Ok Jake, breath...breath...ok...now then : ;)

>First let me say that I hate all politicians. I'm not on Obama's side.

Agreed.

>What is all this vehement scathing hatred towards Obama for?? I truly don't get it. What has he done wrong??? Now I'm not
>interested in personal, biased hatred. Don't respond just to spew unwarranted hatred. Show facts. Show me what real damage
>has been done. I don't see it.

If you don't see it then you have a different view of that America is as opposed to those of us who believe in the Constitution and are appalled at it deterioration over the last century. Obama is merely the latest and leftist in a long line on statist leaders. That He is currently in power along with a majority of both houses makes Him the most dangerous man to hold the office since FDR.

>Bill Clinton was a scumball. Personally, that is. There's no greater sin than cheating on one's wife, to me that is. I detest it. Having
>said that - it's his business. Not yours nor mine.

Agreed.

>And, remember, Newt Gingrich lead the impeachment of Clinton - WHILE HE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR. Go figure.

You're drawing a false connection. Gingrich is also a scumbag for having an affair and it also is his business, but that has nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment. He was impeached on 2 grounds, perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Similar to Watergate, it's not the cheating that got him in trouble it was the cover up.

>That aside - when Clinton left office the United States was in the strongest economic position in decades. See this http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/clinton-economic-record-and-rising.html

A couple things need to be noted. 1) Clinton started office after we came out of a mild recession and were on an upswing, the budget for fiscal 2003 was passed before he was even elected. 2) Clinton and the Dem controlled houses budgets effected fiscal 2004 & 2005. Note the dip in the chart. With a Republican House and Senate the chart once again rises. I've said before and I'll repeat a divided government, governs best. Clinton left office with the country heading into another mild recession. His last budget took place in fiscal 2001. Again refer to the chart you provided to see the effects. His time in office also includes the tech bubble bursting, financial deregulation of commercial v. investment banks and federally backed sub prime housing increases which led to the greatest economic disaster since the Depression. Hmmm...maybe that's not such a good economic legacy after all.

>George Bush was in office for 8 years and did absolutely NOTHING for this country.

Revamping of homeland security, medicare part D, military buildup after Clinton's decimation, No Child Left Behind, re-establishment of the 2nd amendment as official policy. Then there's that whole liberation of 50 million people thing. While I certainly do not agree with everything W did, to suggest he did nothing, is just false.

>No real domestic attention at all. Just ask the people in Louisiana who are STILL trying to pick up their lives.

They are still electing the same local leaders too. Sometimes you get what you deserve. Especially when you live below sea level in an uber-corrupt part of the country. See Detroit for another example, minus the natural disaster of course. Meanwhile Alabama, Florida and Texas all seem to have recovered.

>By the time Bush left office the US was so far in debt that our grand children will be paying for it far into their lives. Millions lost their jobs and their homes. That didn't happen on Clinton's watch.

Clinton's left office with the country headed into recession.

>Obama was right in his State of the Union address when he said "all this existed before he came through the door". >Remember that ->he's trying to fix damage already done.

Obama's stimulus package alone quadrupled the deficit for fiscal 2009. That's 3x what W left.

>And people talk about Bush like's he's Christ on earth. I don't get it.

Not me.

>Obama pledged to turn the economy around and now he's trying to do it.

He has a funny way of "trying". Imposing greater burdens on individuals and business, imposing new taxes, allowing existing tax cuts to expire, quadrupling the deficit (before health care mind you)...

>For those of you who don't understand economic recovery,

This is going to be fun...

>you have to spend money to make money.

bbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttttttttttttt.

See Keynes and how well this line of thinking worked in the 30s. In the private sector it takes money to make money and there's a risk reward ratio that is dependent on the individual's tolerance for risk, work and pain (fiscal and psychological). Public spending doesn't contain that ratio nor the risk and pain tolerance, simply by the nature of the money being used. Namely unearned, printed and most importantly seized from the very private sector it is attempting to recover. I've used the analogy before of filling one side of a lake with water from the other. It cannot, will not and has not worked.

>It's going to cost money to repair the widespread economic damage done by Bush

Change "Bush" to "our elected leaders over the past 12 years or so" and I agree.

Of course the money to repair need to be private. There is no greater driver of economic recovery than getting the regulatory and confiscatory policies of the government out of the way of the private sector.

>The Gov raises money through taxes. I don't like it either, but its how it's done. Do I necessarily think Obama has all the answers >-No,>but at least he's trying.

I agree he's "trying", trying to pass as many statist policies as possible before the midterms. None of his policies, will in any way lead towards economic recovery. The little, and I mean tiny, signs of life that are out there are all fake, brought about by pump priming policies which are phasing out. Cash for clunkers, mortgage extensions, auto-bailouts, financial bailouts. These are the companies leading the stock market, all pumped by government cash which is coming to an end. Business is not hiring, banks are not lending and most mortgages are underwater. The one entity that enjoys pump priming is Wall Street as companies get to inflate their earnings and give the appearance of recovery. "Look at that DOW soar." It's as fake as the tech bubble and the housing bubble only worse because at least those had some physical asset attached to them, government spending has none.

>As far as the health care debate - I fail to see the issue. You already have to pay taxes. And alot of them. This is no different.

If you do not see the difference between paying taxes and being forced to purchase then I cannot help you as you are lost.

>The goverment and the laws they pass should be for all.

Agreed.

>This is for all.

Untrue. The very lawmakers who write and pass laws frequently exempt themselves and their staffs. Presidents use signing statements to exempt themselves all the time. Here's a neat part of the legislation that just passed, senior congressional staff is exempted. Its a language trick, yet it's there, the very people who'll be writing the regulations are exempt. Standard.

>Everyone gets health care. And everyone pays for it. I don't see it as a takeover.

What if I don't want health care? What if I'm young, healthy and don't feel it's worth the expense? That's what's lost. Freedom of choice. Including the right to choose risky behavior based upon my own values and risk-reward calculations.

>I see it as the Gov forcing accounability on health ins companies. They will either do it right, or be out of business.

They'll be out of business either way. I wrote about this elsewhere. There is no way for the insurance companies to survive the legislation as presently written. They will be taken over inside a decade and the reason they backed the plan is the executives sold out their companies for the short term stock gains following new signups and the bonus' they'll receive in that short run.

>The GOP unanimously voted against it because they're republican. And that's all.

bbbbbbzzzztttttttt

The Republicans have submitted at least 2 plans in writing and a number of ideas. Absolutely zero of those ideas were included in the legislation. The entire GOP and a number of Dems voted against it because it's an awful piece of legislation that the majority of the citizens (you know the people they purport to represent) do not want it.

>had a republican president been in office, considerign the exact same billl, the Dems would have opposed it and the republicans would have voted it in. It all comes down to plain hatred. And for what?

No Republican, not even the most liberal (Snowe, Collins, Graham) would support this disaster.

>I hear folks hear talking about Obama "giving up the war" or "loosing the war" - Huh? President Obama just sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. You know Afghanistan - where the terrorists actually are. People are critisizing Obama for pulling out of Iraq.
>So what? The US has had troops there for 7 years - that's 6 for Bush and 1 for Obama. The war there is over. There's no more reason
>to stay.

Not me. Obama is successfully following W's Iraq policy, as designed by the military leaders on the ground. I agree with the troop surge in Afghanistan and the increased drone strikes. I disagree with Biden's assessment that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration". Sorry Joe, but Iraq's success is W's not yours.

>The United States attacked Iraq for no real reason.

We had many good reasons as outlined over a decade and enumerated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

>Instead, Osama Bin Laden roamed free in Afghanistan all that time. He'll never be caught now.

Unfortunately it does appear that way.

>As far as this thing with Isreal - It's my humble opinion (for what it's worth) that Isreal is a big boy. Let them decide what to do with
>their country. Honestly, it's none of the US's business. Now, assuming that position, the US should stop sending weapons and cash
>to them. As long as the US fund Isreal, we should have a say in it. Either the US & Isreal sever ties (and purse strings), or Isreal
>heeds our words.

That knife cuts both ways. If the US pulls back there's nothing restraining Israel.

>Obama has been in office just over a year and the GOP has done nothing but criticize.

>Obama pledged passed healthcare,

With zero minority support

>a sore spot for America for a hundred years.

What was passed is not wanted, thus will be a sore spot until repeal.

>Bush bombed Iraq.

Justifiably and with bipartisan support.

>Bush pledged to return "honor to the White House".

LOL. Politicians lie.

-Pelosi promised the "most open and most ethical congress in history". Louisiana purchase, Gatoraid, cornhusker kickback, arm twisting, hell even the Delta smelt no longer matters in California.

- Obama promised transparency : 32 czars and counting
- Obama promised 5 days before signing any bill - Is this new math? Sunday to Tuesday is how many days?

>What he did was bankrupt the US.

He was not alone. And if you want to really have at the truth you'll notice how his domestic adgenda went out the window in the face of 2 wars and the trade off he made with Congress was military funding v. their domestic priorities. I might point out that Kennedy wrote the No Child Left Behind and see Dodd/Frank regarding mortgages and financial institutions.

>Maybe it's time for some perspective?

I hope you'll accept some.