Jim why is it that almost every time you quote some type of historic numeric statistic, the current presidential administration is exempt from the equation? lets talk about THIS current presidents numbers for a change.....once again lets review where we are now...unemployment? national debt? our nations credit rating..need I say more? I understand that you and a few (very few) members have your heels dug in deep with this guy, but I would think you guys would have the dignity to put your partisan party line beliefs aside and call this administration for what it is..........But truthfully I doubt that will ever happen..
This statement rings soooo fricking hollow.....our economy is in a downhill spiral and all you think about are past happy graphs!!! get real Jim, we have never had such a hard core socialist president as we do now. he is so bound to his left wing ideology......we're doomed if he gets elected for a second term... Jim what is it that you do for a living that makes you exempt from this administrations wrath?? are or were you employed by the government? I'm just curious...that would maybe help me understand your point of view.
.
Craig, as an independent with political views all across the spectrum, from liberal to conservative, I'd like to address some of your questions (not that I can speak for Jim, I believe he does a quite admirable job for himself).
As for Jim's use of historical information, I think it is important to understand human behavior...and that one of the tenants of psychology is that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Jim uses historical data to illustrate the (IMHO quite obvious) differences in the way the two parties have historically managed certain functions of our government. Many people who engage in these political discussions insist that opinions be supported by facts...Jim does, indeed, satisfy that request. What is less "persuasive" is to attack the person....as you seem to do on a regular basis (and, as past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, can be expected to continue).
"....unemployment? national debt? our nations [sic] credit rating?"...all those things are issues which were "inherited" by BO (from the previous Republican administrations) or forced down BO's throad by the current Republicans (I watched an interview with an S&P administrator yesterday, he was quite specific that given the recent failure by the two political parties to arrive at a bipartisan agreement....let's be honest here, BO gave the Republicans MANY of the spending cuts they wanted and got NONE of the revenue increases he wanted....that S&P had severe reservations that the very same government could arrive at any reasonable combination of spending cuts/new revenue as required by the bill recently passed). IMHO, both parties are to blame for this failure, the Republicans for refusing to consider increased revenue and the Democrats for failing to stand their ground and insist on increased revenue...but, in the end, the Republicans share most of the blame b/c they engineered the legislation and S&P realized it was NOT going to offer adequate relief.
As for being doomed if BO is re-elected, IMHO he is the lesser of the two evils. The offerings of the Republicans in the most recent presidential election were (again, IMHO) laughable....and obviously, the majority of the people in the U.S. agreed with that opinion. I voted for BO primarily b/c the Republican candidate wanted to continue a war that I believed we had no place entering in the first place (Iraq) and b/c IMHO the Republican
party showed poor judgement in their choice of a VP candidate. You will note that my vote was not a vote FOR the Democratic choice as much as it was a vote against the Republican offering...the lesser of the two evils, as I said.
I don't have my heels dug in with BO, as you state, but until the Republicans can come up with a BETTER choice, the one with "socialist" leanings, as you suggest, seems to me to be the ONLY choice we centrist Americans can support.
I can say this...in my decidedly centrist view, the KOOKS that make up the TEA party faction of the Republican organization are very scary. They are ultra-radical in their idealogy, MUCH more so than is BO's "socialist" idealogy [your assertion, not mine] to us centrists and independents. They may appeal to the Republicans, but they scare the rest of us away. I, for one, blame the TEA party for the PRIMARY failure of the current legislation to come up with a debt-reduction plan that S&P would have found acceptable, not the Democrats. To those with radical-right leanings, I know they seem to be admirable, but to the rest of us, they are just plain scary and we're already scared enough about what the future holds without placing them in a position of greater power.
IMHO, we have the best arrangement possible at this time. I know that doesn't seem to be a defensible attitude to you, with your radical right wing viewpoint, but at least with the House being controlled by a Republican majority and the Senate being controlled by a Democratic majority, we have at least a modicum of "checks and balances" in effect, thereby ensuring that neither party can run roughshod over the other.
I sincerely believe that Jim's historical data points out the tendency of the Republican party to build debt for the nation, and as I said before, their past behavior scares me (and, IMHO, most of the U.S. population) enough that unless there is RADICAL movement towards a more centrist orientation within the Republican party before the next presidential election I can't imagine voting Republican...BO continues to be the lesser of the two evils.
Just MHO, Craig....now, I'd ask you to offer support for YHO....you seem to believe that BO is responsible for the current situation...show us some historical graphs, show us some current information that PROVES that the morass in which we find ourselves can
positively be attributed to BO and his "socialist" leanings....
please! Attacking Jim as a person doesn't do it for me, I need PROOF, not just displays of indignation that Jim sees things differently than you do.
Respecting your right to have a different opinion......Doug!
