Speakeasy forum: Obama, starring in "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Deep"

It's all Bush's fault. Haven't you heard? Didn't someone clue you in on that yet?

between a 'budget' surplus and a 'national debt' balance. None of Clinton's budget surplus was used to pay down the national debt and the surplus wouldn't have been there in the first place if it wasn't for Newt and the Republicans 'Contract with America' and cut welfare. Clinton also refused to go after OBL three times when he had the chance, he did nothing about the USS Cole, he did nothing period except look pretty and talk a good game and go along with Republicans to create that surplus. I still can't believe so many people actually think he personally did a good job as President, when the only good thing he DID do was follow the Republican's advice and sign their bills. The absolutely worst thing that happened during his terms was the Affordable Housing Act bill that destroyed the housing market within 15 years or less.....and I haven't been able to find out who in Congress came up with that piece of bull.

And how you possibly could think that even with ONE war that a budget surplus would be possible is beyond me. Whether you agreed with the war in Iraq or not, we wouldn't have had a surplus anymore after 9-11 when we went into Afghanistan no matter WHO was President.

Please, look at a calendar. Bush made it clear before he was even elected, that he would cut taxes, effectively destroying the surplus. He then passed more tax cuts after he had not just one, but two wars on his hands.

Toni, you made your feelings about all things democrat a long time ago, as well as the fact that you willingly wear blinders when it comes to ignoring the mistakes republicans have made over the last 30 years.

"...the only good thing he [Clinton] DID do was follow the Republican's advice and sign their bills.

Obama has done much the same during the bulk of his own administration. Why do you praise Clinton for bowing to conservative pressure and signing republican legislation but refuse to give credit to Obama for doing the same thing?

Conservatism in America has lost its way. Theory and dogma has taken over for common sense. Extremism is the word of the day and allows for revisionist history to be accepted as reality.

about the criticism that Congress is getting as a whole is that while the House keeps passing bills, even with Dem support, Harry Reid refuses to allow anything to come up for a vote....and too many in the public don't realize that the major stalement is coming from the Senate but blames both the House and the Senate for the inconsistency and 'do-nothing' attitude. BO doesn't help the situation because it is easier to publicly blame the Rep controlled House for it all. He keeps pounding about 'fairness' but is perfectly happy to be unfair himself.

yelling at Reid and his branch as well, and he doesn't. Instead, he encourages Reid to keep playing games, states that we have a 'do nothing Congress' and then issues Executive Orders to go around the House.

has been campaigning on changes to the laws that affect business and individuals plans.

As long as both parties continue to take completely opposite stances, and the election outcomes are as unimpressive as both Bush and Obama's margin of victory were, no one is going to count on anything from the federal government.

You wish I'm guessing is for the Republican party to take the White House, all the Senate seats up for election, and most of the House of Representatives. That would make everything under the sun right again in just a few short months wouldn't it?

as far as party.

However, I distrust either party holding all both houses of Congress and the White House.

While the gridlock demanded by extremists blocs of Congress this year has demonstrated the potential disastrous results of opposites in turns of control of House and Senate, either party having total control I view with disquiet.

That said, should it mater which party's candidate occupies the office as much as WHICH PERSON occupies the office?

My main point here was that unless people feel the guy just elected has a good chance for two terms, and that the party controlling will continue to do so, the result of one election and what the new (or old) administration says they're going to do has little today with any security of what the government will require next week. A particular party winning more control doesn't mean people or business will feel more secure and and act accordingly.

Roger

Bashing one side and not the other is not helping anything.

shutting down the government because he didn't agree with the Republican Congress.

Diana

.....about his foreign policies? I'll give you that he didn't go after Al Qaeda hard enough, but what else?

One for domestic and one for foreign policy.

Diana

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/lessons_from_the_great_governm.html

Newt Gingrich himself stated that the shutdown was happening, in part, because he was miffed over his seating arrangements on Air Force One.

The Republicans forced a shutdown, exposed the political motives behind it, and sent Clinton to a re-election victory as a result.