Obama has said repeatedly that his administration will make mistakes and try to correct them. He has already decided to continue Bush policies on rendition and FISA, albeit with sensible restrictions. These are unlikely to cause political problems in the near future unless abused by Bush-era holdovers and recalcitrants in the intelligence services.

But the financial fixes recently announced are getting deserved criticism from progressive sources.

If one used the analogy of cops and robbers, this current plan could be considered placing poorly armed cops who do not know whether they can arrest crooks, or even who the crooks are, in front of banks that the crooks have already broken into, and where they are now posing as tellers and bank managers.

Into this situation he and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner have proposed pouring more money and opening up the doors and waiting to see what happens to it.

The only change is that we now get to watch the robbery like some lurid reality show. Until they get the balls to tell these folks that you either use it (lend, invest) or lose it (taxes, government control) I doubt that they (the financial system) will take us (represented by government) seriously. They need decisiveness.

Both the US and World markets weren't thrilled with those plans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28501808/

Given the appointments and O's links to Wall Street donors, this was entirely foreseeable.

Reading this thought-provoking commentary by "liberal" columnist E. J. Dionne it is saddening that the Obama administration did not act more aggressively to get at the source of the current economic recession: the financial markets' greed and the electronic advances that have greased the skids to allow the economy to slide into the current cesspool so quickly.

Banks and other financial institutions made bad loans - primarily in housing but throughout the economy in credit card debt, excessive speculative investment in luxury item markets, etc. - then resold the debt in fantasies (derivatives: being things that have no value in and of themselves but merely things based on other things which may also have little or no value in and of themselves, which depend on other things which...well, you get the idea); and now we are basically printing money to give them more to do...what, more of the same thing?

They are supposedly doing some investigating of banks and other financial institutions on Wall Street. But what about the clever methods used by these institutions to hide profits overseas; or simply delay them indefinitely until a better tax environment develops? And surely Linda Chapman Thomsen is not the only person who should be fired at SEC. She could not have done this on her own. How many more schemes, less obvious than Madoff, are still proceeding out there producing no goods or worthwhile services?

As you may have heard, the "official" unemployment rate has hit 10.2%, the highest since 1983. The REAL rate is around 20%.

And here the Dems out-Rethug the Rethuglicans:



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/business...agewanted=print

The bottom line for economic reform - a line which none of us in this country, including Barack Obama, is acting as if we understand - is that it must redistribute wealth from those who are non-productive to those who are productive.

That is how capitalism is suppose to work. That is how all other economies, by any other name, should work. A socialist system would also supply the basic needs of those who are inherently unable to work, incuding those not supplied jobs by the capitalist system.

But we know what a sour reputation socialism has in the USA thanks to the cannibal capitalists and their lackeys.

Regulation can and has worked in the past. But Obama is being roller-coastered by the fancy (and false) theories of neo-capitalists in his adminstration who will be working for the institutions they are theoretically regulating within the next five years.

Here's the reason the Obama administration isn't aggressively dealing with the financial crisis using Keynesian methods that have proved successful in the past.

Obama is surrounded by neoliberals from the Rubin school, chief among them Larry Summers, and non-economist but Wall Street-Goldman Sachs puppet Timothy Geithner, and libertarian economists from the Milton Friedman-Chicago School, like Austan Goolsbee. Jared Bernstein is probably the one real progressive economist in the group, but I cannot but imagine that he's shouted down by Summers, when he isn't falling asleep or slurping down his Cokes.

And he just reappointed as Fed chief a "libertarian Republican," Ben Bernanke, who helped oversee the near-collapse of the global economy, and is using a discredited monetaristic policy to address the financial crisis.

Bernanke follows another "libertarian Republican," Alan Greenspan, who admitted to Congress that he blew it.

Obama is too afraid that people in the HEARTLAND won't like him if he acts on the progressive beliefs he once espoused while in the Chicago State House. He is surrounded by people who LOATHE progressives. There you have it.

Heckuva job, Mr. President.

Call it what you want but I think we will inevitably have to restore tax fairness in this country before we will have an economic recovery. Giving in to the phony capitalists argument that reducing all taxes is the only way to stave off a worse recession is counterproductive. It was a massive tax cut - and the resulting wealth transfer - that lead directly to the current recession-cum-depression. The social programs and health care reform are only stop-gap reversals to those wealth transfers, and may yet be perverted to cause more economic recession.

No, it's important what you "call it." Because the failure to address bad ideology is going to continue to doom this country. We witnessed a massive FAIL situation with the Bushonomics, which were a ramping up of Reaganomics. You cannot get something for nothing. If you follow radical libertarian (Greenspan, Friedman) and neoliberal (Rubin, Summers) ideas, this is what you end up with. YOu cannot magically turn things around with good wishes and a bit of tinkering.

Summers and Geithner, like Bernanke, who is a LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN, do not care that much about the joblessness. They see their primary responsibility as helping out Wall Street and the international financial markets. They could not care less if people in Pontiac or Peoria or Portland have jobs. Well, the non-highly skilled people with connections, that is.

Speaking of Summers' bullying idiocy, his terrible bullying misjudgments lost $1.8 billion from Harvard's cash accounts. Well, at least he kept Nalini Ambady from getting tenure and drove Cornel West to Princeton! HECKUVA JOB, LARRY!

Fan, since I respect you and your intelligence with regards to these and so many other issues, I was wondering what do you think of some Congressmans feelings that we need to open up the Fed. to see what it is they have been and are doing? I think its a good idea from what I know. I hear Bernanke doesn't, which doesn't surprise.

As usual you are correct fantomas, at least from a political point of view. And I have never made claims of being "politic". Witness the fact that I've applied for a job that would put me in a department under Timothy Geithner's control yet I am one of his harshest critics on economic policy. Believe me that would not change if I got the job. Though I might be too busy to post as much. How's that for playing politics?

One thing that is hopeful is that Obama has now decided on an AfPakistan policy and will now be able to hone in on other things. A health care bill will also likely be decided upon, if not passed, in some form by the time he gives a state of the union address next year.

That will leave the sinking economy looming as the greatest threat to his - and the Democrats - re-election bids. A big test will come April 15 when the free-for-all on tax-avoidance - at every level - comes to some sort of head. They have made some progress in more aggressively pursuing cheats but not enough. And finding all of them would not nearly balance the federal deficit, though it might look good politically.

After that the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan as we will have to face some very difficult calls about how to fix fundamental problems in our financial system. Though Congress must make laws to prevent the skulduggery in our financial system their primary role should be pushing the Executive to enforce those laws.

wishing the best for Obama

Rather than wish him well you should cooperate with him, as we all should.

With his appalling "budget freeze" idiocy, Obama officially becomes Bush. Paul Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/2...idates-himself/

Well, that should make you day then, Mr. Bill!

From what I've read of Obama's plan, the only mistake they are making is calling it a "freeze." In reality, what they are proposing is the old "pay-go" rules that applied under Clinton, but in a more restricted form and beginning in 2011, not now. That, IMHO, is sound policy, because it begins the hard work of dealing with the deficits left to us by Bush, et. al., helping to restore faith in our bond market and ensure we have investors willing to buy our debt. Although basic Keynsian economics would say, "spend, spend, spend" w/out consideration of deficits, more complex macroeconomic modeling done in more recent times point to the need for predictability in the market. Allowing the US deficit/debt to spiral without any attempt at control could undermine that predictability.

Yes, let's all be lemmings and follow our Glorious Leader and his stupid economic policies.



The first sentence of the Washington Post's lead article yesterday states that President Obama "will propose in his State of the Union address a three-year freeze on federal funding that is not related to national security," and the second sentence likewise suggests that the proposed freeze — which would apply to "the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs" — is sweeping.

Only the reader who makes it to the carryover page will learn that the freeze would not apply to "entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," "would not restrain funding for the $787 billion economic stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress early last year," would not "apply to a new bill aimed at creating jobs," and would be "unlikely to affect the approximately $900 billion health-care bill."

Some freeze.

No, let's all propose solutions and try to reconcile them rather than just criticize.

Obama referred to that tonight, in his state of the union speech, by his acknowledgement that the Republicans - given their insurmountable minority ability to stop legislation in the Senate - now have an obligation to propose rather than just deny.

Indeed they do, and if they think Scott Brown's election is some sort of endorsement of and drive for nationwide conservatism, they're fools. They also must stop being the party of "No" and start getting specific if they want Americans to not abandon them, like they're abandoning the Democrats, in droves.

As far as Obama's speech, like most State of the Union addresses, I didn't watch most of it. I did, however, after watching a college basketball game, tune in at 8:50 p.m. CDT, only to hear some of the many most arrogant, most smug, and truly most classless comments and smirks I've ever heard from a president. Enough of the blame Bush for everything attitude! Enough of the petty comments! Enough of the self-righteousness! Even Bill Clinton, when his party got annihilated in the 1994 elections, changed his tune and became more cooperative, apologetic, and understanding of the opposition and what had just happened. What does Obama do? He continues his attitude of, "I know better than all of you because I am just so damn brilliant." Well, Mr. Obama, you aren't that brilliant. You're a left-wing hack and Chicago political thug like your cronies; you're clueless; and you're a boy doing a man's job.

It sure didn't take this country very long to have a doofus like Bush be succeeded by a total, inept, naive, petty moron in Obama.

Well, CC, he must be smarter than you. He IS President of the United States, after all. I am sure he could walk on water and you would still manage to find fault with him. He's not perfect, but he is trying. Maybe you should just stick to watching college basketball games. I'm sure you would be much happier.

What a smug and arrogant response. It's no wonder you worship at the Obama altar. Just because someone's president of the United States doesn't make that person smarter than me or any other specific individual.



Unfortunately, his supporters already think he does.



Only when the Illini win!

Just like a snarky Retuglican...take snipets of what I say, out of context, to suit your agenda. My, you certainly have learned well, young man! Look in the mirror for a look at smug and arrogant. When you obtain a level of education that comes close to what President Obama has accomplished, please get back to me. Otherwise, zip it. You are coming across as a fool.

There you go again--someone dares to criticize Our Lord & Savior Barack Obama and he's labeled as a Republican. Well, I've got news to you: this Libertarian, most of his longtime Democratic family members, and even many of his card carrying, Democratic fellow teachers who voted for him are very unhappy with him. It's no surprise that his approval ratings are among the lowest, if not THE lowest in history, of any president in his first year in office.

Face it--this guy's in waaaayyy over his head. His terrorism policies are a joke--and dangerous. His economic policies have made the spending spree of the Bush era Republicans look like a walk in a dime store. His health care bill is a horrible bribe-laden piece of socialism. I didn't vote for him or for Senator Methuselah, but I still had hopes for Obama. Sadly, he will take over Jimmy Carter's spot as the worst president in my lifetime.

Oh, and just because someone has a bunch of letters (M.A., PhD., J.D., whatever) after his name doesn't mean he's intelligent. On the contrary, like my father once said, "The more letters a guy has after his name, the less common sense and street smarts he has."

This can be proved by trying to get this buffoon to talk without a teleprompter. Take those crutches away from him and he can't recite the alphabet without stammering and stuttering and sounding like an idiot.

Your condescending reply only proves my original point about Chairman O.


"It's the economy, stupid!"

Go to bed. You bore me.

Unlike you and the other lemmings who continue to follow this man and the country off the cliff.

As one columnist in a liberal newspaper so accurately today said:

So what do you think of the financial policies of Scott Brown, whose current platform seems to consist of challenging the president to a basketball game?

Or perhaps a dance contest would be more useful.

He would certainly have more experience in a centerfold-posing contest against Obama.

As a taller and prettier version of George W. Bush, he certainly has potential as the leader of the party.

And as demonstrated in the Jay Leno video interview in the link, he is well-versed in machismo sports trivia.

The truth is that Republicans have presented no realistic plan for creating jobs or reinvigorating the economy. Cutting taxes will not work now as it did not work for the Bush administration.

Greed knows no bounds. Dump more money into an unregulated economy and it will disappear down a sinkhole deeper than Bernie Madoff's pockets. I don't yet see a single credible solution from any Republican.

The Republicans have the same solution they've always had- I (and the people I hang with) got mine- screw everybody else. If you touch mine you hurt country because I'm the true American. It's been like next to no time for him to deal with the wave of misery the Republicans created and which had yet to even crash when he took office. The only lemmings I see are those who follow Fox and Rush's "he's gonna ruin the country/ he's ruining the country" mantra they've been chanting since before he was elected.

Wait...isn't that what the Republicans and "Independents" did with George W. Bush? I think they're now calling it the lost decade. Worst economic times ever, something like that.

And this is what kills me about conservatives...they're the biggest lemmings there are...or better yet zombies.... glassed over eyes repeating "tax cuts, no abortion, gays are evil, unions bad" over and over and over again.

It is a little disturbing how you don't value thinking and intelligence CC. A slogan isn't going to get us back on track, we need people who can actually look at the circumstances, digest it, and make a decision.

I really appreciate when the President mentions that people on all sides of the issues care about the country. The Republicans have spent a lot of time and money with the "if you don't agree with us you're not an American" campaign. Which when you think about it is really facist.... believe like us or you're not a true citizen.

Who is "they"? It certainly was not the worst economic times ever. You Bush haters really ought to learn your history. So soon you forget about the Great Depression or even the Carter years with the Misery Index in place.



Well, tax cuts are good, and abortion is evil (the ultimate act of selfishness), but gays aren't obviously evil, and as a current member of a teacher's union (and once a member of the CWA, IBEW, Teamsters, and SEIU), unions aren't bad. However, I've earned the right to criticize them, or should I say their leadership.



So says a friend of mine named Ken, who has worked for United Airlines at O'Hare as a ramp worker for over 12 years and is a union member himself. But I digress.



Oh, I do, believe me. What I hear from Obama's mouth isn't intelligence. It's arrogance, condescension, smugness, and more. I see indecisiveness, weakness, and unbelievable naivete, not to mention intense partisanship--a lot more than many Republicans. (Yes, there are those GOP idiots who are very partisan, as well.)



He only said that to lessen the anger created by his absolutely stupid and dangerous decision to try Al Qaeda terrorists like the Christmas Day underwear bomber in civilian court rather than a military tribunal, where he should be tried. To think a foreign national who is a terrorist should be "Mirandized" and given the same constitutional protections as you and me is unbelievable and totally stupid. That, however, is not the topic of this thread.



Nobody is more fascist than the Left, who bitch and whine six ways till Sunday to get rid of those with whom they disagree. If someone is on TV or the radio and doesn't conform to the liberals' ideology, or if an ad is on during the Super Bowl that actually celebrates one woman's personal choice, it's not good enough just to criticize them. No, liberals have to demand those people be squelched, their ads pulled, advertisers boycotted. If a conservative (and I'm not one) is speaking on campus, that person's mike must be turned off, or worse, he/she must not be allowed to speak at all.

I can go on, but the truth hurts: the Left is far more intolerant of those who are not liberals than the Right is of those who aren't conservatives.




I agree with most of this statement. Republicans won't do nearly as well as they think they will in November simply by saying, "Look! We're not Democrats!" This is why the Tea Party folks are becoming increasingly popular. (And let's not be quick to criticize those people, either, because they're exactly the type of people who rose up during revolutionary times in the 1700s.)

Republicans have to present to the American people a specific plan to help solve our economic ills. If they don't, Americans will kiss them off just as quickly as they've kissed off the Democrats. Running around saying, "No!" all the time isn't going to cut it.

Really all I can say CC is what planet are you living on? It's the right that wants to tell people how they HAVE to live. The left just wants there to be a choice.

I totally disagree that the left is intolerant. The Left is the tolerant side of the debate. The Right, now totally ruled by religious zealots, wants us to legislate a christian lifestyle. Now I personally agree with Bill Maher when it comes to religion, and I think that you or any other person should be able to believe that crap if you want to. I personally don't think as a man I should have a vote on abortion, but since I do, women should have the choice. The ultimate selfish act is to want to mandate that someone live their life in accordance with your views.

In terms of job growth, income growth and other factors the past 10 years ended in worse shape than when it began. That's a result of the colossal failure of the tax cut/free market/no regulation doctrine.

The President should be harder on some of these idiots. If they don't know the difference between Democrat and Democratic then they shouldn't have a voice in the debate. And if they do, and they're just trying to prove a point, then their entire message should be seen as propaganda. If I were him and, like today, someone kept doing that I'd be harsh in my response.

There's nothing more arrogant than the side that lost believing that they're entitled to control the debate. That's a big ole helping of privilege run amok. I lost, but I'm so f'n great and entitled I should still be able to set the agenda.

I think this is all going to be mute soon as the Republicans slip further and further into a small party of zealots.

Disagree all you want; the facts prove otherwise. Time and time again the Left angrily attempts to stifle debate, shut down discussion, and dispose of those who don't agree with them. Hell, my campus speech example is but one rampant scenario.

Just look at the reaction of liberals to Scott Brown's victory. They're going ape shit over it because they can't believe Massachusetts voters voted a Republican into office because of the strength of the Independents there. So what do they do? They attempt to mock, vilify, and tear him apart. Typical.



Don't resurrect a tired, old, and totally illogical argument such as that.

Tell that to the living, breathing, thinking, feeling baby who is slaughtered because his/her life is worthless due to someone else's views--the Left's.

Abortion is absolutely and irrefutably the ultimate act of selfishness. Hell, many pro-abortionists happily tout its convenience as the best way to not burden (etc., etc.) a child by bringing him/her into a world where he/she might not be wanted. So destroying him/her because the mom is too selfish to give the child a chance to be adopted, a chance to grow up, is the better "choice." It's sickening; it's evil. Pure, unadulterated, unmitigated evil.

Now, back to Obama's failed economic policies.

All I can say is "child please"

A very appropriate, perhaps Freudian slip, of a comment on the death of the child in utero. There may be hope for you yet.

I'm all for abortion. I'm for the woman having that option. And I'm all for women not getting them if they are against them. It's not my (or any one else) place to make that decision for another. I'm tired of one group trying to tell others how to live their life. It's the height of privilege to think others should live they way YOU think they should.

Obviously, as are the rest of those who are pro-abortion. Hence the term "pro."



So then you'd admit it's time we stop others telling the baby he/she must die? Good! There may be some hope for you yet.

Your right to swing your fist ends where another's nose begins, BTW. Because the baby is alive, he/she is deserving of protection just as you and I are.

You want to boil it down to a simplistic view. Life if complex, nuanced. Which is why it's nice to have an intelligent President that can process the complexity and nuance of issues.

I disagree, as does SCOTUS, that the fetus is a "person". If the baby were produced outside of another person than the discussion would be different, but it's not. In my book, the live, viable person gets to make the decisions.

Just watched the MSNBC special where they showed detailed coverage of today's meeting btw the President and the Republicans who got schooled. It's nice to have a leader who knows what he's talking about, does his homework, and can discuss the issues.

Don't get me wrong, there are a number of things I disagree with him about. But we need someone who is going to tame the tax-cut charlatans and expose them for the frauds that they are. More than 8 years of huge tax cuts did not produce the results that they always say they do. Period. That's a fact.

Further, in reviewing your criticisms of the President I would encourage you to examine your characterizations....aggressive, etc.... in my mind they smack of code for uppity. How dare he actually school white people. Who's he to tell them a thing or two. Well, hello....he's the f'n President. A little power and hubris goes along with the job. And style criticisms are usually just a cover for a lack of argument over the substance...."we don't like the way he tells the truth"....someone call the wahmbulance.

A corporation is a person but a baby is not? yeah, that makes sense. Guess which IS alive? Which is a fully LIVING, sentient, feeling HUMAN BEING? That's right, the preborn baby. It doesn't matter what SCOTUS said, because biology and human anatomy are irrefutable on this.

Your logic is frightening (not to mention totally wrong and easily overcome), because 60+ years ago, just like SCOTUS did 37 years ago, another government classified a group of human beings as less than human in order to justify their killing. The parallels are so horrifyingly similar.

If what you said were true, then why is it that those who favor abortion are so opposed to a live baby? Why do they insist on destroying the fetus? (Look at the ridiculous opposition to the Tim Tebow's mother ad. His mom decided to have the baby, and they want the ad off TV. Why? Because we can't have Americans actually choosing life now. That might reduce the number of abortions and hit the wallets of the abortionists. This whole "choice" that one has to decide when another lives or dies is simply evil.)




Thank you for proving my point about liberals being intolerant and hypocritical, because whenever Bush exhibited some of that hubris, often the cowboy hubris, he was vilified by the Left, and I'm sure you were right there with them. Now that the most left-wing and radical (not to mention arrogant and naive) president we've ever had does it, well, it's perfectly acceptable and even condoned.

And Obama's not telling the truth. He can't stop telling one lie after another, especially with his health care plan and all that so-called transparency he was boasting about. Not to mention his promise to close Gitmo, repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc.

Oh, intelligent? Puh-leeze! Take away his teleprompter and he's a bumbling, rambling idiot like his predecessor.

The question is rhetorical but the premise is valid. And it contradicts tow of your arguments. The Constitution recognizes neither a corporation nor a fetus as a person. If you find where it does you will be the first.Stating that someone is not telling the truth without specifically quoting the untrue statements is not useful. He has not deliberately made statements of fact that he knew to be untrue, though if he stated facts that proved not to be true I think he would be forced to acknowledge this eventually. He HAS frequently made promises that he could not keep. As all presidents, and other politicians have.

Would it that he were different and perfect. But then his critics would have nothing to complain about.

Which is why Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision and must be overturned and the issue left to the states. A better argument might be made that a fetus does deserve constitutional protection because of its humanity, but that is far more of a stretch than the current constitutional basis of Roe.

Puhleeze....Bush couldn't make a cogent argument if his life depended on it. It's rich that you, CC, want to try and give lessons in tolerance. The President is no where near left-wing, nor radical. He's extremely middle of the road. And one thing about people on the left is we actually have an expectation that people understand context, something the President is extremely good at.

And in the words of a famous conservative....there you go again CC with the code words "arrogant". You're either naive and or ignorant, or know exactly what you're doing. The President is many things, but one thing he's definitely not is arrogant. Arrogant is losing the election by a huge margin and thinking you should still control the debate. Arrogant is believing you have the right to tell others how to live their life. Arrogant is what the Republicans do best.

Take away the teleprompter and neither can this socialist. Have you ever heard him answer questions of reporters when he doesn't have his crutch...er, teleprompter, to tell him what to say? He's just like Bush, albeit far cockier, erudite, and smug. (I never thought I'd live to see a president more smug than Cowboy George, either.)



How can you say this with a straight face? Seriously. He is the most liberal, most radically left-wing president we have ever had. He's consistent, at least, because he was this way as a state senator in Illinois and "law professor" in Chicago. He's so far to the Left that when he was alive, Ted Kennedy had to turn to his left to see Obama.

It is impossible for me to even discuss this irrefutable and obvious fact with someone who is so blind to it. It's like someone insisting 2+2=5.

The word "humanity" would not have been applied to a fetus inside a woman's body at the time that the Constitution was written. It was assumed that women were subservient to men and would not consider eliminating the product of his seed without severe and socially-sanctioned retribution by the man - much like the Taliban. So a fetus's rights were not addressed.

It was only when women began to achieve equal rights that anyone thought about the possibility that she might assume dominion over the use of her body.

Once women were actually considered to have equal rights they inevitably had to be considered to have the constitutional right to decide what to do with their bodies, even when they carried a potential human in their body. The Supreme Court had to interpret a document that was previously silent on the subject of a woman's rights and deliberately limited in its definition of humanity. (Remember that African slaves were commonly considered not to have any rights at one time due to the silence of the Constitution.)

I have found however a detailing of what many, and perhaps you, would consdier "lies" by Obama in an editorial by someone you might consider a card-carrying member of the "liberal press":Note that even Representative Chavetz doesn't call these "lies", since he himself has probably made such political promises and not been able to keep them.

A cleverer politician might have been able to get away with not making any promises and still be elected president in today's media climate. But I sincerely doubt it.

Except that it's not a "potential" human. It's a full human being who can feel, touch, see, and more, and is no different from you and me except in size and environment. A fetus cannot be a "potential" human. That is a biomedical impossibility. He/she is either fully human or never human, and once fertilization occurs, his/her humanity is no longer in doubt. From then until his/her death, he/she retains all the humanity you and I have.

To call the baby anything but human is simply an excuse to justify his/her killing. A government did this 60+ years ago to justify the wanton slaughter of millions. The parallels are strikingly and eerily the same. How soon we forget while claiming we don't.

Wow...tripping through this tripe, I noticed CC is now a card-carrying, union member! I just knew we'd get you! (hee-hee)

Bite me.

No thanks.

Thank God!!!

Perhaps I should have said "potential voter". This would amount to the same thing from a constitutional point of view, but might have made my logic more clear.

Getting back to the subject of the thread's title, the president's financial plans now hinge on the results of the 2010 elections. Opponents of reform have made it clear that their re-election is more important to them than the health of the economy or the country's economic security.

But from a legislative point of view, the only thing that matters for now is the 2010 Senatorial Elections. Even if the House is lost to the Republicans they will be more likely to try to work with the president because they will have to face election again in 2012 and do not want to have to run on a record of just saying "no" to the president.

And if the Senate becomes more Republican, as is currently predicted by almost all political analysts, then the Senate will almost certainly leave the current financial regulatory structure in place or make it worst. That will almost guarantee another financial crisis before the 2012 elections. One that the Republicans will not be able to run from. The usual Republican tactic of soaking the poor and middle classes to pay for all of government because it is they who need its services, will finally make it obvious that taxes have to be raised.

Republicans soaking the middle class??? Have you SEEN Obama's budget? My God! The lower class and middle class are REALLY in for it.

http://knox.villagesoup.com/discussions/vi...D2860D9BE56440D

My father is just livid about this! He's been a blue collar guy his whole life. He and my mom are retired and nowhere near wealthy, and as he explained, Obama's hidden taxes will cost him and her an additional $20,000 to $25,000 per year in taxes!

So much for our Liar-in-Chief's assurances that he wouldn't tax the middle class. God! I am so sick of these damn politicians and their incessant taxing and spending and lying. Screw them all!

Hold onto your wallets, Middle Class America, because Obama's coming for your money!

Guess that's what he meant by the phrase "Change is coming." It sure is. We'll be left with nothing BUT change.