The extent of the mess Bush left in his wake is finally becoming disturbingly clear.
On almost every front Bush and his administration created or left unresolved a huge problem.

The list is far too long to attempt even beginning a list here, but we are hearing more every day.

One of the worst problems seems to be that compromised relations with foreign governments are inhibiting international cooperation at a time when globalization requires international unity to solve any of the huge financial crises facing all the world’s economies.

I thank Fortuna that someone with brains has been chosen to lead our country in these worst of times, yet I know that Bush screwed things up so badly and thoroughly that no man or God could hope to fix even a single problem to everyone’s satisfaction.

All should admit to the extent that Bush mucked things up and give their support to Obama… a mere mortal attempting Herculean tasks against all odds.

It is a fact that Bush screwed a lot of things up. However, it is a new day. It does not take a lot to beat on a former ruler. Even Will Ferrell is coming back with a comical version of Bush. I note that a show with Will Ferrell as Bush was cancelled after 9/11 because they were afraid of loosing their advertisement dollars. Now, of course, it is the best time to mock Bush, when he is out.

Anyway, Obama is on a dangerous path here with his mortgage borrower bailouts. People will not stand for giving handouts to some while others are busting their chops day in and day out to provide for their families.

For the record, I voted for Obama, I am for the universal health care, universal higher education, universal retirement system. The key word is “universal,” as in “general welfare.” I am against paying someone elese’s mortgage, though.

I would like Jack’s comments on the following Obama actions:
use of state’s secret privilege,
3 waivers of the lobbyist ban,
reserving the right to use extraordinary rendition,
cabinet appointees who don’t pay their taxes,
chief of staff who got rent-free housing,
politicization of the census to an unprecedented level
and a myriad other ethical issues.

Hey maybe we should listen to the republicans u now taxes cuts or hoilday wouldnt increase our national debt, cause states to raise taxes to compensate for your plan,maybe we can ask soldiers to work for free, hey since the government cant pay for it using there plan,, hey maybe we can privatize our army, navy, air force let the free market control it. since they have done a great job and thought of the welfare for the country not themselves…..

Lets not help people in trouble hey its only there fault not predatory lending right or bad economy thanks to our great leader bush, than when crime sours we can always just build more jails.U know there no problem with having more and more people becoming poor we can have a oligarchy,if your poor its your own fault, so the rich small elite should have control they are the master of the universe correct, health care…how dare people wish to be healthy right?How dare u take my taxes dollars to help my fellow citizens, but great job on iraq in helping there, u know where trying to raise the standard of life there so keep spending, Its fine with me if billions were wasted in iraq and unaccounted for but i be darn if u try and rebuild schools and infrastructure,

just a reminder we are all humans, and should treat others as so esp people in our country that may be struggling as family often do this is what makes us a great nation when we can have empathy towards others and try and raise the whole of our society to prosper not just the few, some have forgotten this.

What’s up with Obama’s flip-flop on NAFTA?

Giethner is not our Friend.

He does not have loyalty to this country.

He should go, asap.

Remember Paulson?

How active he was for transfer of Wealth and pleasing his friends. Helping and aiding his buddy corporations for stealing our money with “no questions asked”.

Have you noticed, how inactive Geithner is to continue the trend, by not doing anything. He is the member of Gang of Thiefs, who got control of the IMF, the World Bank and the Treasury.

He should be fired today. Everyday is a loss.

Jack has no understanding of how banks work.

They have no interest in foreclosing on houses. They have no employees prepared to deal with home foreclosures, home maintenance, property tax payments, home selling or everything else that is involved in this process. More home foreclosures puts significant downward pressure on home prices. Why would a bank want to add to that?

Jack, just say you’re a communist and prefer the state to control all commerce and then we’ll all get where you’re coming from.

Alex,
I don’t know whether or not bailing out mortgage borrowers is a good idea or not, but neither do you and you’re rants just show narrow-minded ignorance.

Homes are laying fallow and getting stripped and ruined by thieves.
Whole neighborhoods and communities are being compromised or wiped out completely, ruining the lives of even those who did everything right and stripping local governments of their tax base.

The problem is not so linear and one-sided as you would make it out to be.

I’m not happy about having to bail anyone out, but for all I know and for all you know, it is the best of all the worst solutions available.

You seem to always defend Bush at least a little on this site, even though you usually admit he turned out to be a screw up… I’m guessing, therefore, that you voted for the idiot and now regret the choice.

Well, you have only yourself and/or those who also voted for Bush to thank for the extent of the current mess.
Perhaps by voting for Obama this time, you have shown that many like you learned a costly lesson and now know not to base something as important as a vote on whether or not you’d enjoy sharing a beer with a candidate.

Me? Defend Bush? Will you go and pull some of my past posts to prove that? I voted for Obama in order for us all to get universal welfare improvements just like it is allowed under the Constitution. You know, spend on “general welfare?” I voted for him (and for Kerry four years ago) hoping that two wasteful wars would be ended. I did not vote for him to pay my neighbors mortgage. So you can take your “rants” and your “narrow minded ignorance” and stuff them you know where.

There is always next elections, you know.

Obama visits Ottawa and gets a Beaver tail at a local market and offers to buy it with a 20 dollar Canadian bill. Now that is just cool and further enhances the goodwill here in Canada toward him.

How about your post just before the last one… you know, a few minutes ago?

Here Here, Jack!

Exactly right on the Republican’s dilemma!

Talking heads, more talking heads. Not one of these pundits nor anyone else know for sure what is going to happen. Bailing out people homeowners is not a good idea. I’m a home owner, I’m not foreclosing on my home, this makes me feel like a chump. People who bought more than they could afford, or lost jobs are in this mix. The ones who bit off more than they could chew, that is they bought a house that with a traditional mortgage they could never afford, they should be shut out of this. If you lost a job, you can’t afford a mortgage anyway.

If people are in negative equity, well this is a different problem and I think the banks should renegotiate with these people.

Majawill enlighten us in your brilliant knowledge of how banks work. They were greedy, they bundled up mortgage securities and sold them knowing that they were not triple A rated.

I’m not a big fan of Jack, I used to be but he is wearing thin with me every week.

Gee, that’s how a power shift works. 6 years of Democrats saying no followed by 3 years of supplication. Now Republicans are saying no. Did Jack just get off the boat?

Thanks for showing how little you know, on this topic and everything else.
Banks don’t rate their own bond issues.
Banks only service loans they package into securities.

“You seem to always defend Bush at least a little on this site, even though you usually admit he turned out to be a screw up”

JP – you used words like “always” and “usually” apparently trying to establish a pattern of my defending Bush. My post a few minutes ago may qualify as such, but that’s far from enough to establish my alleged Republican credentials.

Anyways, you may not want to acknowledge that, but I think the housing bailout will devide the independent voter base and jeopardize Democrats’ chances in the next elections. I don’t want that to happen. Plus, I do believe the bailout is a bad idea economically.

In a post-racial society, I’m not sure what the discussion would add. If it weren’t, I might take offense at Holder’s comments which, several months ago, might have seemed latently racist.

If I am wrong about your defense of Bush, I apologize.
I may well be confusing you with the two or three who show up occasionally to agree with Majawill on this site.

Still, I’ll stick to my guns concerning my point that you are over-simplifying the mortgage bail-out, and that there is no “right” solution, for all we know.

Personally, I’d like borrowers to get help, but I think banks and investors should assume all of the down-side, not taxpayers. They took the risks, they benefited for years, and what’s more, they frequently benefited by having lots of middle-men dupe home buyers.

Alexis,
Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State now, not a Senator, as you’ve been calling her. She deserves that respect from you.

To that point, I don’t think the banks should ever have been helped much either… the one’s in bad shape should have just been taken over if they were that unhealthy, with investors taking the hit. Of course, Bush set us down the bail-out path instead.

Putting a floor under prices is a dangerous idea. I would like a home to be affordable for an average family, rather than a mortgage be made artificailly affordable through all sorts of creative financial mechanics. If prices kept high it reduces the demand and slows down the market. I may be wrong.

I did on occasion state that I agree with Majawill. That does not make me a Bush defender or a Republican. I merely want to acknowledge that Democrats need to be careful with their soical engineering. They may not last.

Fair enough.

Majawill I never said banks set there ratings. I said they knowingly sold mortgage securities, credit default swaps(which if you say you understand proves your full of it) they sold things that were rated triple A. They were not. Lehman Brothers went down, and then Bear Sterns was rescued. This set off a chain reaction and the amount of toxic assets was, is huge.

I have friend who works in the legal department for one of the largest banking firms in New York. From what he is allowed to tell me it was mortgage securities and credit default swaps that created most if not all of this mess.

The reality is that if people knew the truth about what really went on I think there would be violence.
In his firm Bear Sterns were known as the cowboy outfit, that is they took huge risks and had a bad rep with most in his line of work.

Here is a post I agree with, from a friend who posted it yesterday:

“I’m not sure whether the stimulus or the bailouts are worth doing. Lately I’m leaning towards believing they are a bad idea. Much of American business, the legislation affecting it, and the American way of life seems backward, and maybe a complete overhaul of everything is in order.

The trick is how to minimize the true suffering. I believe most should be brought to earth in terms of living standards, but many already fallen or low stand to lose their dignity or worse. The amount of money that’s being tendered for this whole mess, some two trillion and growing for bailouts and stimulus (not including interest), could instead help the destitute for the decade or so it might take for reality to sort everything out. The rest of us could maybe rough it, so to speak.

I think perhaps it’s a bad idea to preserve such a screwed up and anachronistic status quo, and we might all be better off in the long run if things are allowed to take a sort of brutal course of natural selection.

The whole bundle is likely sufficient money that a few other real necessities might also be funded or better funded; education, mass transit, and green technology.
Since crime and poverty are the biggest threats we would face from letting commerce sort itself out naturally, and since high gas prices will surely return soon, funding for the destitute, education, and mass transit would be paramount… funding for green technology is just a good idea and would help temper the environmental impact of cost-cutting measures that would result from a compromised economy.

This alternate idea of how to use the two trillion might have saved us from civil unrest and too much suffering, while perhaps saving several hundred billion of the two trillion as well… too late now certainly, as the course was already set long ago by Bush and an all too accommodating Congress under both parties.”

My mistake was not first stating investment banks and firms such as Bear Sterns. However Bank of America and plenty of other banks all jumped on board for this ride, and they all lost, we lost. The whole world lost.

So Majawill, being your such a financial wiz and seem to know more than anyone on this forum about all things political and financial what do you suggest genius.

The more you write, the more you show how little you know. It’s not a bank’s job to determine what the rating is or whether the rating is accurate or not. That is the job of the rating agencies. No rating agency has been successfully sued for an incorrect rating. Your point is totally incorrect and without any base.

I’m glad to hear you have a friend.

The rating agencies were paid by the banks, what is your problem here, you use insults all the time and come on this forum looking for a fight every time your here this is the outcome. Someone makes a statement you don’t agree with and you call them them an idiot, (disillusion power issue, insecurity perhaps) instead of trying to explain your point of view.

You statement is saying he is wrong, that’s funny as he has over 20 years of experience in the financial sector working little things like IPO’s and mergers. Your lack of respect for people is amazing and I have to say, your rude as well. I have made the mistake of lowering myself to your level and I am sorry for it.

I was not talking about the banks setting the ratings, however they did pay agencies like Stranded and Poor’s who in turn gave these swaps triple A ratings when they knew that they were way below that.

Majawill with every post you just dig this huge ditch and you have not answered my question. If your such an expert and seem to know more than me or anyone else, (I see this as sign of a delusional personality) what do you propose genius?

“You seem to always defend Bush at least a little on this site, even though you usually admit he turned out to be a screw up.”
-
“I did on occasion state that I agree with Majawill. That does not make me a Bush defender or a Republican.”

I’m curious, JP, why do you think it’s bad to be a Republican? Or are Republicans not welcome to share their views on On Point blog? Are they not fellow-Americans? There’s a need to be careful of this subtle prejudice which leads to self-censorship, which is not good for an open society or open debate.

I mean, it’s not as if Democrats are angels, and I could give you a long list of fact-based incidents where Democrats have acted in the same corrupt, self-serving, lying manner like Republicans have. So I don’t really see why a Democrat has to sit on a high horse here. Best to focus on points raised instead of labeling others or subjecting them to a one-point litmus test based on the simplistic meme of “Democrats-good, Republicans-bad.”

I’m sorry if you think questioning your knowledge and assumptions is an insult. If you could show me on what your judgments are based, I might respect them more.

Repeating that banks sold bonds they knew were incorrectly rated doesn’t make it so. I would ask that you and your “friend” show proof of this. At a minimum, you both show you are unfamiliar with how the rating process works. Why do banks pay for ratings? Can you prove that this payment results in systemically inflated or inaccurate ratings? Any successful litigation alleging the same?

What do you mean by credit default swap rating? I am aware of credit default swap spreads and their relationship to bond ratings.

Majawill are you stating that the mortgage securities and credit default swaps are not the main reason for the huge international banking crisis?

Are you also saying that the banks are not responsible for a huge portion of the finical mess we are in?

As far as the Federal regulators they were asleep at the wheel and this was par the course for the Bush years.

The banks pay fees to the rating institutions such as Stranded and Poor’s. There was a program on this in late 2008, NOW did a show on this very topic and one managing director at Standard & Poor’s related the whole story about how he was pressured to compromise standards in a push for profits.

Here is the central theme, profits, greed and doing anything to make them. They took risky mortgages and bundled them into the market. They all, and I mean all in local banks and larger banks and credit rating agencies all came to the well of greed. It’s complicated, and I admit that it’s above my head.
I do however see that this mess was caused by people not doing there jobs, or were pressured to give things triple A ratings, that is faulting credit ratings is at the root of the crisis. That much seems clear to me.
If you don’t agree, that’s your prerogative.

Here is a link, I’m using this program as my main source.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/446/index.html

You pose your comments to seem like insults, are you aware of that?

The credit rating institutions get paid for the more ratings they give, the higher the ratings the more they get. It’s a conflict of interest and if you don’t know this then maybe you should read up on it.

This is what caused this mess. If the securities could not get a triple A rating then they would have been seen as to risky. They were given these (ratings) because there was way to much money to be made and that was the bottom line, profits.

Your whole case rides on one guy at S&P in a PBS show? Excuse me if I’m not convinced, not even close.

Banks sold a bunch of securities. Correct. But they bought a bunch and held a bunch as well. More importantly, they also held onto a bunch of individual loans as well. They are as much “victims” as they are perpetrators. This is why they are taking gigantic write-offs, raising punitive and dilutive capital, folding and are at risk of nationalization.

I’ve said many times that many are to blame for our problems. In fact, we all are and we are all paying the price. Moreover, legislation signed by Clinton set the stage and political pressure from Frank and Schumer added fuel to the fire.

millard-fillmore,

Democrats held Congress for some fifty years before Republican took over and took out a “contract on America” in 1994.

For those fifty years, Democrats and Republicans talked to each other, lunched with each other, knew each other, mostly respected each other, and more or less governed together with only an occasional lapse in civility.

When Gingrich and Delay got their hands on things, they saw to it that Dems would have no place in governing, despite the fact that Dems still represented fifty percent of the voting population (more. if minorities and the poor would only vote regularly).

Republicans would dodge Democratic comittee members by hiding behind furniture to make meeting rooms look empty, or by running room to room. They used every parliamentary trick in the book to shut out any opposition; they formed K-street, to ensure that Dems were circumvented in the ridiculous, but all important lobbying process.

Worst of all, the “Hammer,” Tom Delay, got his nickname by ensuring that no Republican ever stepped out from the party line, regardless of what their individual consciences told them was right for the country. This lock-step mindless conformity to party dogma eliminated the thought process and debate from governance. Lobbyists multiplied geometrically on the Capitol Hill, taking over the business of writing legislation which Republicans would “rubber-stamp” without even reading (notoriously).
The rubber-stamp process continued through Bush’s reign, with Republicans still putting party unity above common sense and debate, and allowing their pledges of fiscal conservatism to give way to runaway irresponsibility. They disguised jingoism as patriotism, the most vile refuge of scoundrels.
Many people voiced their disgust with all that was happenning, but the new Republican machine, so effective and ruthless, squashed all dissent, often labeling it as unamerican (sound familiar, McCarthyites?).

It took Republicans a tiny fraction of the time which Democrats ruled to ensure:
1.) bi-partinsanship
2.)a dysfunctional capitalist system (due to the systematic removal of oversight and the defunding of oversight agencies)
3.)a widening of the income gap
4.)the use of the American economy to fund Asian expansion
5.)interminable war and the third and most profound rise of the military industrial complex.

That, and many more reasons too long to recount, is why I, in your words,
“think it’s bad to be a Republican.”

By the way, this mindless conformity to the party line is still in evidence:

The fact that every single Republican voted against the stimulus package except for three carefully chosen sacrificial lambs, shows quite clearly that Republicans wanted the bill to pass, but wanted it to pass almost exclusively as a democratic measure. This allows them to play politics with the country’s future, rather than take a stand and do what’s right for the country.

They also are trying to ensure the continuation of bipartisan stupidity when the country needs unity of purpose, as evidenced by Obama’s attempts at reconciliation. Boehner directed all Republicans to vote against Obama’s stimulus bill, even before they met to discuss compromise.

There was less mindless conformity on the Democrat side, right?

There was more bipartisanship against the stimulus than for it. Curious.

Democrats have famously never been able to be so single-minded. they are frequently made fun of for it, even by “liberal” shows like Colbert Report and the Daily Show.

There is a reason for this:

A large group of ntelligent people wtih integrity and conviction will of course disagree and vote those convictions. That is why, as you (Majawill)recently argued on this site, the dissent against the stimulus WAS bipartisan… those democrats who disagreed with their party had no problem showing it with a vote.

This was something very much missing during the Republican Revolution, much to the detriment of America.

…. And it is still missing from the Republican ranks.

Give me a break… The party chose three republicans to throw in with the democrats… just enough to ensure passage of the bill… and those three were chosen from the states in which a “no” vote might have gotten them into trouble in 2010.

Some show of conviction!

… carefully chosen, that is.

Excellent analysis, JP. I note that the only rebuttal from Majawill is an “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?” PeeWee Hermann-style remark about “mindless conformity” on the Democrat side. Here’s hoping that the demonstrably mindless conformity on the Republican side of the aisle will consign them to the wilderness long enough to clean up the hellacious mess they’ve left behind, courtesy of their “revolution.” And good luck with the trolls, JP. You have more patience than I on that score.

So many Republican governors coming out in favor of the stimulus shows that many Republicans want to take a chance that the stimulus will work, or at least they believe the problem is serious enough that the Feds need to step up to help in just this way.

Do you think all the hundreds of republicans in Congress were really so single-minded about a “no” vote, when obviously many prominent Republicans favor the bill?

The answer is obviously that Republicans are simply finding it too hard to break old habits and vote their convictions, regardless of party unity and the party line.

In my estimation, the side of the issue with more bipartisanship indicates greater intelligence and conviction, especially in the face of an overwhelming and mindlessly conforming opposition.

Exactly my point about the Governors and other Republicans coming out of the woodwork… there IS bipartisan support for the stimulus… you just wouldn’t know from the mindless lock-step of Republican congressmen.

By the way, my opinion on the stimulus as it stands goes against the party line as well… read my re-post of my friends comment above.

JP, I remember reading a Globe series on how Democrats in the Congress were whining during Bush Jr’s first term on how the Republicans in control of the Congress had shut out Democrats from law-making process and were holding meetings/discussions during the night at odd hours, with short notices, changing the location of rooms and similar tactics.

A cursory reading would give the impression of Republicans=bad, Democrats=good, until one read till the end where it also mentioned that the rules and procedures being used by the Republicans – all legit – were actually put in place by Democrats when they were in control of the Congress, for exactly the same reason – to limit/shut out Republicans from the law-making process. I guess the Democrats then thought that the Congress would always be in their control, or that these procedures which they put into place would never come back to bite them in the arse.

I guess we all have short memories and/or selectively pick-and-choose to form our world-view based on our partisan identity.

Your starting point is Contract on America, maybe those who started Contract on America had a different and earlier starting point. It’s all karma, eh?

In other words, you may fool yourself, but you can’t fool me with that nice, feel-good narrative about fuzzy, cuddly Democrats you typed above.

By the way, would you be comfortable if someone tarred the entire Muslim community the way you are tarring all Republicans and treating them as a monolith?

Support from those with no vote is worthless.

It’s good to have an outsider’s perspective on the shenanigans and dirty politics of both Republicans and Democrats. After all, birds of a feather…..

Did Democrats start K-Street?
Did the # of lobbyists on capitol Hill grow by Tens of thousands under Democrats?

I’ve heard Republicans try and claim that Dems started some of these tactics, but in reality Dems only used parliamentary procedures against Republicans, not some of the chidish shenanigans like running room to room and hiding behind furniture.

There is a good reason why Congressman from both parties still treated each other civilly under Democratic control of Congress:
Democrats never abused parliamenatry procedure to the complete exclusion of the minority party.

Talk about picking and choosing!

Do you mean like a monolith of hundreds who all voted exaclty the same way despite the obvious point that some of them likely went against their own convictions?

That kind of “monolithic” unity was not demonstrated only on the stimulus vote, but has been demonstrated for years now.

@ JP & Majawill
Your making eachother’s points is making me dizzy.Both sides are monolith and mindless conformers.Both sides had an insignificant few who voted against the monolith.Both sides have voted party-line for decades.Neither side has any intelligence.Please move on.

Majawill you still never answered my question. If everyone else is wrong, then what is your solution to this problem.

I knew you would come out and say something negative about that show, your so predictable.

NOW interviewed more than two people and this piece was very well done in my view. This is also something that Paul Krugman wrote about, that the credit swaps were fuzzy, and everybody knew it and know one did anything because there was to much money involved. Of course Paul Krugman is only one person and we can’t make educated comments based on his knowledge even if he is a Nobel prize winner.

I’m not responsible for this mess, speak for yourself.
I have no credit card debt I have standard 30 year mortgage on a house I could afford.

I played by the rules as did countless others, how are people who did this at fault for the current finical mess?

You charge a systemic issue in the rating system and your proof is comments from one employee at S&P. You charge complicity on the part of banks yet can’t explain why they have lost so much on the same securities.

I’m not sure what fuzzy means. If Krugman’s belief is that CDSs need to be exchange traded then I agree. I am in favor of more transparency and capital requirements in the CDS market. CDSs should be primarily used for hedging, but speculators bring a crucial liquidity to markets.

I too have no credit card debt and a 30 year fixed conforming loan. But I bought/sold my house in 2003 and perhaps I paid/got too much. I had money in a money market fund that advertised a higher yield because apparently it bought mortgage-backed securities. I provided deposits to banks that made sub-prime loans. I voted for a candidate who put pressure on Fannie Mae to make more loans to low income people.

Well these things were not in your control.
You made decisions and what the banks did with the money is out of your control. Just as the tax dollars are spent on things we have no control of.

The banks lost so much because the the swaps were fake. It seems to me this was a ponzi scheme. My point was and is that a lot of bad decisions were made and that they have led to this mess. The whole system broke down, I think you can agree with this. You don’t like Krugman, fine, that’s a personal opinion. I have been reading him for years and I find it interesting that almost everything he was warning about has come to pass.
Something to be said for that in my book.

I bank with bank of America and I’m now going to close all the accounts and move to Citizens because they are one of the few banks that did not get involved with this. There loses were not very large and the CEO does not have a private jet. I like that, it might be silly to some, but I’m going to make decisions to keep what little money I have out of large bank like Bank of America. It wont matter to Bank of America but I’ll feel better and I wont have to deal with there awful customer service.

The fuzzy math was when they bundled these sub prime mortgages with prime and and sold them all as triple A rated securities. There math was fuzzy, meaning they just made it up.

According to the CBO, almost 50% of the stimulus package’s impact is in 2010. Is the implication that things will get even worse next year?

Yes, things will be worse next year and might get worse for years to come. We might be in a hole for the next ten years like Japan.

Things most likely will never again resemble anything we have known as Americans in the recent past.

For one thing, bailing out anything or anyone but the truly destitute means that nothing will be allowed to find equilibrium with the realities of the new world we now find ourselves in.
This “new world” is one in which resources are ever more scarce and there is ever more people and nations who can afford to compete for those dwindling resources. It is a world where viable agricultural zones will most likely drift unexpectedly and frequently. It is also a world wherein there will be mass migration of human populations on a scale never before seen, due to war, famine, and ever increasing natural disaster. It is also a world that has not been prepared for in the least, especially in this country… America’s back will quickly broken when fuel once again reaches $4.00 plus a gallon- a reality which we recently witnessed and which will no doubt come to pass again soon. This country is absolutely not structured to survive high fuel prices, and it looks like not nearly enough of the stimulus bill is being used to change transportation infrastructue and the American mind-set regarding one person/one car. Food production is likewise far too dependent on cheap fuel prices… from the production and distribution of fertilizer to the distribution and sale of harvested food.
Keep your hats on, because the rain hasn’t yet begun to fall.

Jarjar…When America goes, EVERYBODY GOES. The end is near…repent.

JP, I look at the big picture, and you’re getting lost in the small picture.

What you’re saying amounts to: “Democrats stole one cookie and kicked Republicans in the shin – no big deal, but it’s a big deal that using the same rules, Republicans stole four cookies and not only kicked Democrats in the shin, but also slapped them” as you ignore the pithy wisdom of “as you sow, so shall you reap.”

Bottom-line for me is that cookie-stealing needs to stop as cookie-stealing by Congressmen is not kosher, irrespective of the number of cookies stolen – by both – because someone who steals one cookie is not on a moral high ground to complain when others steal four. You are lost in numbers (Reps have more lobbyists wah wah wah) and have a different pov on this which is guided by your partisan identity. Maybe you need to check your underlying principles based on which you are judging Congress members on their behavior.

“I’ve heard Republicans try and claim that Dems started some of these tactics, but in reality Dems only used parliamentary procedures against Republicans, not some of the chidish shenanigans like running room to room and hiding behind furniture.”

JP,

So in other words, if I slap someone once, and in response that person slaps me twice and also pushes me, then that person is at fault, whereas I’m not?

How do you know that none of the Democrats indulged in similar childish shenanigans when they didn’t have control? Just because you didn’t read it?

therefore 3A rating should not have been given

Well, Millard Fillmore… Interesting moniker you use, considering he was the “know nothing party” candidate.

For a minute you had me fooled, thinking perhaps you were a fair-minded Joe… but now you show you’re just another bobble-head Republican who gets his sore-loser kicks mocking Democrats.

I have to say you’re metaphor is asinine. This is no inane game of children slapping each other and stealing cookies.

Plain and simple fact:

Under Democratic rule, Congress managed to remain a more or less civil and dignified arena of intelligent debate and compromise for over fifty years. Democrats used only legitimate parliamentary procedure to thwart Republicans, and they used it sparingly.

Republicans, on the other hand, managed to muck things up thoroughly in one short decade, by taking animosity and childishness to extremes.

As I said before:
“Republicans would dodge Democratic comittee members by hiding behind furniture to make meeting rooms look empty, or by running room to room. They used every parliamentary trick in the book to shut out any opposition; they formed K-street, to ensure that Dems were circumvented in the ridiculous, but all important lobbying process.”
Republicans black-mailed K-street lobbyists into dealing only with Republicans, while increasing the number of lobbyists on Capitol Hill by tens of thousands.

What’s more, there is plenty of witness documentation for the childish Republican shenanigans, but I defy you to provide proof of even one incident before the “Republican Revolution,” where Democrats played retard games when dealing with the minority party… and I’m not talking about legitimate parliamentary procedure, which was put into place as a reasonable tool of the democratic process (Republicans are the ones who turned parliamentary procedure into trickery and took it to new lows).

Obviously, you’re sympathies now lay on the wrong side of history, so all you can do is mock and claim somehow it all evens out.
Well, Democrats didn’t oversee the ruination of the mightiest country in history, Republican idiots managed that impressive trick almost single-handedly.

I can only agree with Mike S. above:
“Here’s hoping that the demonstrably mindless conformity on the Republican side of the aisle will consign them to the wilderness long enough to clean up the hellacious mess they’ve left behind, courtesy of their “revolution.”

Here, Here!

Sorry, I forgot to change the post name to my own before making the last post… that post was from JP, not Jarjar.

Well, Mr. JP (or Jarjar) as they say, one must be careful before making assumptions, and you made a big one in your 11:41pm comment about me. If I were a Republican, I wouldn’t have written the following:

“It’s good to have an outsider’s perspective on the shenanigans and dirty politics of both Republicans and Democrats. After all, birds of a feather…”

I’m glad you found something worthwhile in my moniker of “millard-fillmore” that helped you reach certain erroneous conclusions about me. Hey, if those assumptions about me make you happy (while you make an ass of yourself), who am I to disabuse you of your delusions? Go ahead, break a leg.

Well, Mr. JP (or Jarjar) as they say, one must be careful before making assumptions, and you made a big one in your 11:41pm comment about me. If I were a Republican, I wouldn’t have written the following:

“It’s good to have an outsider’s perspective on the shenanigans and dirty politics of *both* Republicans and Democrats. After all, birds of a feather…”

But I understand that’s what happens once you have binary thinking in place (just like Dubya’s – you’re either with us or against us) mixed in with partisan political identity (and for many, only two of those identities exist – for some reason, people like you are unable to think beyond Rep & Dem – maybe it hurts your brain to contemplate options other than the binary), so in your world, any criticism of Democrats implies the person criticizing is necessarily a Republican.

I’m glad you found something worthwhile in my moniker of “millard-fillmore” that helped you reach certain erroneous conclusions about me, while also stooping to ad hominem attacks (ironic that you accuse Republicans of stooping low). Hey, if those assumptions about me make you happy (while you make an ass of yourself), who am I to disabuse you of your delusions? Go ahead, break a leg.

Well, Democrats didn’t oversee the ruination of the mightiest country in history, Republican idiots managed that impressive trick almost single-handedly.

JP,
Given your lack of reading comprehension where you unthinkingly label me as a Republican even after I’ve mentioned more than once here that my standards of judging Congressmen and politicians are independent of political affiliation/party, I’m sorry to say that it’s obvious the rot goes beyond just Republicans.

Mightiest country in history? Really? Mightier than Alexander’s empire? Romans? British? Egyptians? Indians? Chinese? Mayans? I don’t know what history books you’ve been (not) reading, but you need to expand your horizons pronto and learn about other civilizations and empires in the history of mankind, as well as the simple rule – “what goes up must come down,” proof of which is evident in the fall of all mighty empires I listed.

Are you kidding?

Are you really going to compare the modern United States to any ancient power in terms of any definition of might???!!!

Oh Brother!

No nation in history has amassed near the wealth, used near the resources, affected deeply so much of life on earth, had the kind of weaponry, the technology, the strategic capability, the economic and cultural domination and/or influence, etc. etc. that the modern U.S. has.

It too absurd to even argue!

GET REAL MILLARD!

By the way,

I now see you are a CLOSET REPUBLICAN.

I’d be embarrassed to admit to it myself these days, if I were you.

Also, “Jarjar” and I are friends who hang out and sometimes use each other’s computers. But if it pleases you to believe we’re the same person for some strange reason, feel free. I could easily have written anything he posted and vice-versa. We discuss many topics and tend to see eye to eye on most things.

I still can’t get over it! what a joke!

Yeah, those Mayans on their little jungle peninsula… sure is a lucky thing the modern U.S. military never had to go head to head with them!

Oh man!

Lucky thing we never had to tangle with that Mayan economy either… whew!