Daily Kos: Everyone hates Republicans in Congress

Creeping, the Tea Party equals history; and, not a stellar one at that.

I include those who nothing but mindless sheep who happily voted for them and continue to support their full out warfare on America and its people in my total disdain of the GOPTeaBags in Congress, and out.

As for those who let their frustration and anger guide them in their votes for the GOPTeaBags and who now realize their extremely gross mistake by voting for the Devils agents who commit their evil across America in Gods name, will see what their frustration and anger has done to our country and its people, including themselves, and do the right thing in 2012 to help get our country back and save its people from corporate slavery and fanatical Evangelical style Islamic religious tyranny.

#4.1:and do the right thing in 2012 to help get our country back and save its people from corporate slavery and fanatical Evangelical style Islamic religious tyranny.

You must remember what the family judge often says to the husband and wife: "you have to love your kids more than you hate each other in order to do what is correct for the family/kids".

So I ask the same question: do the voters hate President Obama more than they love themselves (self interest)? That is going to be the question to ask.

To date it seems that they have hated President Obama MORE than they have loved themselves and thus they vote against President Obama! But they fail to see they are voting against themselves trying to get rid of him.

It is also known as cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Electing people that are not in your best interests. For example, look at the change in those townhall meetings after so many Tea- Republicans came out against Social Security and Medicare.

Unless the Government finds a way to give the election process back to the citizens we will continue to Elect these Idiots.

The Public votes for a Canidate who promises that they will create Jpbs, Cut Taxes and more importantly represent the Constituatency who Elected them to Office. They pound this message home with TV spots every 3 minutes when it gets close to election time. The ads are paid for by BIG Corporate enities/PACS.

The citizens go to the Polls and Elect a Representitive who said he was going to do Good things. When he is Elected he does not have to Represent the Constituatents he only has to represent the Money who got him elected. That is how he gets RE-ELECTED.

Get the Money out of the Campaigns and we will end up with Representitives who represent the Constituants.

It may never happen because the Elected do not want to change the process.

I am old enough to remember when you could actually talk to your representitive. After they are elected they don't want to hear about Constituant thoughts. They know what to do, follow the Money.

Carl, can't help but agree with you generally. It's a sad state of affairs to be sure. And, like you, I'm not so sure we'll ever really be able to change it. All we can do is our level best and be outspoken and continue to vote our conscience.

AlphaDogReporter

Touche'

Best question I have yet to see here on the Vine. Now...let's wait and see who has the answer (as if we believe the word of any poster). (sarcastic snicker, very sarcastic)

Hate to say it, but there is surely something strange in this mix if one considers that the majority of voters supposedly disagree with the Republicans, especially on the issues of Social Security and Medicare.

Yet, we also are hearing that a majority of the voters are supposedly against the President's policies.......

How can this be? Is the electorate actually as confused as all this, or should the pollsters just shut up about it, and wait till the 2012 election to see the results?

At this point, all I see is a media -created mess. Those money-makers are surely having a good time going to the bank and cashing those well-earned paychecks.

American voter, you are being had.....big time.

dixielee

We agree.

Now before anyone says we are jealous of those big income earners who populate today press corps, we are just making comments on who is doing what and why.

So, to all you righwingers and tea-partiers, don't get your knickers in a knot, and start that 'bleeding heart liberal jealous of the rich' lie.

dixielee,

Truth is for sure stranger than fiction.

The mystery is how people keep electing people they claim they don't approve of.

More often than not, the choices - provided your representative or congressman isn't running unopposed - is like choosing between arsenic or rat potion. And sadly, there's no way to vote for "none of the above" in any meaningful way, so I leave a lot of slots blank on the ballot because there is no "least worst" choice.

I would like to have the "none of the above" option and have it stick by ensuring the same candidates can't run in the next election to try to fill a seat. Then and only then might the sons-of-bitches listen.

For now, I'd settle for wanting to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone.

Republicans are at 28% approval; spin it any way you like, but they are not liked by most:
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

And? Jack the president ain't doin much better. Can we put out a headline "Lot hate for Obama"? I find the use of the word 'hate' in the headline above telling as always. I am aware of the numbers how can one not be? Especially here where a near celebration is thrown everytime the GOP loses a point. The entire governments approval ratings are down in the ground underneath the cellar.

Republicans are at 28% approval

The poll cited by the title, Jack, has Republicans at 19% while Democrats are at 28%.

Both those percentages are piss poor, if you ask me.

Those percentages indicate many Americans (53% of them based on your numbers) are good and tired of "business as usual" by BOTH main parties when it comes to the partisanship and mud slinging back and forth. I know I sure the hell am.

the president ain't doin much better.

He is at 43%,, which is a lot better than the Republicans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20107584-503544.html

I think the decision to get into very bitter partisan bickering leads to a no win situation for both parties and the president. The bottom line is that when bickering consumes most of the time and energy, the public perception of government in general is that they are not doing their job or serving the country.

Is that the left's only measure for success? To be better than the republicans? No wonder we are in the state we are in. "Hey Mr.President our numbers say we are at 12% approval." "No worries there Bill the republicans are 10%!"

Unfortunately, he has entered into it himself on many occasions.

He's aware of the problem but takes zero responsibility for his own participation in it.

He's aware of the problem but takes zero responsibility for his own part in it.

Hogwash. The problem for him is that every time he has tried to take the high road, he's been the only one to compromise. The Republicans have showed absolutely no willingness to work with the President, their only position is to say no to whatever he proposes.

It's about freakin time the President calls them out on their obstructionism and demand that they also learn how to give a little. Their obstructionism can clearly be seen in their continually declining poll numbers and lack of legislation to improve the job situation specifically and the economy in general.

#6.6: I think the decision to get into very bitter partisan bickering leads to a no win situation for both parties and the president. The bottom line is that when bickering consumes most of the time and energy, the public perception of government in general is that they are not doing their job or serving the country.

Would everyone please forgive me for asking this silly question, but WHY are we bickering about anything in the first place? Isn't it a cut and dried situation? Aren't the GOP the party of NO and has been since the President was elected in 2008? And haven't the GOP thwarted every program that the President has initiated in order to help the average American citizen?

What is the question? I don't need any more evidence as to who is to blame for the ruination and failed policies of the government! Wasn't it the repugs who promised to do better if you put them back into office in Nov. 2010? Did they? Have you forgotten the answer - again?

I know you like to banter back and forth for the sake of argument perhaps. and you like rhetoric as much as the next guy. And maybe I don't know how to play the game exactly, but come on, what is there to argue and bicker about? Seriously.

I can't wait for the ads next year when the Democrats play McConnell saying 'our number one goal is to make sure Obama is a one term President', against their dismal record for doing anything to improve the economy.

CuriousG

Yep, the ads are going to get nasty, I can't wait, I see it now

Boehner talking about Jobs

then cut to Abortions,

I am going to laugh my ass off at the GOP,

Give them a taste of their own medicine.

The best part will be, all we have to do is replay their own words.

The HuffingLiberal, right after receiving approval from Media Mutters to run with it.

They aren't they're merely reporting on a poll by CBS News/New York Times.

Poll: Just 12% happy with Congress

Are you afraid of MediaMatters tesla? All they do is report verbatim language of liars and actual footage of events. I know you authoritarian followers don't like the truth being echoed back.

Strangely greg that is what all the conservative rags and blogs claim too. Couple different labels and viola. Afraid of Media Mutters? Seriously? Whatever are they going to do to me? I have never heard of anyone actually being bored to death...............

This 'both sides are at fault' argument is baloney. The Republicans have done absolutely nothing to improve the job or economic situation.

At least the Democrats have been trying to put forth some bills to improve things for the middle class, who have been hurt the most by this Bush/Republican recession.

Well taken, Emmadadog.

Nor do they care one whit about what the people want, so sending them emails, letter or phone calls to tell them what we the people want does no good. They won't ever see the emails, letters or take any phone calls, and do what they please whether or not you like it. The people mean nothing to them at all. They are worthless and expendable. Whether or not they themselves get re-elected or not, it is the party only that counts, and maintaining control of the WH, Senate and House at all costs is all that matters. The GOPTeaBags in office now are nothing but mindless bots, and so, too, those who come after them.

It is a high stakes game now, there is a lot of money and power to be gained and the Koch Brothers and their corporate mafias will not go quietly into the night. IMHO, we ain't seen nothing of what they have in mind before they get booted out of office. Every day they are in office they have they further destroy our country and our rights. We may not have 14 months to wait to fight back, as the way they are attacking voter rights and regulations left and right across the country we may not even have the right to vote in Nov 2012.

Same can be said for both parties, Tink. No one can claim the moral high ground any more.

I love how conservatives try to blame everyone when they are clearly the ones at fault for our current economy. Their approval numbers are less than half of the Democratic numbers.

Why is that? Americans finally waking up to their B.S.

Though I don't see him lasting past 2012, I'll be curious to see how many new Republican faces we'll see, as with the Tea Party. Obama's numbers are low (at least that's what ever one tells me), but then I'd have to ask what have the Republicans produced since 2010 or the Tea Party. As far as the two seats won, how much money was put in to get those people elected?

I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know. Just hope the next batch is better than this one.

Obama's numbers are low, but I just don't see America electing Rick Perry - the Republican front runner. Who wants an evangelical Christian in the white house that recognized no separation between church and state?

(WTF is a Kos anyway?)

Not to interfere with your roll (assuming you think you're on one).......(comment #11)

Kos is usually a term that refers to knockouts. The letters are usually capitalized as in 'KOs', meaning plural knockouts.

The Kos commentators have actually been quite good at keep the political discourse lively.

Surely you are aware that even though Newsvine is often referred to by some posters as being leftwing, there are plenty of rightwing supporters who come to this site to counter whatever they believe to be a cheering session for the President.

Though I do see evidence of votes that weighs positively on the side of his supporters here on the Vine, those who are against the President do get their messages out.

Facts and polls be damned!!!

Let the Newviners go at it, blow by blow. For one side or the other rounds will surely continue until a complete KO is called in 2012.

Thanks, wjm5-0, I've been wondering that for a long time.

I agree, NV is largely the province of the left, but we on the right (and in the right) have been slowly but surely getting our message across.

One of the ways I know that is true is the amount of name calling ( Re-Thug's, TPers, etc.) the left has had to resort to. One can almost visualize their spittle-flecked diatribes as they bang on their keyboards in anguish at GOP progress.

The recent elections in Nevada and New York, as well as the 2010 elections shows how the left's message is failing.

littleboyblue

It's your call, have your way, go for what you know.

Although there is one thing that bugs the heck out of me about what the Republican/Rightwing/TeaParty is doing when it comes to how the vote for the election of 2012 is allowed to go forth.......

Why is it, that on the state level where we have at least 26 Republican govenors and a majority of Republican legislatures.......

That if you are so confident in having sway over the hearts and minds of a majority of the electorate and you have the truth of President Obama's policies as the cause of all the damage to the unemployment crisis and the ecomony......

Tell me, what's up with the attempt at voter suppression, especially on the state level, because of some claim from the rightwing about voter fraud.

Please don't attempt to bring ACORN into the mix. Legally, although they no longer exist, that organization that helped the disadvantaged register to vote, has been absolved of any wrong doing and totally exonerate in by the courts.

As a matter of fact, if you look for voter fraud on the internet and see what is said about the rarity of such incidences and how small a concern it is and should be, then that Voter ID CARD requirement that is being touted by the Republican Party and being enforced state by state is indeed highly suspicious because it can be a process of elimination by narrowing down the chances of some segments of the voting populace legally being able to vote.

(in the states with Republican Govenors, 26 of them, a majority......lest we forget.)

I don't know all of the implications of the harm of this, but it almost seems as if this may become something unConstitutional, if this has to be paid for in future elections....something like that old unAmerican, unConstitutional, illegal poll tax that used to be part of the voting landscape.

Yeah, I know.

Just thought I'd ask the question.....and I did not lose my body fluids such as spittle all over the keyboard to ask this question. If I could I would show you how nice and dry and sanitary my environs are, just for the sake of curiosity, and to put down this over-the-top claim of yours.

Voter Suppressors........thy name can't possibly be Republican?...or can it?

wjm (do you mind if I call you by your nickname?)

I really don't know what you are talking about. In which states is voter suppression going on? No, I don't need the whole list, just one or two of the most egregious cases. I have not heard of it in my state, and I like to think I'm fairly well-informed (boy-oh-boy, I left myself open on that one).

dixielee-1197053 @14.3 Don't you consider gaining two seats in the House progress?

Wisconsin, for one.

Florida & Texas for two more

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/campus_progress_keeps_the_heat_on_alec/

http://progressivegrae.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/03/7591701-voter-suppression-bills-sweep-the-country-center-for-media-and-democracy

It's rather easy to google "Voter Suppression" and get thousands of hits.

MO land very Teabgger.

we on the right (and in the right)

On the right and in the right are polar opposites -- as you and your ilk prove with your neocon rants.

People who will put Party before Country can not, will not and must not govern the whole.

Once again my irony meter explodes!

Dammit, I just fixed that thing too.

;-P

Any grammar Nazis around?

Wee're alll kommonly envolved en spellling end grammer fartes.

"None around here"

Phew! Ben habing trubble wits mah spel chekkr...

Side Note guys, sometimes when writing there are other things going on as well, I don't use spell check out of stubborness , have a dictionary near the computer and pick it up on occassion, sometimes we just hit the wrong key. The point is that it is my passion that I desire to be known, that we as a Nation do not implode , that the young be allowed to hang onto their hope and realize that there are many like me who care. Perfection is outside my bounds.

As long as one can understand my intention I will probably remain stubborn and make mistakes. This in no way will disolve my passion and ability to care.

cannot,cannot,cannot,cannot,cannot, by the way I misspelled happenchance also.

happenstance,happenstance,happenstance,happenstance.

There now I can enjoy my coffee...................

I'm sorry but both parties have had a hand in this mess, dixie. Let's be honest here. There's no such thing as either party being able to say they come out of this Lilly white. The Democrats and Republicans are both to blame. Neither is above it.

Read my next two posts. Am I wrong and why?

From my perspective, Republicans have tried to block everything Obama has tried to do.

and for good reason - his ideas suck.

Thats what they were elected to do.

From my perspective, Republicans have tried to block everything Obama has tried to do.

and for good reason - his ideas suck.

Thats what they were elected to do.

Too many of his ideas are Republican ideas. Obama has caved so many times on what were his ideas, only to go with the Republicans ideas, so if you say they were his ideas you would be wrong. But you are right that the ideas do suck.

Here is the killer for Republicans. They were the ones that repealed the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 by passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated Wall Street. They followed that by the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act which gave Wall Street white collar criminals loopholes to exploit for the Enron Scandal, predatory lending, derivatives fraud, credit default swap gambling, etc... There was no real regulation through the Bush 8 years in office. Alan Greenspan sat by reciting "the market takes care of itself" while pumping out trillions of dollars in paper money and lowering the interest rates to fuel the white collar crime wave we are calling a recession.

And that is all that can be expected of Republicans in the future. No remorse, no taking ownership, no change of direction. Voting Republicans back into control of the white house and both houses of congress while having control of the Supreme Court while voting Rick Perry into office will be a George W Bush redeux. It would be a vote for the next recession.

We need to get rid of as many Republicans as we can and put as many Democrats as we can in. I want to take away the excuse that Obama can't get anything done because of too many Republicans are blocking him. Obama doesn't have much fight in him. So let's give him a Congress he doesn't have to fight with, a Congress that will go along with his ideas just to see if his ideas will work. I think his ideas will work. We already know Republican ideas don't work, created the mess we are in now and only make things worse.

Obama has caved so many times on what were his ideas, only to go with the Republicans ideas,

And that is why he is often termed a centrist. Has anyone read THE AUDACITY OF HOPE? It was Obama's dream to have a truly viable and co-operative bipartsan government. Unfortunately, I don't think the rest of our elected officials are ready for this...they prefer playground tactics.

That is not his dream and not what he ran on, not on bi-partisanship. Obama ran on change, change he said we could believe in. So far I have not seen much change, just warmed over Republican ideas that they rammed down his throat and he willingly swallowed. I recall Obama also said during his campaign: "Today I walked into a roomful of industry leaders and CEOs and I told them what I planned to do and I didn't get many smiles or support. In fact, they didn't think much of my ideas. I expect if I become president, I will get similar responses from such people and will resist what I am trying to do. As president, I will not be able to bring change alone, but can only do it together with the help of the people in backing me. Together we will bring about change." That is what he said. And we know what he did instead.

You see, Congress had been controlled by Democrats for years and they created this situation we're in.

Not sure where you've been or who you've been listening to, but that's not quite what happened.

I'm sure you've forgotten that the Republicans were the majority party in Congress for 12 years before the Democrats won the majority, six during Clinton's last two terms and six under W. I'd love to see any legislation passed when the Democrats held the majority in Congress that did anything to set the stage for the Bush Recession. Everything that played into the second worst economy in American history is a direct result of Republican legislation, policies, and inability to control their own spending.

They eliminated regulations on financial markets and cut taxes, setting up the increase in debt and wild speculation that was a huge catalyst for the collapse of the housing industry. And, what are they proposing now to 'fix' the economy? More tax cuts and fewer regulations. Does anyone truly believe we'll get different results if we do more of what got us here?

Need I repeat myself. I see no direct answers to the points I made about Republicans enabling the recession to happen. Here we go again with the generalized talking points smokescreen.

1. FACT: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was written by three Republicans and promoted by Republicans to be passed by Congress. It deregulated Wall Street which allowed Wall Street giants to form again and start a new white collar crime wave. It passed by compromise strategy where the Democrats got their legislation passed in exchange for Republicans getting Wall Street deregulated. The compromise should not have been offered, but that still does not let Republicans wiggle out of the primary responsibility for that deregulation. THEY ARE TO BLAME.

2. FACT: the next year the same Republican controlled congress passed the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act, which was a set of huge loopholes designed for Wall Street white collar criminals to exploit for the Enron scandal, derivatives fraud, predatory lending, credit default swap gambling, etc... It was slipped into an 11,000 page omnibus spending bill and passed without discussion. The mastermind behind both of these bills was Republican Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm. Any random accident he was also an ex Enron lobbyist.

What we are calling a recession was really the largest white collar crime wave in our history, and REPUBLICANS enabled it to happen.

Come on thar Mike.. we don't need none of that thinkin' and facts.

We all know it was Nancy Pelosi's Lipstick and them fancy dresses by Michelle Obama that done caused all the problem... no get to lookin at those things while them publicans keep shreddin' the evidence.

mountainmike-1199289

Here is the killer for Republicans. They were the ones that repealed the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 by passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated Wall Street. They followed that by the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act which gave Wall Street white collar criminals loopholes to exploit for the Enron Scandal, predatory lending, derivatives fraud, credit default swap gambling, etc... There was no real regulation through the Bush 8 years in office. Alan Greenspan sat by reciting "the market takes care of itself" while pumping out trillions of dollars in paper money and lowering the interest rates to fuel the white collar crime wave we are calling a recession.

And that is all that can be expected of Republicans in the future. No remorse, no taking ownership, no change of direction. Voting Republicans back into control of the white house and both houses of congress while having control of the Supreme Court while voting Rick Perry into office will be a George W Bush redeux. It would be a vote for the next recession.

• 11

• !

#13.6 - Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:31 AM PDT

At least now there seems to be more people realizing that the lying GOPTeaBags are not at all concerned about fixing the economy, but, making it much worse. Nor helping the American people recover from this recession that Bush and his party caused in the first place, they want to make their lives even worse as well.

Only some of the American people are stupid, and even they are only stupid to a point. The GOPTeaBags look at their supporting base (aka Tea Party) and think that all Republicans and the rest of Americans are that stupid. If the real Republicans don't want the same or worse in 2012, they best decide which way their vote should go. Voting Dem to save their country, themselves, and the American people from their own party is not a sin. To vote this insanity back in control to finish destroying America and its people, is sin against humanity.

They want to repeal the twentieth century. the fact that they have any credence in the public is a testimony to the power of propaganda.

No, you can support him all you wish.

It ain't so. BigJounalism and WingNutDaily, to name two, are so full of far right propaganda that it makes Orwell prescient. They are wings of The Ministry of Truth. Daily Kos has been around long enough to earn some street cred.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the seeded article or even read the quoted text from the article at the top of the seed.

In the midst of a bleak economic landscape and after a bruising battle over the federal budget deficit, approval of Congress now matches its all-time low, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Poll: Just 12% happy with Congress

I guess, that speaks volumes about the 'education' our citizens are being forced to accept.

Yep. I guess reading comprehension is one area that's taken a huge hit.

Daily Kos gave a byline on a poll that was taken by the CBS News/New York Times.

How is that any evidence that the leftwing on the Vine is having a cheering session for what the Daily Kos only reported?

The Daily Kos did not do the poll.

Republican/Rightwing/TeaParty supporters, you have now been outed in your efforts to refuse to see reality, deny the facts, and shout down anything that we on the left use to support our way of seeing the issues.

If you don't like the poll, take it up with the CBS News/New York Times pollsters. You have shortstopped your own belligerence and need to move on to find someone else to snipe at.

Go ahead and "X" out of this conversation.....closing the door on you way out.

Haaaaaave a good'ay.

Call me when DailyKos says something about republicans that doesn't involve everybody hating them, their inherent evil, or their impending doom.

Too bad you didn't bother to go read the poll before you commented.

Though most Americans disapprove of both parties in Congress, they disapprove of Republicans more. Seventy-two percent of Americans disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing, compared to 63 percent who disapprove of the Democrats in Congress.

Among Democrats, more approve than disapprove of the job Democrats in Congress are doing. That is reversed for Republicans - more of them disapprove than approve of the job members of their own party are doing in Congress. Independents disapprove of both parties in Congress.

It would seem that many Republicans can't even be bothered to look at the data before claiming it's biased.

Too bad you didn't bother to go read the poll before you commented.

You are missing the point. The poll could find that all people who have passed away, no longer vote, and it would still be some convoluted far left spin. The obvious is lost on anything to do with Kos and Media Matters (a tax exempt propaganda arm of the Obama administration).

When the Kos actually does real reporting, (aint ever going to happen), and report on the most current corruptions within this administration....Fast and Furious, Generals being brived to lie, Green energy campaign scams and well, that is the current crop this week, THEN, I will paya attention. Meanwhile, these propaganda arms are too busy living in Governor Palins dumpster, hoping to uncover something, anything that they can use.

By the way, how about that General, being told by the White House to lie? Hmmmmmm?

Please don't bother to call me a Troll or suggest that I am lying. These scandals are real and will soon be front page headlines, even on rags like the Daily Kos, tho they will break limbs trying to twist them around. I can't wait.

#20.1:It would seem that many Republicans can't even be bothered to look at the data before claiming it's biased.

Typical Modus Operandi!

Kerry, his name is curiosg, not lib. Respect your fellow viners or the bosses will ban you.

No problem, YELLOW DOG D., he's right, I am a lib, and proud of it.

He's also correct the title doesn't match the data literally.

All does not have a percentage other than 100.

#23:I have gotten a little tired of "No Drama Obama".

Aren't you a little tired of "The Party of No?" Why not remark on that?

I am a little tired of the President being the center of the criticism!

Oh yes, MaryEllen Galloway, I am VERY tired of "The Party of No"!!! For two years I have fretted, fumed, fought my Republican family, and lost 14 pounds, over the frustrating decline of a once great Republican party, and the birth of a hideous new movement disgustingly called,"The Tea Party".

No, it's not all the President's fault. The Democrat's in congress are just as intimidated by the teaparty as is Obama. And, yes, I said INTIMIDATED. He has no one to stand beside him, and guide him. Those Democrat congressmen that oppose our President and side with the "Party of No, should hang their heads in shame. Our entire Government is in shambles !!!

"The Party of No", finally got themselves a greeny, a neophyte, a newbie, that they can control, and it seems as if some of the Dem's in congress, have given into that perspective as well. I despise the neo- Republican party. It has made me a nervous wreck, and semi-alienated me from my family.

Today( ( 9-19), on MSNBC, I watched the President's speech, and was wide-eyed, and elated when he named Boehner, as the "thorn" in his proposal on job creation. WAY TO GO MR. PRESIDENT!! Now, that's exactly what I was referring to in my post #23

Yes MaryEllen Galloway, I am very tired of "THE PARTY OF NO".

I just saw, at 5:20 CST, (9-19), The Reverend Al Sharpton say, how delighted he was that President Obama called out John Boehner's name twice, during his speech today. I must have missed the second time, due to shock, and awe. Thank heavens Obama did, point fingers and name at least, one name.

Faith in the MAN himself, is beginning to return. That's all it took. Now let's get down and dirty with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rieley, and the ever popular Faux news.

Way to go Mr. President.

As much as you may want to equalize the damages done to the country, the reality is, the majority of our current economic malaise is directly the responsibility of the Republicans failed economic policies.

Why anyone can believe that more tax cuts and reductions in regulations will give us anything other than more of the same, is beyond me.

the reality is, the majority of our current economic malaise is directly the responsibility of the Republicans failed economic policies.

I bet, with each time a liberal repeats that talking point, they actually begin to believe that some of it may hold some truth.

Is this the sum total of the defense for where this country is today? nearly 6 years of Dem controlled money, nearly 3 years of Obama, a majority everywhere, even a super majority for a brief moment, the entire liberal press, Hollywood, educational system, pop culture heroes and "THE ONE" in office?

Assuming that I have just listed the dozens of failures, the declining moral of America, the numerous scandals that are coming to light, the atrocious unemployment, the vulgar wast of trillions of dollars and the pride and integrity of America's credit rating flushed. First time ever.

Assume all that, all of which is not spin, it is factual, then tell me that the GOP and GWB did it. Keep a straight face now, everyone is watching and laughing at that lame, false and very tired excuse for failure. Please just admit it. The election and uneducated political orgasm in 2008 was a huge mistake.

There were no super majorities, save in the House. It means nothing unless you have 60 in the Senate. It helps to know how things work on the hill.

CuriousG this economic crisis is a result of partisanship, extreme ideology and down right incompetence. If you believe that the republicans economic polices are the sole cause of this mess then I urge you to read this article in the Boston Globe . Representative Barney Frank has acknowledge that he, in his own words, was wearing “ideological blinders” when he blocked the reform needed to fix the housing crisis before it became an issue. The housing crisis itself was caused by then President Clinton and Barney Frank when they lowered the standards of receiving a mortgage loan and they both had de-regulated common sense standards. This in turn allowed the dark side of human nature to rise to the surface i.e. greed. Read the article and you will see that a large part, not all, of this crisis lies at the feet of two very powerful democrats.

I won't fully absolve the Democrats of any responsibility, but the overriding policies in effect for the last ten years are right out of the Republican play book.

You're right about Barney's part in blocking reform, though let's not forget who deregulated the industry in the first place, Republicans. Though they did have the grudging support of Clinton in signing the bills.

From shrubs lips, "we are gonna be the ownership society."

Yep, him and his base.

You're right about Barney's part in blocking reform, though let's not forget who deregulated the industry in the first place, Republicans.

97 senators voted to repeal Glass Steagal. It passed both houses of congress with veto-override sized majorities. Do not pretend this was partisan legislation.

but the overriding policies in effect for the last ten years are right out of the Republican play book.

I am hearing this and reading this every where. Is this one of the new liberal taliking points?

You do realize that the democrats controlled the House and Senate from 2006-2010 and also the WH in 2009-2010. CuriousG where do you get your info? DailyKos or the HuffPo?

You're hearing it because it is the truth.

Here's the truth about Democratic 'control' of Congress. Yes, they held slight majorities in both houses, but a majority does not equal control.

I'd love to see all those bills and policies that Democrats were able to get past Republican filibusters and Bush's veto pen during the last administration.

I'd also love to see all the bills Democrats got past Republicans without modification to mollify their demands.

I'll remind you Republicans 'controlled' both houses of Congress for 12 years and had the White House for 6 of those years with Bush. Why weren't they able to control spending then, oh wait, they did when they had a Democratic President, they just couldn't do it when they had a Republican President. Why weren't Republicans able to prevent a near depression? Why did their jobs policies, tax cuts, produce the fewest jobs of any administration in the last century?

And, one last question, why would any thinking person believe doing more of what they want would produce anything other than what it did, a disastrous economy?

Here's the truth about Democratic 'control' of Congress. Yes, they held slight majorities in both houses, but a majority does not equal control.

The Democrats even had a super majority albeit for a very short period. It appears to me that the Democrats have been co-opted by far left liberals and progressives that are being led by a President that was put in place by the American press. Obama was not vetted. He was inexperienced and untried. And come to find out he is incompetent. Obama was put in place by a media that is chock full of liberals that have not a clue on how to run a country. They, the journalists and their producers are products of class rooms and lecture halls that are nothing more than recruitment centers for the socialist agenda.

I'll remind you Republicans 'controlled' both houses of Congress for 12 years and had the White House for 6 of those years with Bush.

The Republicans had control of both houses of congress for six years and they did nothing about the debt ceiling, nor did they cut spending. Bush’s two unfunded wars and his doughnut hole drug deal had a huge impact on building the debt that we now face. Now we have an incompetent Democrat in the White House with an inept administration. Our only hope is to vote in a moderate who has the best interest of our nation at heart and will not place their ideology over what is best for the citizenry of this nation. Ever since the Great Society of LBJ our nation has been failing and now with high unemployment and a record dependency on government programs the dream of the oppressed and government dependent citienzry is coming true for the progressives in the White House.

The Republicans had control of both houses of congress for six years and they did nothing about the debt ceiling, nor did they cut spending.

Six years under Bush, and six years under Clinton, equals 12 years.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd try and answer any of my questions. Just more of the 'they're all bad' argument. They may be all bad, but the truth is some are much worse than others. ANd, on the whole, Republicans are worse than Democrats for the majority of Americans.

Here's one example of why that's true. Why elections matter, in one graph

Oh please. It was then President Clinton and Rep. Barney Frank that caused our housing crisis. There is plenty of blame to go around. How let's about concentrating on fixing it? Obama can not do it and now they, like you, have resorted to the blame game. Yawn...2012 can not come soon enough.

You may want to read #1.94. President Clinton was out of office by 7 years when the crisis occurred, and the major bills which led to the downfall were all Republicon introduced. The truth is on the left.

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam,

Oh please. It was then President Clinton and Rep. Barney Frank that caused our housing crisis

Oh, please, you're still blaming Clinton?! ;~)

Why didn't the Republicans do something to stop it when they had control of both houses and the White House for six years? Were they totally helpless, or just clueless?

You may want to read #1.94. President Clinton was out of office by 7 years when the crisis occurred

It was his administrations manipulation of the 1977 CRA (Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) that was put in place (1995-1996) that led to the crisis. Sheesh.

Oh, please, you're still blaming Clinton?! ;~)

For the housing crisis? Yes. I am new on Newsvine and unable to link. I copied one of many articles that explain Clinton's involvement. Barney Frank also blocked reform in 2002 that would have prevented this crisis. You can look up his actual quote of negligence by typing in "Barney Frank, Ideological blinders".

History

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.

The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.

Enter Bill Clinton

In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.

Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Thus leading us to the problems of today.

Just like all other administrations, the effect of a presidency often isn't felt until after he leaves office. Clinton reaped the benefits of the Reagan/Bush era, and George W. Bush, is having to deal with the problems created by his predecessor and are now coming to fruition.

If these examples fail to convince you two, then you too are wearing "ideological blinders". And more then likely in ALL your arguments. Nuff said..Curious and Grae you have been owned! I thought you two were going to be liberal brain trust of this biased albeit superficial liberal forum. Guess not.

Sorry, your reference isn't going to convince me of anything. Especially, that it was a bad thing that banks were required to treat all of their customers the same regardless of where they live or the color of their skin.

The CRA was a good thing. The fact that banks could no longer charge more for equivalent risks was what they screamed about. Now, how those banks then bundled and sold those mortgages had nothing to do with the passing of the CRA. You probably aren't aware that people with mortgages on homes valued over $1 mil are defaulting at a greater rate than lower income folks. I'd wager that none of those homes wer in CRA neighborhoods.

FYI, I'm not owned by anyone other than my spouse. And, you've not convinced anyone of anything.

CuriousG - He's using an opinion blog post stolen from some idiot named Poliwonk USA to prove his case. Maybe if he actually had sources for his assertions... but that will never happen.

It was his administrations manipulation of the 1977 CRA

Bzzt! Wrong. But thanks for playing. And, don't forget, the Congress in 1995 was Republicon (remember the Newtster's Contract Undermining America?). Congress is where ALL bills originate. None originate in the White House, or did you miss that part in the Constitution (Article I, btw).

Fact: Subprime loans accounted for ~20% of loans by 2006 (see Figure 4) and NONE of the CRA loans were subprime. Historically they were in the 8% range, but the deregulation of the early Bush error caused a spike in subprime mortgages in 2004 to over 18% of total loans processed.

By 2010, the percentage of subprime mortgages that were delinquent was ~25.5% for fixed rate and 29% for adjustable rate mortgages (page 1). The default rate for fixed rate prime mortgages (all CRA mortgages are in this category) was a paltry 0.65% and never reached 1%.

Subprime mortgages were designed by banks to prey on the people's lack of understanding. Promises were made that interest rates were historically low and were not going up, and that houses were the new ATMs. They specifically went after people who already had credit issues (hence the subprime category) and offered 0% down and some even had 0% interest for the first year (the interest was there, just added to the principle of the loan). CRA loans required proof of income, proof of assets and generally required 15-20% down with NO SECOND MORTGAGES ALLOWED.

Why do righties love to blame the CRA? Because it helped low-income and minority families buy their own homes which made them a convenient (and mostly dark-skinned) target for their prejudices.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission released a report in Jan 2011 which concluded the primary causes were:

• Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages;
• Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk;
• An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis;
• Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw;
• And systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all level

In other words, lack of regulation of an unethical industry and a misunderstanding of the underlying economics by lawmakers (the crisis began with the massive surge in subprime lending, 2004-06, under the Republicon's watch).

Oh, and AMDG, you have been owned. Facts have a liberal bias and the truth is always on the left. Come back when you have actual facts, not opinion (you do know the difference, right?), to back up your fallacious claims.

Another excellent post, Grae.

I just wish education wasn't wasted on some folks.

Oh where to start?

The CRA was a good thing.

I agree, however the key word here being WAS and that was when President Clinton manipulated the CRA ACT and ruined it.

Sorry, your reference isn't going to convince me of anything. Especially, that it was a bad thing that banks were required to treat all of their customers the same regardless of where they live or the color of their skin.

That's just it, they weren't. They were given preferential treatment. Regualtions were gutted by Clinton and Frank (look it up) and the dark side of human nature i.e. greed was let loose; as a result we ended up with literally hundreds of thousands of loans given to people who should not have been given them and did NOT qualify.

In other words, lack of regulation of an unethical industry and a misunderstanding of the underlying economics by lawmakers

Duhh! It took you that long to come to the same conclusion of my intial copied article? Grae you are just a die hard ideologue that would ignore facts because of your fear and loathing. Self loathing? Maybe however that remains to be seen. Are you wealthy and guilty because of your wealth? Just wondering.

That's just it, they weren't. They were given preferential treatment.

Right, that would account for why those loans have a lower default rate than those in other areas?

Do you have evidence that they were given preferential treatment as opposed to the same treatment?

Did you even read the article you plagiarized? It blamed the CRA and Clinton. It said nothing about subprime mortgages (not CRA nor Clinton) and it said nothing about lack of regulation (the CRA program is highly regulated). You insinuate that people who don't blindly believe your fallacy filled opinion piece are stupid and ideologues while you completely ignore facts and put more faith in a fallacious opinion piece than in primary sources, what does that make you?

Please explain in detail what "facts" I ignored. How did Clinton manipulate the CRA with a Republicon Congress and Senate in place? Go on. We're waiting for your ideologically bankrupt opinions.

Your implication that I both hate myself and am stupid is offensive.

Do you have evidence that they were given preferential treatment as opposed to the same treatment?

Just the fact that the 1977 CRA was manipulated is proof enough of preferential treatment.

Right, that would account for why those loans have a lower default rate than those in other areas?

I beg to differ. Out of 239,101 mortgages made in California in 2004-2006, blacks defaulted 3.3 times more often than non-Hispanic whites with the same income and FICO score. Hispanics defaulted 2.5 times more often than similar whites, and Asians 1.6 time more.

Presumably the unadjusted default rate ratios, at least for blacks and Hispanics, are even worse. After all, blacks and Hispanics tend to have lower income and lower credit scores.

Did you even read the article you plagiarized? It blamed the CRA and Clinton. It said nothing about subprime mortgages

Plagerized? I was fully up front about copying the article because of my inability to link. Grae you really are boring me. The subprime loans are a direct result of the deregulation. There it is spelled out for you. Now please go away.

Just the fact that the 1977 CRA was manipulated is proof enough of preferential treatment.

Any proof of that? In other words, can you provide a reference that isn't a conservative opinion blog?

I beg to differ. Out of 239,101 mortgages made in California in 2004-2006, blacks defaulted 3.3 times more often than non-Hispanic whites with the same income and FICO score. Hispanics defaulted 2.5 times more often than similar whites, and Asians 1.6 time more.

Source?

It's also conflating black/Hispanic for CRA. Just because the claim is that blacks and Hispanics default at greater rates (maybe so, predatory lending was truly egregious in low income neighborhoods) that does not change the fact that CRA loans are among the lowest foreclosure rates in the country. The real culprit was the second home with 0% down and 105% financing, along with many other exotic schemes. They just don't want to believe that CRA did good for minority home ownership and had zero to do with the bubble. The massive rise in subprime (again, no CRA loan was subprime and no subprime loan was purchased knowingly by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) was the catalyst for the collapse.

Nicely written, but am I to assume that that was some sort of answer to my question?

Without blaming the GOP, for that is no longer a component.

Where is the8% or less unemployment?

Where is the shinny new infrastructure promised with Stimulus?

Why have 1/2 of the United States sued Obama over HC?

Why has Obama given special wavers to 300 of his 'favorite" contributing corporations on HC?

Don't blame the R's, they could not modify anything listed above. It was all passed and signed into law. No amount of obstruction could alter these failed promises.

But it goes further than that. In 1994, the Heritage Foundation published a piece advocating a part time Congress. And supposedly, the founding fathers saw serving in Congress as a part time job.

I have been blogging this since 2005. The Heritage Foundation is the foothold to the One World Order, or the Corporatist/antichrist. This is the same evil seed that tried to take down Germany with Hitler.

http://www.takeoverworld.info/heritage.htm

The very fact that conservative voters have fallen for the corruption since Reagan, is almost too unimaginable. Fox News, World Daily Net. The fake christian mega churches. The fake christian media and television networks. Brainwashing you, telling you how to vote, our elected officials, like Senator Kyle, lying to Congress about what the evil liberals are doing.

It is coming to a climax now, and the very conservative voters, will regret terribly, their failure to ask questions, and not as Limbaugh mocks, act like sheeple. Oh, Limbaugh too, is the voice of the New World Order. When the GOP is through with this country, it will be like China, which is the plan, so the One World Order can come in and supply your needs.

This is where prophecy of the Bible, and reality in the current news is intersecting.

We sincerely believe, it is close to the end of the age.

The Middle East will be erupting soon into chaos. It will bring the US into war with the world. How we end up, we don't know. Prophecy is not clear about that. It is our hope that we are taken before the Tribulation begins. The Tribulation will begin when the UN leader makes a peace treaty with Israel and the Arab states.

Marantha!

Did the "prophecy" say that Israel would inflict apartheid on the Palestinians? Personally, I prefer modern fiction to the old time "be afraid" fiction.

Yes, the prophecy said that for a time, Israel would not represent the Almighty. Israel will suffer great loss, and will have to battle.

But, the prophecy also talks about the Remnant, the 144,000 of Jews who will come to believe upon the name of Jesus. They will understand and worship Jesus, the promised Messiah. And rejoice, because the sons of Ishmael will indeed worship the God of Abraham along with Israel.

There is nothing to be afraid of. What is coming is God's Judgement to all nations. If you are in Him, you will have nothing to be afraid of.

I am not sure what you mean about the old "be afraid" fiction. Jesus' return, will settle that lie by Satan, that it was all fiction. Every eye will see Him, and every knee will bow to Him.

So your saying not to vote because its in Gods hand? Does God hate republicans?

No, I am not saying to not vote, it is your civic duty. But prayer of a faithful heart is very powerful.

The reason the Republicans have had the edge in the last decades is that the mostly white, older generation with religious affiliation has gone to the voting booths. The corporatist leaning GOP has picked up on that and has made a whole new religion out of being American and Republican. Does God hate Republicans? What do you think out of luck?

Certified: No I don't think God hates republicans. I think God is weary of being called upon by all party's especially when neither is righteous.