| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
May 5, 2011 - 7:55am
#1
Our Hero
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Obama is an idiot. But at least, after months of decisions, gave a green light. Guess he couldn't stall any longer.
I'm glad for once, Obama and the bureaucrats got out of the way and let our military do what had to be done.
Did you see where Leon Panetta (ex-chief of staff to Clinton and current CIA Director) said that the info they got was due to enhanced interrogation techniques which included waterboarding of Gitmo prisoners? Shocked :-o
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/04/the-new-york-times-ignores-leon-panetta%E2%80%99s-confirmation-of-waterboarding%E2%80%99s-role-in-bin-laden-assassination-in-harsh-interrogation-story
From Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/03/panetta_open_question_if_waterboarding_helped_find_bin_laden.html
The military part of the operation went brilliantly and the political side was the same botch up we have learned to expect from this bunch...lies, changed stories, inept handling of the press, etc...
They handled it with irresponsible disinformation. I'm trying to figure out why the Administration even made an announcement that a covert operation had took place. This was no Raid on Entebbe. All they had to do was keep their mouths shut. The Pakistan press would have reported on it. The White House could then respond. They come up with the most stupid shit like....
In a memo e-mailed to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "
That statement sounds like some politically correct B.S. that would most likely come out of the European Union in which the Obama administration LOVES!
If I hear Obama use the term "the International Community" one more time.. I think I will literally vomit! Thats why it took Obama 16 hours to give the military the go-ahead to take out OBL, He was making sure "the International Community" would approve.
It's scary to think that if these political hacks were in power during WWII, we would have lost the war.
Black, the president.
Tolerate, some can not do.
What a bloody shame!
Mr. Black is not president. Mr. Black is on another job. You're Mr. Pink.
Too funny! :-) more like Mr. Red.
Isn't it amazing, but certainly not suprising, that the progressive left is still obsessed with race 2 1/2 years into the post-racial presidency?
I wonder what the leftists, who seize every opportunity to slam Conservatives with the race card for simply disagreeing with Obama's policies, are going to say if Herman Cain wins the Republican nomination and hopefully the Presidency.
People abuse the race card so much that it has become an industry unto itself. Just ask people that make a comfortable living at it. Jesse Jackson comes to mind. This guy makes a living shaking down corporations. I know a thing or two about extortion and so does Jesse.
I think you guys
would not know a Haiku
if it bit you on the butt.
A big hole in the ground
And you jump in
and the sound of a commode flushing.
I'm new at this.
There's no doubt in my mind that you have some familiarity with extortion. You are after all a tax collector. Racial inequality and bigotry are areas where your knowledge seems to be restricted to producing and spreading.
Yeah, that's easy to see. In fact, everything that you're about is quite obvious.
Oh, we have an elitist here. Well, your cryptic intellectiusm is still a poor excuse for an ego defense mechanism. But, you know what I'm about. It is just better to say go fuck your momma.
Nevertheless, extortion is still subject to tax.
@DaHiltster haha, u fucks didnt do shit, u got urselves involved anyways. whatever, someone will know what im talkin bout.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRPsCtqB9o&feature=related
Thanks for proving yourself so adept at arguing my point. I'm sure your own mother would be quite proud of you, hunched over your keyboard, in your lonely little space, typing trash that you'd never dare say to my face, you little chicken-shit. Maybe we'll meet up some day.
You're new to this. Being an elitist and pretentious bastard will get you nothing and like it. You don't want to run into me somewhere. It won't end well for both of us. And the next time you threaten me I'm going to tell on you. Tee hee.
BTW, are you a musician? Aren't they in a class just above a carny? More like a circus performer? Really, if you think about it musicians get too much attention. They are, after all, just performers paid to do an act. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It is sort of like Alfred Hitchock considered actors trailer trash but he had to work with them regardless. Sort of like The Band's "Last Waltz". They had to spend 18 months overdubbing the shitty concert and block out that coke rock stuck in Neil Young's nose. Richard Manuel ended up hanging himself in the bathroom of a Comfort Inn. Rick Danko ended dying of a heart attack because of years of drug abuse. Nice crowd we admire. They end up in bankruptcy at some point and blame it on somebody else. Their only job was to perform the music as they signed up for. So what if they are so stupid they didn't figure out how to actually make some money that would last them. Musicians. Go figure. Many examples of trash musicians screwing up their lives and looking for sympathy.
JIMV
How did you get that pic of the sign in my front yard? :-)
Okay guys, who said "He who warned uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed"? And who was it being said about?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John:
Let's see ... from the part about 'riding his horse through town', I'm going to say it's about Paul Revere riding to warn John Hancock and Sam Adams that the British troops were coming to arrest them.
Since you indicate that the statement is a quote, I'm going to guess that it must be from someone who's IQ wouldn't rate a respectable earthquake ... which means Sarah Palin. Were you aware that Sarah Palin is so dumb that she once owned an AM radio for two years before she realized that it would play at night?
Jeff
And then there's Herman Cain who doesn't know the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence. I didn't think there were any politicians dumber than W, but I was wrong. The best thing about the teabaggers is that they are self defeating.
Here in Wisconsin we're beginning the effort to recall Fascist Dictator Walker before he sells the state to the Koch brothers, three of his henchmen are up for recall already. The teabagger movement as a whole is beginning to collapse, as the populace can see what dangerous radicals they really are.
The ex-governor of Alaska....what is Obama's excuse for screwing up the entire economy? I suspect it is a knowledge of economics far below Palins knowledge of history, and with far more delitorious effect.
Put another way, which is more dangerous, an ex governor with a certain lack of knowledge of history, or a sitting president who is clueless on basic economics?
In my world the fellow actually too stupid to see the damage he does wins the dangerous idiot contest easilly.
Dr. Spivey:
I didn't either! Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, in what amounts to a self fullfilling portend, we get Obama. He has single handedly taken being ignorant to a Zen like level.
Jeff
LOL
Read Palin's quote backwards and see if you still feel that way.
Oh yeah, forum layout looks great!
Jim:
Hope you appreciate the small edit I did with your sentence :)
Since Sarah now blames the media due to a "gotcha question" , I'm going to go with the sitting President.
What really frightens me is that the American voter elected one and cast votes for the other as a running mate. That thought can cause you to soil yourself.
Jeff
And Palin got it right
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
Actually Jim, I don't think you got it wrong and Palin got it right. Seems if you twist one part of what she said you could kind of make it apply to one event and if you twist the other part you could say it was about another event.
Additionally, as it was pointed out in the article, it's highly doubtful that Palin was making any sort of distinction of events ... on a positive note, it's only taking her staff 3 days to come up with something to explain away her stupidity and that is a vast improvement.
Jeff
Mr. 57 states is still more inept in actual action than Palin...he just gets a pass because his party controls the media.
...suppose to be the most brilliant President to ever grace the White House. The great Uniter. The most articulate. At least thats what the left-wing mainstream media was telling us prior to the election.
This guy is a perpetual walking gaffe machine
Amazing...simply amazing.
How the Obama loyalists seize the opportunity to illustrate certain conservative voices intellect, without taking stock of thier own party leader who by in large, lacks knowing certain basic facts or in some cases, embellish.
Check this out from just the first year and a half:
(1) Obama claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
(2) In Oregon, Obama redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
(3) In front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. … I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”
(4) While Obama was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?
(5) Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. In March of 08, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil-rights movement as a whole.”
(7) In Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages
(8) In Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multibillion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup: “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”
I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense-authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear-waste site.
(9) And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
A teleprompter is obviously worth it's weight in gold for Obama and when he goes off the prompter, it becomes verbal gymnastics that are embarrassing to witness.
I think thats enough idiocy from the over-promoted community organizer, unless you want more gaffes from 2010-11. :-)
And the dems pet media simply does not note his gaffs....He is their guy and by golly, if they say he is brilliant, then he is, evidence to the contrary be damned.
Actually, my biggest problem with the fellow is not his gaffs but his outright lies and his simply making up numbers to support the lies.
Yes, he becomes Sarah Palin-ish, that other great orator.
Jeff
My biggest problem with the guy is that he's President.
Jeff
I too have been to the 57th state ... you get there via route 420.
Jeff
"and and " ?
Even I get tongued tied when I go off teleprompter. :-)
..and route 420 is the most scenic as far as greenery too.
Jeff, as far as I know Palin has never pretended to be a orator, just able to speak a bit of truth when others sort of forget to.
... and lots of 7-11's for Doritos :)
A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.
The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses, and a YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I can tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"
Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, why not?"
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and serfs to a NASA page on the Internet where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.
The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.
Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.
Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."
"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Bud.
He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"
"You're an aide in the Obama administration", say Bud.
"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"
"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about how working people make a living - or about cows, for that matter. This is a herd of Sheep."
"Now give me back my Dog."
That nails it Jeff. :-)
In some places, this is called referring to fact not in evidence.
So I'm calling you. I say that your claim that obama screwed up the entire economy is a total canard, sheer quackery and political fraud.
Enjoy. The evidence is out there. If you can find it yourself and understand it, you'll feel very silly having made the claim you did.
Now, if you said "shrub" messupg up the economiy with two unnecssary wars...
You really think BoBo has in some unexplained manner, helped? Perhaps the imaginary 'jobs created or saved' number reassures you. Maybe producing a trillion and a half in deficit spending last year did something as yet unknown good for the economy. Why, we could even pretend his 'under 7% unemployment by now' promise made early in 2009 really happened....
yes, we could pretend and hope and even perhaps pray but I prefer simply replacing the problem with someone more competent.
When did it become cool for the GOP to start blaming the Dems and Obama for the country's (and the world's) screwed-up economy? There are only a few reasons anyone would state this as though it were fact; either they have an idea they might get some kind of political gain from it, they hope to profit financially, or they are just plain stupid. The entire world knows what went down here. If you think that just stating such a preposterous lie will make it true, or that anyone of normal intelligence would believe it - hey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya! Of course, a big part of the problem is that people of normal intelligence don't belong to the Republican party. I wonder if there may be a tie-in between making the teaching profession less secure and the dumbing-down of America.
I DO know there is a tie-in between the loss of value in our homes and the Bush years. It has been estimated that if the tax rates had been left alone at the end of Bill Clinton's second term - even with W's mindless war in Iraq - that the country would now be in the black by between 4 and 5 TRILLION dollars. Add that to the 14 TRILLION dollar Bush deficit and you get around 18 TRILLION dollars. That would be the real, actual cost of Bush's tax cuts and wars. My premise is that money doesn't just disappear - that the loss in value of all the real estate in the US is represented by that 18 TRILLION dollar figure. Sort of makes Bernie Madoff look like a rank amateur.
But just as the feds have started to recoup a small percentage of the money Madoff stole, it is possible to trace the money that the home-owners of this country lost because of the financial "meltdown" that occured during the Bush regime. Of course, we all know that ain't gonna happen. This money was stolen from us just as surely as any Ponzi scheme would have done - except we didn't have a choice. It's nice to know that somewhere, somehow the money that the Bush crime family stole (from us all) will eventually be accounted for. Unfortunately, it can never be re-paid, because even if the government goes bankrupt, and defaults on its' loans from China and Russia, as well as Japan and England and Canada, we who have lost so much collectively will have to stand in line behind them to collect what little is left.
The only choice we have is to make sure it can't happen again. Not by voting FOR Obama, but by voting AGAINST those who profited in the first place - and who will continue to pick our pockets, if we let them, until we have nothing. We as an electorate are somehow always left to vote FOR the lesser of two evils. That would surely mean voting AGAINST the thieves in the GOP.
Obama '12!
Bob,
Ok, you distain Republicans. I get it.
No offense, but your all over the map on your assessment of the economy in your post. But what is quite clear is the fact you despise Bush. I wasn't a fan of Bush either.
Facts on the Obama economy:
The recession preceded Obama's Inaugural by 13 months, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, and so did the President's fiscal policy ideas. George W. Bush got there first. In February 2008, he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed on a $168 billion combination of federal spending and temporary tax rebates that were supposed to maintain growth through the housing market decline that election year.
Larry Summers, who would later become Obama's chief economic adviser, made the case for such a stimulus to boost domestic "demand" in late 2007. Any stimulus, he told the Brookings Institution, should be "timely, targeted and temporary." Peter Orszag, then at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before joining the Obama White House, made the same case.
The official GDP statistics did show a growth blip in the second quarter of 2008 to 0.6%, but third quarter GDP fell by 4%, and we all know what happened after the financial meltdown. Stimulus I failed.
Enter Stimulus II, the $814 billion plan that was also supposed to make up for lost private demand. It too was a combination of one-time tax rebates and spending, mostly on social programs like Medicaid rather than on "shovel-ready projects." Mr. Summers promised this would have a 1.5 "multiplier" effect on GDP growth, and White House economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein famously predicted the spending would keep the jobless rate below 8%.
All during this time, the Federal Reserve was also feeding the economy with unprecedented monetary stimulus, cutting its benchmark interest rate to near zero and expanding its balance sheet by more than $2 trillion by purchasing mortgage-backed securities and other assets.
During this time, too, Congress passed other industry-specific stimulus bills—cash-for-clunkers, the $8,000 home-buyer's tax credit, mortgage payment relief, and jobless pay up to 99 weeks. Yet all of this has merely stolen auto and home purchases from the future, with sales falling once the tax benefits expired. The housing market in particular may be softening again, despite historically low interest rates.
The recovery seems to have begun in summer 2009, with GDP growth hitting 5% in the fourth quarter on the backs of an inventory rebound and expansion overseas. But U.S. growth has since decelerated, to a mere 1.6% in the second quarter, and the jobless rate is 9.6% after three consecutive months of job losses. The economy is growing, but far too slowly to restore broad-based prosperity.
In sum, never before has government spent so much and intervened so directly in credit allocation to spur growth, yet the results have been mediocre at best. In return for adding nearly $3 trillion in federal debt in two years, we still have 14.9 million unemployed. What happened?
The explanations from the White House and liberal economists boil down to three: The stimulus was too small, Republicans blocked better policies, and this recession is different because it began in a financial meltdown. Only the third point has some merit, and for a different reason than the White House claims.
On a too-small stimulus, this isn't what Democrats or most Keynesian economists told us at the time. Even Paul Krugman, who now denies intellectual paternity for this economy, wrote on November 14, 2008 that "My own back-of-the-envelope calculations say that the package should be huge, on the order of $600 billion." The White House raised him by 33% two months later, but now we're told that wasn't enough.
Given that the stimulus program was so poorly structured and so overtly politicized, how do we know that, say, $500 billion more would have made a difference even on Keynesian terms? The money for government spending has to come from somewhere, which means from the private economy. Our guess is that by ensuring even higher debt and implying higher taxes, a bigger spending stimulus would have done even more harm.
Stimulus godfather Mark Zandi and CBO have produced studies claiming that the stimulus saved millions of jobs and thus prevented an even deeper recession. But these are essentially plug-and-play economic models that multiply the amount of dollars spent by the assumed impact on jobs based on previous studies, and, voila, the jobless rate would have been higher without such spending. In the real world, the economy lost 2.51 million jobs.
The claim that recessions rooted in financial panic pose special problems has more truth to it. Credit excesses built up over many years have to be wound down, and that takes time, while banks have to work down their bad assets. However, one good aspect of this recovery is that business balance sheets have shaped up nicely, thanks to productivity gains, and banks have been making healthy profits. The problem is that banks still aren't lending and businesses aren't hiring or investing enough.
Which brings us to another major cause of the Obama malaise. When it took office in 2009, many advised the Administration to focus on nurturing the recovery first and postponing social-policy priorities that would only add more economic uncertainty. All the more so given this recession's unusual financial roots.
Instead, Democrats embarked on the most sweeping expansion of government since the 1960s, imposing national health care, rewriting financial laws from top to bottom, attempting to re-regulate the telecom industry, and imposing vast new costs on energy, among many other proposals. Not to stop there, in January it plans to impose a huge new tax increase on "the wealthy," which in practice means on the most profitable small businesses.
Central to Obama's political strategy for passing these priorities has been trashing business and bankers as greedy profiteers. His Administration has denounced or held up as political or legal targets the Chrysler bond holders, Wall Street bonuses, Goldman Sachs, health-insurer profits, carbon energy investors, and anyone else who has dared to oppose any of its plans to "transform" U.S. society.
At a Labor Day event in Milwaukee, Obama was at it again, declaring that "anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it'll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up—they just haven't studied our history. We didn't become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness."
Whatever else one can say about such rhetoric, it is not the way to restore business confidence or turn a fragile recovery into a durable expansion. It has only spread fear and even greater uncertainty.
As for blaming the Republicans, with only 40 and then 41 Senators they couldn't stop so much as a swinging door. The GOP couldn't even block the recent $10 billion teachers union bailout. The only major Obama priorities that haven't passed—cap and tax and union card check—were blocked by a handful of Democrats who finally said "no mas." No Administration since LBJ's in 1965 has passed so much of its agenda in one Congress—which is precisely the problem.
To put it another way, the real roots of Obama's economic problems are intellectual and political. The Administration rejected marginal-rate tax cuts that worked in the 1960s and 1980s because they would have helped the rich, in favor of a Keynesian spending binge that has stimulated little except government. More broadly, Democrats purposely used the recession as a political opening to redistribute income, reverse the free-market reforms of the Reagan era, and put government at the commanding heights of economic decision-making.
Obama and the Democratic Congress have succeeded in doing all of this despite the growing opposition of the American people, who are now enduring the results. The only path back to robust growth and prosperity is to stop this agenda dead in its tracks, and then by stages to reverse it.
I hope you can now see that the Obama administration, the current administration, is more than culpable.
In August of 2007 I was visiting family in France and spent a month reading the European press as well as my normal internet sites. I noted, loudly, that housing all over the world was vastly overpriced (in comparisn to the salaries earned in the country), that Frank and Dodd were protecting Fannie and Freddie from any serious regulatory reform (this was before we found out about the deals they got in exchange), and the world economy was headed for the biggest fall since the 30's. I also wrote that THE issue in the 2008 election would be economic and the politician who had either the best economic policy or who could at least lie about one well, would win.
The left giggled wildly and wisely assured me and all readers that of course the issue in 2008 would be the war. The right laughed as they advised all was well...
We saw what happened. The economy crashed and is setting up for an even bigger fall, we did elect the fellow with the biggest line of BS for fixing the economy, and yes, we are where we are because his programs failed. Heck, most of the policy folk who made all these silly decisions are gone. They fled while the fleeing was good.
Today we face a new situation, a new crash perhaps accompanied by an EU meltdown. Obama has not a clue what to do...he cannot print money his way out, as he tried in 2009 and 2010. He cannot pretend all is well as he did last year in the 'Summer of recovery' and he cannot rely on magic jobs created or saved as folk now see that was simply BS.
Yes, BoBo and his merry band of Socialists in the Senate own this mess...they made it, they prolonged it and today they are desperately trying to cling to the failed schemes from BoBoCare to QE (1, 2, or perhaps 3).
Good luck with that.
Sorry, I forgot crazy.
Repeating an action over and over with the expectation that a different result will be obtained is one of the definitions of insanity. So keep on voting Republican. And calling Obama BoBo. What variety of nuts are you?
I studied economics in the early '70's when Keynsian theory was accepted as the best (maybe only) path to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. Nowadays, Keynes is not held in such high regard, but I wonder if that is actually because of the Libertarian viewpoint that government spending means higher taxes. I can't help but wonder if a true implementation of Keynsian startegy would have gotten us out of this "downturn" in the economy a lot sooner. Of course, that would have meant a much larger stimulus package, brought about sooner and pointed in the right direction.
As far as the culpability of the Bush administration, the economy was weakened so catastrophically by the Bush tax cuts and un-funded wars that there just wasn't enough strength left to fight off the housing crisis, bank lending crisis, wall steet crisis, et al. So yes, I can blame the Bush administration completely for the problems we now face. Having a surplus of 4 to 5 TRILLION dollars would have been enough to tide us over. Of course we'll never know, because the Bush administration's "borrow and spend" policies, which brought about this entire mess, have left us with such a huge deficit.
You're right that my post was all over the map. What I'm thinking of is a "follow the money" kind of investigation - much the same as the investigation of the Ponzi scheme Bernie Madoff ran. It shouldn't be that difficult to look at the numbers and determine who got what, as well as how much was lost, and by whom.
Please don't think that I hold the Democrats blameless. Another point I was trying to make is how the American voter must choose, at the voting booth, between "the lesser of two evils". I'm not sure this is how the process is supposed to work. During the current Weiner-gate farce, Democratic Senators voted against a bill that would rein in speculation on derivatives - a prime mover in the housing crisis. That story, however was buried behind the tabloid sensationalism of Weiner-gate. I would like their (figurative) heads on pikes outside the Capitol, just as I'd like to see those of the most culpable figures in the GOP. It is often said that in a true democracy people get the leadership they deserve. I can't believe that the USA deserved George W. Bush. I personally don't hold George W. Bush responsible for anything, because he is an idiot. But his administration, run by the GOP machine, ruined this country.
If Mitt Romney would stick to his guns, instead of cow-towing to the millionaires, mouthpieces and idiots of Tea-publicanism, I could vote for him. After all, he did govern a state in which there is actually a plan to control health-care costs while providing everyone in that state with government-financed health care. This is something that 70% of Americans want, but he can't take credit for it and win the nomination, so he turns into just another two-faced lying bastard from the right. So we the people have to choose between the two.
Unless the Republicans can come up with someone better, I have to go with Obama '12.
The legend of Paul Revere can be found on the "B" side of the single "Him or Me - What's It Gonna Be".
Paul did all sorts of shit like running his little donkey around town waking up everybody, including the Torries (who we deported) and the British (who got their asses kicked out of the colonies by force). I mean when it comes to Boston, after the British left, sooner or later Paulo Venerare (an Italian immigrant who changed his name to English), would announce that the British are coming. I wish you guys would listen to more "B" side of the singles.
"Unless the Republicans can come up with someone better, I have to go with Obama '12. "
That is your summation? It is rhetorical. Nobody running for office really gives a shit about the conservative or liberal votes so you just go with "Obama '12" it won't make any difference. What if the Independents come up with somebody better? Hell, the Independents could dig Pat Paulsen from the grave and come up with something better than Obama".
Pages