now reached the time where those homeowners have to refinance but have neither the equity nor the ratios to qualify -- they didn't when they got the loans, they don't today. That's why foreclosures are skyrocketing.

Unemployment is occurring because more and more corporations are taking their business overseas. Again, this is not something recent but has been an ongoing problem for the past decade, no matter what side was in power. Unemployment will probably continue to rise as prices continue to rise and small companies go bankrupt and middle-sized companies go overseas. Milk prices have increased over 100% in the past five years and probably will continue to do so. We have yet to reach European (or even Canadian) prices for gasoline. Alaskan gasoline is sold to Japan because they'll pay more for it. They have had contracts with the Alaskan pipeline companies since its inception (yes, I know it is technically the Aleyska Pipeline Company but many oil companies own large blocks of it).

To put the blame of today's woes on any one party, group or entity is ridiculous. About the only thing that can be laid fairly on one person's shoulders is the Iraqi War. There is little doubt that Bush pushed hard and fast to start this war, got other countries on board, stated unproven rumors (WMD) as fact.

The question today shouldn't be who to blame but rather how to solve some of these problems. How do we get corporations to stay in the US without totally bailing them out? How do we save peoples' homes when there was no sound fiscal reasoning in the purchase or should we even save them? What jobs can be reasonable created that will truly help America and not just be make work and add more to the national debt?

America needs to do something about its education woes. No child left behind is a farce. It is more like no child will get an education and children will not be held accountable for failing. We put more stock in state-regulated testing than in educating our children -- teachers today teach kids to pass the test rather than teach for a child to learn.

So, back to my argument, we liberals don't want to give everything away. We want real solutions. We don't want to hear a bunch of stupid "it's your fault, no, it's yours!" If it takes change to get this beautiful country on track, then let's start changing it!

Okay, off of my high horse ... at least for now.

BTK

So tell us which laws the Democrats passed that created these problems? So go back to your list and go through it one item at a time and state the Democratic passed legislation, passed since January 07, that created the problem.

Good luck hot shot!!

293 more days!!!!!!!

I liked it when the Democrats got control of Congress. I'm one of those people who believe the country is better off when one party has a small majority and thus controls the Legislature, and the other controls the Executive. That way it always takes a "super-majority" to pass any legislation (insuring a veto can be overridden), and I feel more confident that any legislation is really "for the good of the country" as opposed to "the good of the party."

As far as education woes, we've had those since the '60s when the SAT scores started to curve downward. The circumstances which caused the downturn never were corrected, and the "softening" of curricula and demise of discipline that have progressed over the years have not helped. Until we go back to what used to work (and what works elsewhere in the world), the American publilc school system will continue to be a warehousing action where those who succeed within it are the exception, not the rule.

Unemployment will probably continue to rise, as long as the "undocumented" control a measurable segment of the work force. There is no job Americans won't do - just pay a fair wage for the service. Those who hire the "undocumented" to cut overhead and pocket the difference (including the avoidance of the employer's share of Social Security) hurt all of us.

I agree that solutions are in order, and positive change should be based on true problem identification and quantifiable solutions which include the process to be followed and the result expected based on cost/benefit principles. Snappy catch phrases are not solutions and nothing was ever "changed" by a nifty slogan. To paraphrase an oldie, but a goodie - where's the beef???

I have no idea who will be elected President in November, but I do hope that one party does not control both the Legislature and the Executive. My wallet and bank account are afraid of the result should that happen.

Steve, at this point I think I'd be happy for the chicken. Sadly, I've given up on the beef but I like your statements. I'm not sure agree with everything said but most of it. I'm really not afraid of it being Demo/Demo, but Rep/Rep does scare me. Right now the Demos are so polarized that even if they have full control, they'll disagree enough to not go totally overboard, IMH[umble]O. Demo/Rep would be okay. Ditto Rep/Demo.

And yo! It wasn't my list or my post!!!!!!

I only assigned them as part of the current administration!!!!!!

Jeees!!!

BTK :dontknow:

English, you're showing your naivete about the political process. Democrats hold a slim majority, they cannot override vetoes easily, and they've inherited years of the Bush/Republicans mess. As much as we would all like things to change, there's no way it can happen that quickly.

With Lil Dancer. And English, if you really think the mess we're in is not a culmination of the disastrous last eight years, I want to smoke what you've been smokin'!

I find it very hard to blame all that on the new Democratic congress. Bush is still vetoing everything.

The housing boom started long before the Democratic change came about. People started buying up the houses and try to sell them at a profit. This was waned to be a bad thing back two years ago . After the bubble burst, people were caught with houses they could not afford and houses they could not sell.

Blame the houses in foreclosure on the Republicans that tweaked the requirements for getting a home so that all of those that could not afford one became eligible and took out the ARM loans and got screwed by big business.

A lot of the confidence and unemployment can be tied to the housing collapse. No one can buy new homes because they are over-pricing their old homes and cannot sell them so no homes can be built. Therefore they are laying off most of the construction type workers.

The price of oil is going up because Bush started the war with IRAQ and ****ed at least half of the middle east countries. Now it is costing $2 billion a month to support the war. No wonder prices are plummeting.

Just my thoughts.

Z

I agree with Lil Dancer, Chelsea24 and Z. Luckily-most of America does too.
I am trying very hard to not read the political threads because I have better things to do...It is pointless.
But thanks Lil Dancer, Chelsea24 and Z for expressing how I feel.

Originally Posted by zcaveman

I find it very hard to blame all that on the new Democratic congress. Bush is still vetoing everything.

Z

Z, I hate to quibble with your rationale, but George Bush has vetoed 9 bills, with one overridden by Congress. By comparison, Clinton vetoed 37 bills and Papa Bush a whopping 44 in just 4 years. The major complaint conservatives have about George W Bush is that he did not veto nearly enough spending bills during the first 6 years in office when the Republican majority was acting like Democrats.

Beg to differ, the Republican majority was acting like Republicans. Oh and is that the major complaint the conservatives have about George W. Bush? Well, here's another one, how about over 4000 flag draped coffins?

You forgot about the two pocket vetoes Bush attempted while Congress was not in session -- those were considered to be enacted because he didn't return the legislation. What I would like to know is how many Bush considered vetoing but found out he would be overridden if he did veto them. I can remember a few vetoes being threatened but then the law was enacted. I would guess they were not vetoed because Bush knew he would lose.

He did not veto any bills for his first five years in office. Here is what the Christian Science Monitor, "On many major bills that Bush has signed - No Child Left Behind and tax relief, for example - the veto was never a consideration because the White House itself had proposed the legislation. Yet on dozens of other bills, the president has become a rubber stamp for a spendthrift Congress, betraying his campaign image as a fiscal conservative, critics say." (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0816/p01s04-uspo.html)

Maybe the bills he did NOT veto should be considered as much as the few he did?

Originally Posted by English

I'M JUST SAYIN'

Does that mean you're talking here just to hear your voice? That nothing you say has any value and/or integrity? That once your statements are refuted, you didn't mean what you said? What, exactly, does "I'M JUST SAYIN'?" mean?