Since the Dem's took over Congress

[Civicus_Sooner]

In Just two Years

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we've seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline has soared to over $3 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); < /STRONG>
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!


I've stated here that it's Congress, not the President that control's the spending. Reagan had Tip O'neil and Clinton had Newt Gingrich.

The Repubs that ran Congress for a few years with Bush deserve much of the blame for what is going on now but the Dem's hands certainly aren't "clean."

[85Sooner]

Now Now...............Don't bore us with the facts;)

[Civicus_Sooner]

Now Now...............Don't bore us with the facts;)
oops, sorry bout that!:P

[JohnnyMack]

Gas prices are the Democrats fault?

Srsly?

Come on now.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Gas prices are the Democrats fault?

Srsly?

Come on now.
Oh, I know, it's totally McCain's fault and Bush's and Condoleeza's.

[soonerscuba]

Want to know another fun fact? The president is constitutionally obligated to submit the budget of the US government agency system via the OMB. He also vets the expenditures of the legislative and judicial branches. We get it, you don't like Democrats, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore one of the fundamental facets of the executive branch, and that is submitting the budget to Congress. I think you have a view of the presidency as it existed (kinda) until FDR. The scope of the office is much, much greater than you are apparently ready to accept (although I imagine that a Dem will have god-like powers over the economy if things go south). I'm not trying to put you down, but I think that you really don't understand how the office relates to Congress.

Also, I think that the concept of an "ownership society" parroted by Bush did way more damage in the housing sector than the last two years of Congress could ever even dream. The housing crisis isn't W's fault, the idea that everyone deserves a home is.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Want to know another fun fact? The president is constitutionally obligated to submit the budget of the US government agency system via the OMB. He also vets the expenditures of the legislative and judicial branches. We get it, you don't like Democrats, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore one of the fundamental facets of the executive branch, and that is submitting the budget to Congress. I think you have a view of the presidency as it existed (kinda) until FDR. The scope of the office is much, much greater than you are apparently ready to accept (although I imagine that a Dem will have god-like powers over the economy if things go south). I'm not trying to put you down, but I think that you really don't understand how the office relates to Congress.
.Pardon me but I believe, "I get it" better than you. Did FDR have an impact on future Presidents, sure. No matter how you slice it, the Presidential budget isn't the holly grail for any fiscal year. If the Congress continues to spend on pet projects at home by sliding a million or two here and there on an apropriations bill that has nothing to do with researching the mating habits of wasps in Kansas then there isn't a lot the President can do but veto it. Of course that resets the entire process. But yea, I get it.

Dems in Congress should be blamed for the rise in deficit spending under Reagan, and Repubs should be blamed for balancing the budget under Clinton (remember that silly 'Contract with America thingy?). Just as I am blaming R's and D's under Bush.

Of course both Presiden's I mentioned had serious wars to fund as the commander and chief, while Clinton's "Burry your head" strategy seemd to be great for the budget, it was not so good for the world's security.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We don't have a president or a legislature that is willing to reign in social spending and pork barrel spending. The legislature did for a while after the republicans won congress in '94, but they started acting like democrats after a few years. Bush has always shown a willingness for social programs.

It's going to get worse, IMO. McCain is in favor of amnesty. He is the most likely of the 3 ring circus that is still in the presidential race to be fiscally responsible, and that likelihood is very low. With Hillary or Obama, it's open the treasuy to buy future votes. Yeesh!

[Civicus_Sooner]

We don't have a president or a legislature that is willing to reign in social spending and pork barrel spending. The legislature did for a while after the republicans won congress in '94, but they started acting like democrats after a few years. Bush has always shown a willingness for social programs.

It's going to get worse, IMO. McCain is in favor of amnesty. He is the most likely of the 3 ring circus that is still in the presidential race to be fiscally responsible, and that likelihood is very low. With Hillary or Obama, it's open the treasuy to buy future votes. Yeesh!Amnesty isn't the biggest issue facing our economy or even security. If, we gave those that are here some sort of amnesty, they would be tax payers (increasing revenues). With unemployment at 5% with the illegals, what would it be without them? Heck, we'd have more jobs than able bodies.

[shaun4411]

the housing situation isnt the fault of any politician. its the fault of stupid people thinking they can afford something they cannot. stupid people buying into the idea of an adjustable rate mortgage and assuming that it'd never go up. and it the fault of lenders adjusting requirements to make people eligible for a substantial loan they know has a significant chance of defaulting. its also (partly) due to artificially inflated property value in the west.

if you were smart and bought the house you could afford, with a set interest rate, and actually lived there for more than a couple years, this whole crisis doesnt affect you.

[soonerscuba]

Pardon me but I believe, "I get it" better than you. Did FDR have an impact on future Presidents, sure. No matter how you slice it, the Presidential budget isn't the holly grail for any fiscal year. If the Congress continues to spend on pet projects at home by sliding a million or two here and there on an apropriations bill that has nothing to do with researching the mating habits of wasps in Kansas then there isn't a lot the President can do but veto it. Of course that resets the entire process. But yea, I get it.

Dems in Congress should be blamed for the rise in deficit spending under Reagan, and Repubs should be blamed for balancing the budget under Clinton (remember that silly 'Contract with America thingy?). Just as I am blaming R's and D's under Bush.

Of course both Presiden's I mentioned had serious wars to fund as the commander and chief, while Clinton's "Burry your head" strategy seemd to be great for the budget, it was not so good for the world's security.

I don't want to get in a ****ing match, but I would say that the president submitting a 3.1 trillion dollar budget is a holy grail, as it is the single largest annual expense in the world.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the housing situation isnt the fault of any politician. its the fault of stupid people thinking they can afford something they cannot. stupid people buying into the idea of an adjustable rate mortgage and assuming that it'd never go up. and it the fault of lenders adjusting requirements to make people eligible for a substantial loan they know has a significant chance of defaulting. its also (partly) due to artificially inflated property value in the west.

if you were smart and bought the house you could afford, with a set interest rate, and actually lived there for more than a couple years, this whole crisis doesnt affect you.Well said. It's just dumb business, driven by hope and greed, that caused the housing mess. Bailing everyone out with tax dollars would just add to the mess.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Amnesty isn't the biggest issue facing our economy or even security. If, we gave those that are here some sort of amnesty, they would be tax payers (increasing revenues). With unemployment at 5% with the illegals, what would it be without them? Heck, we'd have more jobs than able bodies.Look, McCain is the sanest of the 3 candidates we have. Good luck to all of us!

[Civicus_Sooner]

I don't want to get in a ****ing match, but I would say that the president submitting a 3.1 trillion dollar budget is a holy grail, as it is the single largest annual expense in the world.Well, if it were to be rubber stamped by congress then I would agree. Since it isn't it's just a big ol' blueprint.
Again, blame Congress or give them credit but the Pres. is much less powerful than most give them credit for.

[shaun4411]

Look, McCain is the sanest of the 3 candidates we have. Good luck to all of us!

he's also the most likely to develop alzheimers in office too :D

[JohnnyMack]

he's also the most likely to develop alzheimers in office too :D

He'll be standing on the White House lawn turning the sprinklers on the press corps.

GET OFF MY LAWN!!!:eddie:

[shaun4411]

He'll be standing on the White House lawn turning the sprinklers on the press corps.

GET OFF MY LAWN!!!:eddie:

he's a bit more clandestine than that. he's more likely to have a trained dog scour the property instead.

which leads me to another point. id sure love to see a sitting president mow his own lawn. now thats how you preach hard work.

[Scott D]

the housing situation isnt the fault of any politician. its the fault of stupid people thinking they can afford something they cannot. stupid people buying into the idea of an adjustable rate mortgage and assuming that it'd never go up. and it the fault of lenders adjusting requirements to make people eligible for a substantial loan they know has a significant chance of defaulting. its also (partly) due to artificially inflated property value in the west.

if you were smart and bought the house you could afford, with a set interest rate, and actually lived there for more than a couple years, this whole crisis doesnt affect you.

you know, this fallacy ****es me off. Try being a minority and getting a decent mortgage rate or loan with Good credit, much less middle of the road credit. Scuba is more right in the fact that it was the prevailing mentality during Bush's first term that everyone needed to own a home. Especially with the inflated prices that homes were at during that period. It's not people being stupid trying to afford something they couldn't. It's in most case people being forced into getting a certain type of loan/mortgage...from damn near EVERY lender. That house that someone paid $250k for to get in 1999 is only worth $165k right now. The housing market is shifting back to normal and a lot of good hard working people have gotten screwed by the bloated artificial inflation that the bottom dropped out of last year.

[badger]

The Dems have resigned themselves to just wait until they have their own president in power... but they were elected to clean up W's mess and possibly impeach him. So far, I'm not sure what they've done that's so damn special :rolleyes:

[Big Red Ron]

In Just two Years

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we've seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline has soared to over $3 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); < /STRONG>
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Believe me, that's a short list that could easily be expanded.

[TAFBSooner]

Gas prices are the Democrats fault?

Srsly?

Come on now.



Oh, I know, it's totally McCain's fault and Bush's and Condoleeza's.

Neither Congress nor the president can do much about the supply and demand of oil prices in the short term. They could re-direct the tax breaks given to oil companies towards research on new alternative fuels or subsidies to the alternate technologies we already know how to use.

Then there's the popped housing bubble. Bubbles pop. That's what they do, and it's not the fault of whoever is in charge when they pop. OTOH, there may be blame to be laid on whoever was in power when the bubble started growing. Apparently the Bush administration quashed an attempt by state attorneys general to rein in some of the more "creative" lending methods.

[TAFBSooner]

but they were elected to clean up W's mess and possibly impeach him. So far, I'm not sure what they've done that's so damn special :rolleyes:

What they have done that is special is finally stand up, just once, to the Bush administration's unconstitutional expansion of executive powers. For most of the time since January 2007, they were accused of being weak on terrorism whenever they objected to Bush overreaching. Instead of standing up for what they believed, they capitulated to Bush or Congressional Republican demands. Guess what, they got called weak for that!

Just in the last couple of months, the Dems in the House have grown a collective pair and told the Bushies, no, we won't let you hide your wiretapping crimes behind so-called telecom immunity. The administration makes the patently false claim that the telecoms won't co-operate with legal requests in the future if we don't retroactively excuse their past crimes.

House Democrats introduced and passed a bill that doesn't give blanket immunity to the telecoms, but allows them to defend themselves in court in secret using secret documents. This blows the administration's misleading argument (that lawsuits against telecoms are unfair because they can't defend themselves due to the evidence being classified) out of the water. It was an admirable example of political aikido.

BTW, the House bill will never pass the Senate, much less be signed into law. Not a problem. The objective was to stop telecom immunity, and (if they prevent the Senate from overruling them in conference committee) that mission is accomplished until we have a new Congress and new president.

Surprise, surprise, instead of being called weak by the national media, House Democrats are being lauded for fighting for their beliefs. So the same actions that are good for the country, are also good for them politically! I hope they take the lesson to heart.

[LosAngelesSooner]

almost...easter...sunday...

gah!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What they have done that is special is finally stand up, just once, to the Bush administration's unconstitutional expansion of executive powers. For most of the time since January 2007, they were accused of being weak on terrorism whenever they objected to Bush overreaching. Instead of standing up for what they believed, they capitulated to Bush or Congressional Republican demands. Guess what, they got called weak for that!

Just in the last couple of months, the Dems in the House have grown a collective pair and told the Bushies, no, we won't let you hide your wiretapping crimes behind so-called telecom immunity. The administration makes the patently false claim that the telecoms won't co-operate with legal requests in the future if we don't retroactively excuse their past crimes.

House Democrats introduced and passed a bill that doesn't give blanket immunity to the telecoms, but allows them to defend themselves in court in secret using secret documents. This blows the administration's misleading argument (that lawsuits against telecoms are unfair because they can't defend themselves due to the evidence being classified) out of the water. It was an admirable example of political aikido.

BTW, the House bill will never pass the Senate, much less be signed into law. Not a problem. The objective was to stop telecom immunity, and (if they prevent the Senate from overruling them in conference committee) that mission is accomplished until we have a new Congress and new president.

Surprise, surprise, instead of being called weak by the national media, House Democrats are being lauded for fighting for their beliefs. So the same actions that are good for the country, are also good for them politically! I hope they take the lesson to heart.Well, SicEm what do you think of the above? (Is this the Fort Sumter of Civil War #2)?

[shaun4411]

you know, this fallacy ****es me off. Try being a minority and getting a decent mortgage rate or loan with Good credit, much less middle of the road credit. Scuba is more right in the fact that it was the prevailing mentality during Bush's first term that everyone needed to own a home. Especially with the inflated prices that homes were at during that period. It's not people being stupid trying to afford something they couldn't. It's in most case people being forced into getting a certain type of loan/mortgage...from damn near EVERY lender. That house that someone paid $250k for to get in 1999 is only worth $165k right now. The housing market is shifting back to normal and a lot of good hard working people have gotten screwed by the bloated artificial inflation that the bottom dropped out of last year.

minorities get decent rates all the time. are you alluding to the idea that lenders are racist now?

and youre right, not everyone who wants a house in the burbs should have one. the problem was ineligible applicants were approved for loans they were doomed to default on. you cant force anyone into any type of loan. every city has thousands of houses and apartments for RENT. you dont have to be talked into a bad loan that you cant afford. just wait until you can. the housing market was being artificially inflated for years. and so what if a 250k house is worth 165k now? if youre happy living there becuase you bought the house you wanted, then you have no reason to worry about the value. it isnt going to change the fact that youre still paying the mortgage you signed for.

if you buy a house, and you pay your mortgage month after month for the life of the loan, you have nothing to worry about. this is pending of course on you being able to afford it, and not geting an adjustable rate. a home is a long term investment. the pitfalls of a situation like this isnt affecting the smart home owners who arent concerned with selling.

[Scott D]

minorities get decent rates all the time. are you alluding to the idea that lenders are racist now?

and youre right, not everyone who wants a house in the burbs should have one. the problem was ineligible applicants were approved for loans they were doomed to default on. you cant force anyone into any type of loan. every city has thousands of houses and apartments for RENT. you dont have to be talked into a bad loan that you cant afford. just wait until you can. the housing market was being artificially inflated for years. and so what if a 250k house is worth 165k now? if youre happy living there becuase you bought the house you wanted, then you have no reason to worry about the value. it isnt going to change the fact that youre still paying the mortgage you signed for.

if you buy a house, and you pay your mortgage month after month for the life of the loan, you have nothing to worry about. this is pending of course on you being able to afford it, and not geting an adjustable rate. a home is a long term investment. the pitfalls of a situation like this isnt affecting the smart home owners who arent concerned with selling.

and the dream for most people is to get out of the City and into the Suburbs to get to better schools and theoretically less crime. And for the record, the numbers are out there women and minorities still get more of the short end of the stick when it comes to loans, and where they get 'steered' by real estate to buy homes, along with auto financing.

What about the 'smart home owner' as you put it who all of a sudden finds his job outsourced (mind you he could afford the payments no problem). Rising unemployment has a bigger role in the collapse of the housing market than most people care to admit.

[badger]

NP and I just bought a house. We could have tried a short cut with a crazy loan with crazy interest rates and little money down.

BUT, we chose to be responsible and save money over a few years to put a healthy down payment down.


Since this is still a Republican/Democrat discussion (I think), perhaps it is time the government allow people to make sacrifices with their money instead of trying to help them in every possible way... and perhaps it is time Congress make sacrifices with the money it brings in instead of borrowing from China.

...but alas, I'm sure that everyone will have an inflated bloated house in burbs after a nice little earmark passes next to the Bridge to Nowhere leading to the Woodstock Museum :rolleyes:

There was once a time when people had to make hard decisions with the money they had. Now, they can just use 20 credit cards, loans and mortgages to get whatever they want now and Congress can do virtually the same thing. If you want to know why the dollar is turning worthless and inflation is too damn high, it probably could start with this

[85Sooner]

Headline:

World comes to end, Women and minorities hit hardest! ;)

[badger]

Headline:

World comes to end, Women and minorities hit hardest! ;)

Only because women live longer and minorities are not really minorities at all in the world :D

Seriously, though. There are some extremely corrupt Republican and Democratic senators that have been packing the sweetheart deals and earmarks that benefits themselves and friends since taking office. Out of the three remaining presidential candidates, there is only one who has not succumbed to this pressure in his senior position in political office...

I'll let you guess which one :D

In the meantime, it is fairly easy to see why Coburn, despite his nuts attitude on many issues, keeps getting re-elected. I wish he would consider a higher calling to VP, but I know that he would hate it.

[OklahomaTuba]

Can I give them some credit??

Since the donks came to power, we've added MORE troops on the ground in Iraq, which has put us on the path to victory rather than defeat. I give the donks credit only because it put political pressure on the admin to make changes in the strategy.

and of course, the approval ratings of the donk congress make Bush look like a popular president!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Not to Worry! So as not to look too patriotic or responsible, the dems decided to "take a walk" on voting to continue to authorize the surveillance of suspect foreign communications to the USA.