Yes!!!!!!!!! Firing Pelosi was one of the biggest aspects of this elelction that made me proud!! Today she is showing she is a sore loser. She is going to run for minority leader position. She says she has to continue in a leadership role for the dumbocrats(my word) to not allow the Republicans to ruin HER healthcare bill. She has never worked well with another party and she has her own agenda. Do any of you on TCUnation want to make a prediction of whether she will win this bid? I will. If the dumbocrats want even more trouble, or if they are smart--SHE WILL NOT WIN...
Beginning with the Reagan administration, the wealthy became wealthier and the trend has only accelerated up until the present day. The common man, represented by the Democrats, has only lost ground since Ronnie's reign. Google U.S. distribution of wealth and note how much of real wealth----cash, real estate, businesses, marketable securities, etc.----that the top ten percent own and how much the rest of possess.....
Um, increased government with corresponding government-legislated entitlements? It is the two-pronged trend of higher and higher dependency-creating programs and and a continually shrinking number of taxpayers to pay for them.
And you're right, Obama 'inherited' some of that dependency expansion from G.W. Bush...and previous administrations. In fact, in 1962, the 'Index of Dependence on Government' was 19. As of the beginning of 2009 (using year end 2008 figures), it was 240. And guess which presidential admins most of the biggest percentage increases occurred? CORRECT! Democratic. Thank you Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.
Not only did the federal government effectively take over half of the U.S. economy and expand public-sector debt by more than all previous governments combined, but it also oversaw the largest single-year expansion in total government debt in U.S. history. Much of that growth in new debt can be traced to dependence-creating government programs.
But let's not point 'Party' fingers. I was simply making a 'talking head' point against that tired old party line the liberal side uses (you know? The democrat is for the common man.)
Hello, again, Clint......Just a comment about Dems supporting the common man. Recall that the Repubs fought against Medicare and Medicaid and would like to disband Social Security as well. Generally, the Dems overwhelming assist our citizens with programs that benefit them.
Socialism benefits no one in the long run . . . or have you learned nothing from the lessons of history, Cole?! Why is Obama trying to model the U.S. after European-style Socialism when it has been such a dismal failure in Europe? Socialism cannot be defended under our Constitution and Federal Republic.
Socialism has worked well in Europe for at least the post-WWII period. European nations like France and Germany and the Scandanavian countries look after their people and enjoy productivity rates at least as comparable to ours. For example, France has universal health care and we do not, but conservatives keep insisting that it cannot be done, although 15% of the expense of supplying commercial insurance is wasted in administrative costs.
Additionally, Europeans enjoy a standard of living on a par with the U.S. and, in some cases, even better, such as improved life expectancy
A common mantra for conservatives these days is that Obama is a "socialist," formed chiefly on his advocating healthcare reform, which we desperately needed, and his painful, but necessary, infusion of federal money into bailouts. Jim, I was in healthcare for decades and I can attest that often the complicated system works for the third party carriers, not the patients and their families.
Further, no one, but no one, wanted to continue with the bailout of financial institutions and big auto makers, but, like Bush before him, Obama had to do something, or else our nation's economy would plunge into even deeper distress than what we are experiencing now. Much of the bailout funds have been repaid, with interest, by the way.
Obama's takeover of GM, for example, was not an attempt to slide us into socialism, but, rather, to stabilize an industry that, believe it or not, affects around ten percent of our total economy.
Now that the "stimulus" money has done it's job, and supposedly back in the fed's accounts, why is it not going to be DESTROYED as it should be? I understand obummer wants to spend it on some other grand plan of his. This is the kind of thinking that has been ruining this country for the last 100+ years!!
If the "stimulus" money has been returned why is the fed proposing to pass another massive spending bill if they already have the other money back in the bank??
Sounds like they just want to screw us even more while they still have the power!
I would tell you what I think of that idea but Jim prefers we not be that...... blunt!
By all means, Bob - be very blunt about the dangers and threats of Socialism to our country and our way of life (but the active Site Moderators do ask that you watch the "colorful" language when you express yourself).
But no one said we can't laugh out loud hysterically at Liberal Progressive Socialist propaganda and the fools that spread that message. I know I am! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!