rumitoid

If you refuse to answer my simple questions and deflect with renewed accusations, it is pointless to continue. I offered that second link, which basically exonerates Bush, as a peace offering. I joked and you choose to be snide in response. Do you consider any researched piece, with supporting data, just an "opinionated pundit"? It seems you are asking me to go back in time and rely solely on my observations, analysis by experts being now out of the question. Are factcheck sites just opinionated pundits?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

What question of yours that you think I refuse to answer? Further, do you think you have yet answered the question I posed regarding Bush's policies causing the economic collapse?

Many factcheck sites are opinions disguised as facts.

As to exonerating Bush, that has no more validity than charging him as the prime cause of the collapse. He, too, relished the statistics of increased home ownership and when his people tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie and were savaged by Franks and Dodd, Bush did nothing to support them.

The simple reality of that collapse was government involvement in markets where it didn't belong. It was one more example of unintended consequences - of good intent replacing sound judgement - of the believe that the government has the solution to every problem.

Conservative/libertarian believes are considerable different - and neither Bush nor Obama come close to being either. Obama, more than Bush, is a believer in big government solutions - and that will do nothing other than bring further unintended consequences with most of the pain going to the most vulnerable people.

rumitoid

The point of your thread was to ask if the Tea Party author's remarks would be taken as r****t by liberals. I answered your question: Not to me.

How do you want me to respond when you will not accept links about Bush? Tell me a link you accept and rubberstamp it for me.

None of the three major factcheck sites are "opinions disguised as facts." If they were, how long could they get away with it considering the aversion so many on the Right appear to have for these sites. Why is that?
Snopes, factcheck, and politco have nearly a perfect track record. Were in the few instances they have been off a bit, not exactly wrong, they have corrected the mistakes.

Here is my unanswered question for the last time: what percentage of those on government assistance are there by their own poor choices and remain on the rolls to make us pay for their errant ways? A simple number, such as 2%, 40%, 85%, 100%; you get the idea.

What you also did not answer and I don't care any more because you have made it plain how you feel about liberals, is what a hatchet job it was on liberals, while making conservatives the noble.

grey gringo Loc: South Texas

Rumatoid: the deregulation of wall street and the banks happened under Clinton (repeal of Glass Stegal) also loosening of mortgage standards was championed by none other than Barney Frank.

rumitoid

I read that it started under Reagan and was carried on by first Bush and then Clinton. There was a link that I provided that suggested a perfect storm of confluencing factors for the crisis. Not my experise. Thank you for the info. I am way out of my depth in this area.

Bopper

Along the same line of thought – rather than r****t, the article touches the very root of the problem, and that is the obsessive desire to facilitate, by any means necessary, the complete throwing off of the moral and social constraints and limitations of first and foremost, Judeo-Christian standards, or as the Founders may have referred to it; “Nature’s Law” – r****t pigs that they were - NOT. And, second of equal importance, is the detachment from the limitations of a government taming, liberty preserving American Constitution. It is in this last respect, I would contend, there is similarity to the Progressive Republican agenda.

Now, as these are achieved, most of the rest of the Liberal Progressive agenda is dev**ed to mitigating the effects of the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of ignoring Natures Law and that of a most extraordinary Constitution. You know; progressssss. This is done by propagating control increasing, social programs to BUY/assuage the “neo-heathen” along with handouts (crony-capitalism, subsidies, corrupt banking law/practices, etc) through wealth distribution to insure ree******n and an ever growing v**er base; all of which amounts to the murder of one of the most productive “Golden Geese” in world history. Put another way; we are witnessing the complete unraveling of every system that gave birth to the modern middle class.
Every single policy, law and executive order this regime has championed or rammed down the American e*****rate’s collective throats – through wh**ever means necessary, has not only done nothing to improve the employment situation or lower energy prices, they have instead increased the cost of everything in profound and systematically devious ways, perpetuating an actual unemployment rate that is a great deal higher than the fudged 7.6% we're treated to each week, along with an actual inflation rate, felt most acutely by those in the lower income bracket who are above “poverty level”. Absurd!

This Regime has done the complete opposite of everything it claimed or promised to do except perhaps for one promise – the promise to t***sform America.

The solution: Shutdown the White House (defund all of the crap agendas from O-care to g***n e****y boondoggles with the war on coal/oil, etc); for these are a part of the true sources of a prolonged recession/depression and pending economic collapse (monetary policy aside). No, O’ did not start “it” personally and yes Bush (a “Republican” Progressive) was just as bad on the other side of the isle. And no, the trouble didn’t start with the e******n of any president in the last two decades, but instead it’s been the Constitution/Bible shredding activity of a great many men and women who would rather recreate the world in their own egotistical image so that it better accommodated their selfish goals and values.

Honestly, you would think that with the most recent casting off of any pretence of holding traditional American values (T***h, Justice, Liberty, true fairness and morality- albeit imperfect), the public would have turned on them. But with the journalistic malpractice that has been on the increase concurrently, the public is still largely in the dark – Let’s hope that’s changing.

One thing seems certain; they will achieve complete success if the v****g public doesn’t wake up to this charade, and quickly!

jasfourth401

I'll take a crack at answering that one. But before I do, a disclaimer. If it wasn't Bush, it would have been someone else...because politicians run toward, not away from freebies for the masses. When Bush entered the White House, our national debt stood at just under 6 trillion. It is now 17. Four line items have added 10 trillion to our debt. All were unfunded liabilities meaning they were passed without any earmark to pay for them. They are the middle east wars (2001), Tax Reform & Relief Act (2001), Medicare Part D (2006) and carry forward interest (2001 to now). If we had simply stayed out of the middle east, kept tax rates constant and kept medicare benefits constant, we could have applied this money toward paying down the debt (and subsequent decrease in carry forward interest). But we didn't and now it's too late. A great missed opportunity at fiscal responsibility. And all due to policies initiated in the 2000's. Best of luck to you.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I STILL SEE NO QUESTION - THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY A CONSERVATIVE WOMAN WHO HAS A POINT OF VIEW - AN OPINION. WHAT I REFERENCED TO IN POSTING IT WAS THE SELF IDENTITY OF HER AS A TEA PARTIER. GUESS THAT WAS TOO COMPLEX FOR YOU

Loki Loc: Georgia

The problem with the war on poverty is that they won't let me surrender.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

The war would have ended on that if they'd stop adding programs.

larrycato66

:evil: its so clear republicans and tea party are so r****t. how mavy filibusters, how many bills past, when the president invited republicans to the whitehouse how many showed up they h**e the man

Richard94611

This is amusing. The article we are led to through this URL states, in part:

"According to Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, in 2009 the poverty rate for children in homes with married parents was 11 percent. The poverty rate for children in homes headed by a single mother was 44.3 percent."

The implication the author is trying to foist on us concerns traditional marriage and how this value, because it is somehow a noble value, prevents poverty.

The value doesn't prevent poverty in and by itself. What goes on is that two working people these days bring in two sources of income and this helps prevent many cases of poverty.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Name them. Have you ever been to a Tea Party gathering? Stop taking the media's word, that is if you really want to know the t***h.

Richard94611

Evidence -- news coverage, videos and photos of Tea Party gatherings -- suggest very strongly that almost all (but not all) Tea Party folks are white. Most of the time, B****s are conspicuous in their absence.

Richard94611

:thumbup: