Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

NEW POLL: Which Position is Most Important To You?

For our first Reader's Poll, reader RLancaster1234 asked a very interesting question. It's quite simple: which of your positions is most important to you? Your economic position or your social one? Please see and vote in the poll on the right.

After receiving his/her email about this poll, it made me think. I know which positions I view as most important, but I wonder what other people think. To me, I weigh economic positions with far greater importance than I weigh social ones. Economic positions (taxes, government spending, regulations, etc.), in my opinion, tie us all together and affect us all on the aggregate level, whereas social positions (gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment etc.) tend to affect people on an individual basis.

Of course, I couldn't stop there. I had to think more:

It seems to me, most people (this isn't scientific, and "most" means more than likely 51% and above) seem to be slightly more conservative fiscally and slightly more liberal socially. This is just my personal viewpoint, and it's not scientifically backed. I base this on the fact that it seems that most people desire and love freedom. This encompasses their desires to have the government out of our wallets, our bedrooms, our homes, our churches and so on. How strongly people view and hold these positions leads to how they self-label themselves as "conservative" or "liberal."

I'm going to try to take a stab at some demographics using age, for example. Again, this isn't scientific... it's just an attempt to put a little "meat" behind my view. This "stab" assumes the following key statement is correct: most people seem to be slightly more conservative fiscally and slightly more liberal socially.

For young people, I believe most self-identify themselves as "liberal." Why? Well, for the average 21 year old, life has been very "social." For his/her first 21 years, finances and fiscal thoughts more than likely weren't a big worry, but friends and friendship, love and relationships, and social life generally were. Issues such as gay marriage (which is viewed as a freedom to love issue by many young people), tend to be front-and-center issues with many high school and college students. This is why, again, assuming the above key statement that freedom-loving Americans tend to generally favor social freedom is true, to me, many young people identify themselves as liberal. They simply care about social issues more than they care about conservative ones.

As people get older, as many join the workforce, finish college, start a family, earn income, and of course, pay taxes, it seems they tend to become more "conservative." Did their views actually change? For most, no. How much they weigh and how important they view each issue did. As a young couple settles down and starts a family, purchases a home, has children, and has to regulate personal finances, fiscal issues are now more important than they were in their late teens and early twenties. If the average American favors economic freedom, their slightly more conservative fiscal view becomes more heavily weighted, and this seems to progress as someone ages. Again, this isn't scientific; it's more of a brief overview and opinion of the American political landscape. Sure, there are many young conservatives, and there are many elderly liberals, but to me, the general viewpoints discussed above hold true. Additionally, I understand it's not as simple as putting all views into these two categories, but for a high-level, surface debate, I think this is sufficient.

So, at this point in your life, which position do YOU view as most important? Please vote in the poll on the right, and tell a friend to vote, too. Thank you again to RLancaster1234 for this interesting poll and debate subject.

If you would like to post a poll question, check this out: 


  1. Can I please shake this RLancaster's hand. This is REALLY important. The right-wing nuts that are voting for santorum don't realize he will get MURDERED by Obama. NO ONE wants a theocratic ruler in the whitehouse, and people that hold their religious social views really strongly AND are very conservative are quite rare. They are voting in the primaries and santorum is winning because a primary is an ultra-concentrated poll. Sure, he is doing well in these primaries, but across the country, he will get destroyed. RLancaster is bringing up an important issue that it takes a moderate not a theocratic religious nut.

    1. Oh yeah, one more thing, "it takes a moderate". Uh, let's see how the moderates have faired, George H.W. Bush was a moderate lost to Clinton, Bob Dole a moderate killed by Clinton, John Maverick McCain was a moderate beat by 0bama. Moderates are 0 for the last 3.

  2. Actually INdy for Mitt, a new poll shows both Romney and Santorum beating 0bama. By a moderate, do you mean a flip flopper, you know, like Romney does a lot. Maybe it is a Massachusetts thing like John Kerry. I guess where I don't agree with Romney if I just wait a while he will see it my way for a day or two.

    How is it Santorum is a theocrat but Romney isn't? Does being a Mormon negate that. Please explain.

    1. You couldn't be any more off Slim32.

      Indy is right. Santorum gets murdered by Obama. The only poll that shows him beating Obama is a Gallup poll, and those are right-leaning anyway.

      The flip-flopper thing is way off. That is simply a liberal media tactic. They are broadcasting the stupidest, catchy phrase they can find to get ppl to think negatively about Mitt. It's sad that you believe it. Maybe you should stop with the MSNBC and rachel maddow shows. You should seriously just rally behind Mitt, and get all your friends to. He WILL be the nominee, and he has the ONLY chance of beating Obama.

      And NOT Mitt is NOT a theocrat. I can't believe you went into the Mormon card. Is Ron Paul a theocrat because he is a baptist? Why would just being mormon do it? He is NOT because unlike Santorum, he doesn't continually talk about his faith on the campaign trail. He isn't about mixing church and state.

    2. Oh, If I have to, I will plug my nose shut tightly (one more time) and vote for the liberal Republican from Massachusetts.

  3. Biggest flip-flops yet:

    I will close Gitmo!
    I'm against SuperPACs.


    High gas prices are not a bad thing.

    Mr. Chu

    Ron Paul 2012

    They, that all rhymes

  4. I have to agree with Indy, I can't see Santorum ever having a chance against Obama.

    A big key to this election are fiscal policies and the ability to pull Dems and the Independent votes from Obama, and Santorum hasn’t appealed to any of that.

    Romney has proven to poll well with Democrats (never mind he was elected in a primarily Democratic state), particularly among Dems displeased with Obama, also does very well with Independents, and decently well among Republicans.

    Santorum on the other hand has next to no Democratic support whatsoever, and Independents follow that same suit in droves (as they do against most extreme candidates), and the fact remains you can't win the race with Republican support alone. He’s had a very weak focus on fiscal issues thus far and that in particular would hurt him in an election that ultimately revolves most around the economy.

    I do agree with LME that I think many people fall under the socially liberal, fiscally conservative category (just to varying degrees and personal importance). I myself fall under it. Despite only being 24 though, I definitely find fiscal issues to be of much higher importance (especially now) just for the simple fact that I believe they’re most important to this country’s (and its citizen’s) future and prosperity. As important as social issues are and may be to some, we won't have a country to live in and enjoy those freedoms if it collapses under its own fiscal irresponsibility (whether economically or through debt).

    1. RKen - Good afternoon!

      W0000 back on the agreement train, lol. But I do have a question. I could be totally wrong, but I thought when you first stopped here you said you were pretty darn liberal ( again, I could be way off... we've had almost 2,000 comments, and I could easily be mixing you up with someone else). If you are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and you weigh the fiscally conservative part more as of now, wouldn't you be conservative? Just a question :-)

    2. Hey LME, good afternoon to you too!

      I originally identified myself here as an Independent, that admittedly tends to lean more towards the liberal side.

      That has a lot to do with the GOP sort of being hijacked lately by too many extremist values (both fiscally and socially) I can’t agree or identify with as federal issues, and all with little desire to compromise on any of it.

      Absolutely no form of tax increases as part of the debt solution, constitutionally legislating away gay marriage/abortion/possibly even birth control, refusing to provide a solution to the healthcare costs in America (despite Obamacare being very similar to the bill they proposed in the 90s), abolishing several of our governmental departments, must intervene in Egypt/Libya/Syria/Iran, prioritizing the elimination of programs that contribute to less than 0.001% of our deficit disguised as a fiscal move (when it’s really more social)… It’s far too much to the right.

      And believe me; I’d feel the same way if the primary messages of the Democratic party became extremist as well. The equivalent of such would be like Dems running all on absolutely no forms of spending decreases as part of the debt solution, and constitutionally legislating away pollution, cutting the department of defense away, stopping all oil drilling/gas fracking, and raising taxes by 50% on the rich.

      All of which may involve Dem values, but not to that extreme and certainly not all together as overall party objectives.

      Additionally, the right has come to sort of alienate any Republican that has moderate/centrist values. It certainly happens on both sides, but particularly on the right side lately (hence the popularity of the RINO term).

      I’m pretty sure I might even be defined as a Republican 40 years ago, but the overall party values to me are much further to the right at this time than they were then.

      Overall, I'm still very moderate and a centrist.

  5. LME -

    I agree almost totally with everything you've said. I, at 39, consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Your points all support my theory that the two party system is dead (or should be). Essentially, there are the two categories but there are many issues and many different combinations of belief. It is impossible to believe that either the Republican party and/or the Democratic Party ACTUALLY represent those that associate with the other parties. It seems obvious to me that, even in the small sample size of the Republican Primary race that there could be 3 VERY distinct parties between Romney, Santorum, and Paul (Gingrich is not as distinct as the others but rather falls somewhere between Romney and Santorum). In order to have a truly representative government, we need to move away from the two party system (which I believe is a real problem in modern politics and is the key reason we are saddled with a government that can do nothing or perhaps chooses to do nothing in order to gain political advantage while screwing those they represent) and start moving toward diversity that is truly representative of the people. Unless the system changes or true leaders emerge from both sides (and I don't see anyone anywhere that fits that bill), we will continue to struggle as a nation (with reform, progress, etc.). I tend to look at both social and fiscal issues somewhat equally though I probably weigh social issues a bit more as I believe an equal and free society is a productive one. Once you produce at a high level, the fiscal part, assuming someone with competency is at the helm, will take care of itself. I am probably considered far left in my social beliefs and probably somewhere near the center of my fiscal beliefs. It seems that this country was founded as a social experiment and that the founding fathers tried to protect individualism as best as they could in the 18th century. In my opinion, their efforts have gone, to a degree, in vain.

    Anonymous (both of you) - Romney is a serial flip-flopper, get over it. He may be the GOP nominee but he has no conviction and I, personally, can't respect someone who can't (at least it doesn't appear) think for himself. I'll take the person I disagree with 100% of the time, so long as they have conviction, over a guy who blows with the wind. That doesn't mean that a candidate can't be wrong and/or admit a mistake. Romney doesn't do that, he chases the money, in my opinion, and stumbles/babbles his rationale as he goes along. He'll do anything to be called president... it's all about the prestige for him, again, in my opinion.

    1. Wow, whatsamattausa, you and I agreeing again. It's time for another round of lottery tickets for us. LOL

      A "serial flip flopper", I like that.

      I'm off to lunch and to buy two Powerball tickets for tonight. Have a great day whatsamattusa.

    2. Whatsamattausa - good afternoon to you!

      You know, as time has gone on, I am actually slowly starting to believe these sentences more and more: "Your points all support my theory that the two party system is dead (or should be). Essentially, there are the two categories but there are many issues and many different combinations of belief. It is impossible to believe that either the Republican party and/or the Democratic Party ACTUALLY represent those that associate with the other parties."

      I think you definitely have a point here. I hate putting my positions out there but, take me for example. I'm:

      - Pro gun
      - Anti - abortion (not for religious reasons)
      - Okay with gay marriage
      - Very big on not mixing church and state

      These alone make a tough combo. I've had emails from conservatives that said I can't be a "true" republican if I'm okay with gay marriage (I don't say "pro" gay marriage because it doesn't affect me at all).

      So yes, I do think, in the age of rapid information spreading (info is no longer spread on the backs of mules over weeks and months), education, 24/7 international news, having only 2 parties as a means to connect the multi-faceted political views of Americans seems like an outdated way to go. Look at the British Parliament. There are 9 different parties in the House of Lords (one comprising no affiliation) and 11 in the House of Commons.

      To me, there would be no political parties or distinct labels. People would run on positions, not titles and parties. But, of course, if that were the case, as time passed, people would fall into groups of similar affiliations and create parties. Ugh.

    3. Very well said, and I agree on all accounts with you whatsamattausa, and LME.

      Unfortunately, I don't see that kind of political/governmental reformation happening in our lifetimes. :(

      But there's no question in my mind that this would be a better country if all our candidates ran on ideas, plans, and goals rather than just the label of the political party. I feel like almost 90% of our politics and media is simply blaming the other party, which accomplishes nothing and distracts from the real important facts of what they're running on.

      But, in a perfect world the majority of our population would also do far more to stay informed of what's going on in our politics.

      At the same time though, I think that removing the "Repub or Dem!" labels and ultimatum would force people to think about who they vote for much more.

    4. Mannnnnn conservatives and independents and liberals coming together to and realizing that it's not their views that separate them... it's the political system :-P

      But yes, RKen.., I do like that idea... I think you saw the quiz post:

  6. Rken, I think anyone with a heartbeat running against 0bama has a chance.

    As far as Romney goes, since he has all that Democrat and Independent support but not so much Republican support, maybe he should be a, you know, Democrat.

    My guy was Herman Cain, then I thought Newt was my guy until he started talking like an Occutard. I would just as soon not vote as to vote for Romney but even a liberal Republican like Romney is better than the Marxist 0bama.

    1. Slim -

      Saw this on facebook and thought you'd get a kick out of the name of the website (though I'm sure you'll also find the content amusing) -

      Hope all is well... I'll be getting my Powerball tix on my way home!

    2. Whatsamattausa, yeah, you're right I did get a kick out of that. I especially like the dripping blood effect (or are we supposed to think it's just red paint) under the Goldman Sachs occucard. What better way for them to promote their peaceful movement than a dripping blood graphic under the name of an "evil corporation".

      Good luck on your numbers.

  7. P.S. - Did y'all vote in the poll? :-P

  8. Hi All,

    I took a little test last month, and it came out that I was a 'hard-line' conservative... and I've never considered myself a hard-line anything! Fiscally yes - socially, not so much.

    Like LME, I'm pro-gun and anti-abortion. I was pro-choice in my earlier life, but I've changed my mind. Gays? I'm all over the place. It's none of my business what anyone does in their bedroom with consenting adults. Gay marriage? I know it sounds weird, but I'd prefer they called it something else. Gays in the military? I'd rather they'd left DADT in place. These are personal views that I'll share if asked - but I'd never march, petition or beat drums to inflict them on anyone. Each to his/her own.

    I'm very uncomfortable with some people's interpretation of 'Separation of Church and State' which appears NO WHERE in our Constitution. That phrase was mentioned in a private letter that T.J. wrote way back when. As with the abortion issue - there are those on the left who've pushed this way too far. It seems every day, there's a 'new' attack on a cross that's been in place for decades - or prayers at a military service, that 'they' suddenly find offensive. Freedom for me, but NOT for thee.

    I don't like Romney - didn't like him in '08 and I don't like him now. He IS a 'serial flip-flopper' and IMO he's Obama-lite. see: Romney-care, loading the courts with liberal judges, cap-n-trade, etc. Personally? I prefer Santorum - but... IF Romney's our nominee, I WILL hold my nose AGAIN and vote for him.

    Heck, all the pundits and Republican elites TELL us DAILY that Romney is 'the guy' - he's the ONLY guy who can beat Obama. While I agree, for the sake of our nation, we HAVE to get Obama out... let me ask... How did going for the 'moderate' - work out for us in '08?

    AND should Obama-lite happen to win - will we be better off in four years?

    I, for one, am tired of being 'nudged' in a direction 'nearer to the heart's desire' of someone ELSE. I want all to be free to pursue their own in the manner our country was founded on.

    @Whatsamattausa - Good Luck on that Powerball!

    1. Dara -

      Thanks for the well wishes :)!

      Where did you take the 'test'? I would imagine that I, like you, would be classified in a manner I disagree with though the test is likely based on the fundamentals of the two parties which we all seem to agree doesn't reflect accurately We the People.

      Since we're putting our views out there:

      Guns - Pro-gun , anti-NRA (I believe in responsible gun ownership and don't believe the laws require such... the NRA fights it every step of the way)
      Abortion - Pro-abortion (if you are against it, don't have one but don't decide what I (if I were a woman) can do with my body. I know it sounds callous but a fertilized egg, up to a point, is nothing more than a parasite that cannot live without its host)
      Gay marriage - I think the tragedy here is that we have to recognize equality with individual law which in itself is discriminatory. I am pro-marriage (in the popular sense of the word and not necessarily the religious. LME had a side exchange about this and we seems to agree that gay people should be able t recognize the same benefits of a 'married' couple even if they are really civilly unionized (is that the correct terminology?). However, I thing gay people have that ability by right. To attempt to change the constitution to outlaw it is to pass hate legislation.
      Church/State - Keep your religious views out of my life!

      This views thing is starting to get scary... seems like we are all in agreement to certain degrees... Seriously, we should all run for office... We could probably get shit done!!!

      have a great one Dara!

  9. When u speak of younger people you also have to take into account what we have grown up through. The Majority of us in our mid 20's have grown up through 1 president for most of the time we were able to vote and work 2001 to 2009.

    (Bush jr was the first president I ever voted for)(I came from a "republican" family)

    He taught us a lot as we watched his presidency

    He told us low taxes would spur growth and investments in jobs
    (as we watched the job market slowly decline and go into a complete crash)

    He told us that de-regulation was a good thing and that companies should regulate themselves
    ( as we watched the biggest collapse in modern history )
    ( we also watched a republican president and republican appointed fed go against everything they taught us and "bail out" the same companies they said could control themselves)

    He told us that small government was a good thing and that it should stay out of business
    (we watched him and congress create the 2nd largest government institution since the creation of our government (Department of homeland security) )
    (we also watched corporate welfare for crops and oil continue and in some cases get bigger)

    He tough us small business and the middle class are the heart of this country
    (as we watch the income gap increase to the same level's it was during the great depression)

    He told us to help fight terrorism and invade IRAQ
    (we later learned the whole war was based on lies and that there was no link to terrorism and no weapons of mass destruction )
    Bush sent us to war and lowered our taxes
    (Bush senior and RR both raised taxes at the end of their term because of their deficits)

    What you have to understand when you talk about the younger generation, like myself, who are in there mid 20's is that events have shaped our views.

    We lived through one of (arguably) the worst republican administrations in history
    This is why majority of young people who grew up as republicans and are still republicans at heart are looking for other options like president Obama or Ron Paul.

    We have lost faith in the Republican Party (and after Obama’s first term BOTH parties)
    Both parties better be scared because the youth of this country are seeing through the bullcrap everyday

    We see the lies on the left

    We see the lies on the right

    We see corporations attacking our opportunities for competition and free markets

    We see attempts to monopolize water, gas, electricity, healthcare, and the “NEWS”

    We will not stand idle as our country is robbed from us by large corporations and corrupt politicians.

    Every day we see politicians acting more like board members than elected officials.

    This is the reality we have grown up in. This is the attack on America we are fighting against. It is politician and economical.

    1. OH boy another Ron Paul loonie.

      He told us low taxes would spur growth and investments in jobs
      (as we watched the job market slowly decline and go into a complete crash)

      that's exactly what happened. After the second phase of the Bush tax cuts, unemployment steadily dropped to 4.6% by 2007, government revenues steadily rose, people bought and sold homes, everything was great. PEOPLE messed it up. They borrowed against the equity they had in their homes until it was all gone. PEOPLE got it wrong because Americans are just fricking stupid. Did you just forget these facts, about these happy times. Maybe you should research before you spout this junk. You know what screwed it all (all the policies) up for us? Guess who took the congress in 2007?

    2. (i said we watched it decline meaning go down slowly)

      but then it CRASHED and went UP to the highest since 1984 when bush left.... am i missing something? oh that's right i'm missing were you blame someone instead of holding everyone accountable. I am well aware of the effects of the house and senate during bush's and Obama's administrations. I clearly hold both parties accountable and state at the end we are tired of both sides and their corporate sponsored speeches.

      Any other points you would like to discuss? or did u just pick on piece attempt to take it out of context then make an excuse for it and disregard my whole statement?

      and thanks for calling me a "ron pual loonie" ill add that to my list of "neo con" "liberal" "right wing nut" "obama disciple" lol.. love it when the left and right name me... since i am a person who has no "party" that i live and die for that is a big complement!

    3. Loyal - Very insightful post and well written.

      Anonymous - Most people look to professionals for what they can and can't do. I'm not an accountant and don't understand the tax code as I should in order to do my taxes. Thus, I hire a professional to do it for me. If they get it wrong, is it my fault? The deregulation of the financial industry was the cause of the meltdown, not the people.

      Also, what makes Loyal a loony? Because he mentions RP? and why is it that you insinuate all RP supporters are loony? Does that make you feel better about your choice? With the canidates that are out there for the GOP, I imagine you could call anyone who supports any of them loony to some degree!

    4. Anon:

      I don’t necessarily agree with all of Loyal Watcher’s points, but your numbers and points don’t paint the entire story either.

      Unemployment was at 3.9% when Bush took office. It spiked immediately (9/11, internet bubble) and held steady at its peak over ~6% all the way into mid/late 2004, despite those tax cuts being passed in 2001 and in 2003. Additionally, a large proportion of the jobs added to the economy in 2003 and after were government/military jobs needed in entering a second war (Iraq), which diluted the fact that private hiring was still very slow after that period in spite of the Bush tax cuts.

      And the housing bubble wasn’t about people borrowing against equity; it was far, far more complex and involved than that. If every person that had a home equity loan foreclosed, and no one else, there wouldn’t have been a crash; they account for a very small percent of total foreclosures. The majority of the foreclosures were just from people buying homes when home prices were at their peak (which by the way, if bought at that time, you can’t even get a home equity loan).

      Nor did that crash just come down to “people being wrong”, as there were extremely shady practices on the corporate side in underwriting large loans that people would have never qualified for otherwise. This was even more ballooned by then repackaging those loans and selling them as ‘AAA rated investments.’

      It comes down to greed and irresponsibility, both for the people AND corporations involved.

      Also, the housing market first started declining in mid 2006 by the national housing index (google Case-Shiller index), which was almost two years before the 110th Congress even had a policy passed to do with housing.

      The attempt to blame any one party for that, or even blame one policy (much less a newly passed one), or coincide it with ‘the year x party entered Congress’, is ridiculous. Both parties had plenty to do with the ultimate situation.

  10. @Anoymous... being as how you brought up the 110th Congress... and a little enlightenment for LoyalWatcher

    I didn’t write this one, but I wish I had.


    The day the DEMOCRATS took over was NOT January 22nd 2009,

    It was actually January 3rd 2007,

    The day the DEMOCRATS took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

    The DEMOCRATIC Party controlled a majority in BOTH chambers for the FIRST time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

    For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”

    Think about this:

    January 3rd, 2007, the day the DEMOCRATS took over the SENATE and the HOUSE:

    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

    George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

    GWB had Nothing to do with the GM bailout – MR. OBAMA did ALL of that – not GW.

    Remember that day…January 3rd, 2007

    DEMOCRAT BARNEY FRANK took over the House Financial Services Committee

    DEMOCRAT CHRIS DODD took over the Senate Banking Committee.

    The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?


    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us

    from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…

    to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy

    from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

    George W. Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy

    BARNEY blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)

    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?


    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

    OBAMA and the DEMOCRAT Congress, especially BARNEY.

    So when someone tries to blame Bush…

    REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….


    Bush may have been in the car but the DEMOCRATS were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.

    Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

    Furthermore, the DEMOCRATS controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

    For 2009 though, NANCY PELOSI & HARRY REID bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack OBAMA could take office.

    At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

    And where was Barack OBAMA during this time?

    He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills,

    and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

    Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

    If the DEMOCRATS inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.

    That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.

    After that, DEMOCRATS in Congress took control of spending, and that includes
    BARACK OBAMA – who voted for the budgets.

    If OBAMA inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

    In a nutshell, what OBAMA is saying is

    “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,

    And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”

    There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

    “The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.”

    That my friends constitutes socialism…a welfare state.

    It is all OBAMA's fault!

    1. P.S. I don't think it's All Obama and the Dems.. but they're certainly a big part of our current mess.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. Couldn't have said it better myself, Dara. Will you marry me?

    5. Just kidding! :-D

    6. HAHAHA Running around the office, busy as heck with work, but my phone buzzes whenever a comment goes up and I saw this. That has to be a first! :-)

    7. I've noticed a lot of obsession with the 110th Congress lately, but the fact remains that the majority of the negative economic indicators were already showing bad signs before then.

      The Case-Shiller index was already free falling before they entered office, which is the best measure of housing prices. And most of the economic collapse was a chain reaction stemming just from that very housing bubble. Almost everything else is irrelevant.

      I feel like most people aren't even aware of what the 110th Congress has passed. Take a look:

      There isn't a single policy passed that has anything to do with housing or banking until 2008, well after the crash had taken full effect. Nor was there a policy that Bush vetoed, despite him being perfectly capable of it.

      Yet we're to assume this infamous 110th, Democratic Congress, is the Congress that passed all the policies and fully responsible for the instant crash taking place the moment they entered office? Not true.

      Also, the ‘Bush’s amazing job creation!’ numbers were at the very least misleading, as non-government related private sector growth was actually very slow during the period. Most of the figures were inflated by heavy government & defense spending in running two wars (which were estimated to be ~2.8 million of the jobs created over the ~5 years).

  11. I don't but into the "bush" did it all and i don't buy into "obama" did it all
    Obviously the democrats were part of it, obviously the republicans were apart of it. But there was one president with the ability to veto anything they proposed he used half of the veto's the 3 prior presidents used before him. He obviously was ok with a majority of votes
    I was talking about banking industry bailout bush did (with the dems and repubs) sorry for not explaining that better.
    I understand we will have a difference of opinions on the details of who is to blame, that is fine

    My post was aimed at helping paint a picture of the situations that have led alot of young people like myself to be in the positions we are.

    I think we on both parties need to realize that our politicians are bought and sold on both sides of the isle.

    Corporations & billionaires have almost stopped caring who is in office because they can buy out both parties.

    Our shouts have slowly been turning into whispers because we do not have the $$ to fight back.

    We have the numbers in actual people who can stand up and protest.

    BUT they have divided us so they can conquer us…………

    The right has got their people believing people like #OWS are hippy children who dont have jobs.

    The left has their people believing the tea party is a bunch of dumb hicks with guns

    All the while we argue and rant and rave both parties chip away at are right. Iv been reading stories about SWAT doing PRE EMPTIVE strikes arresting #OWS supporters then letting them go BEFORE THEY EVEN PROTEST

    You might not agree with #OWS but u dont know who will be next. You dont know when the "LAW" will decide you don't qualify for the "privileged" of free speech anymore
    You don’t know who the next group will be that is labeled “terrorist” with that label, regardless of if you are a US citizen, the government can assassinate you or hold u without trial forever.
    Sorry for the random rand at the end but I watch all this happening and I watch both parties arguing all the while not holding their own party accountable for doing almost the same exact things.
    America is a 1 party system with 2 names………..

  12. @Whatsamattausa I think that quiz was on Heritage. It was combined with a poll that coincided with the alleged/supposed/voiced positions of the different candidates... Strangely, the poll said I was closest to Bachmann and Perry... neither of whom are running and neither I particularly cared

    @MN 4 Rick Ha ha! You made an ol' lady's day! I can't even get hubby (40 years) to agree w/me but about 1/2 the time... lol

    This is why I love this blog... so many great, well thought out points made on both sides... and... only one 'loony' calling incident this round : )

    An interesting link re: Bush and Fannie and Freddie:

  13. There are two times in history the GOP controlled the Presidency and the congress.

    1. Before the great depression

    2. Before our current crisis

    1. You gotta love hollow liberal one liners.

      Did you forget the GOP control Eisenhower had for 2 years? Probably not. You either:

      1. Knew about it but intentionally left it out because it countered your empty, one-line quip

      2. Didn't know about it, and fell into the Kool-aid pool of liberal "omg did you know" shit that is really nothing more than hollow talking points.

      Either way, your point is not true, doesn't help this discussion, and I hope, before you put yourself to sleep over this, you realize you should learn something before you make ignorant claims.

      Signed, Your Master