Hmmm...

I can't even begin to imagine what the point of this is, but that's retarded person, Tyra Banks, pretending to be Michelle Obama in a photo shoot for Harper's Bazaar. I don't really have too much to offer except that it appears that Hollywood is doing everything they can to not get Obama elected. Don't think for a second the McCain campaign team doesn't know exactly what they're doing with that "Celeb" commercial.

Anyway, I just got this e-mail and I'm curious as to how some of you grievers that are a little more well-versed in the world of politics than myself would respond to the idea that the country went to shit once the Dems took over congress and this is why we shouldn't vote a Dem into the White House. I'll post the e-mail in the comments below.

Comments

[Vandelay]

> George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
> A little over one year ago:
> 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
> 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
> 3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
> 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
> 5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations o'seas, living large!...
>
>
> But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!
> So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right!.....
> 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
> 2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
> 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
> 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
> 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
> 6) as I write, THE DOW is probing an other low~~11,300--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS,
BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
>
>
> YEP , IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE!...AND
> WE SURE AS HELL GOT IT!!!....NOW 'BO', the
> DEM'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT--AND THE POLLS SAY
> HE'S GONNA BE 'THE MAN'--CLAIMS HE'S GONNA
> REALLY GIVE US CHANGE!!....JUST HOW MUCH MORE
> 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND???.....

[Schmoopie]

That's such crap. Exactly which actions of the Democratic Congress (with majorities big enough to be veto-proof) might have caused all these bad things? Exactly what legislation increased gas prices? How did Nancy Pelosi go back in time and cause the subprime lending mess?

During Bush's first six years, here's what was going on: He started an expensive war for trumped-up causes, plunging the nation deep into debt. At the same time, he cut taxes so that the government would have even less money, and now the national budget deficit is something like $500 billion this year. The total national debt is what, $9 trillion or something? Yeah, that wasn't the Dems trying to bankrupt the country.

[phil]

The set-up to the current state of the economy goes back much further than the current Democratic congress. Politics are funny like that. Then people like your e-mailer look at it in real time, and draw a conclusion that is wrong in every possible respect.

[Dr. Tim Whatley]

Amongst the Grievers on here, I am the least versed when it comes to politics. I blame myself, and therefore accept my shame for that because a). politics do not interest me a bit and b). I'm always busy attending to the needs of three children who would rather dive into the world of Hannah Montana than anything else.

It is the latter point that brings my point around full circle, though, even if I state some of the obvious.

I fear that we as a nation are dumber than ever. I can't tell you how many times I have spoken with, or heard, a person say they'll vote for Obama solely because "he's black" or he is "young and different" or that they won't vote for him simply because "his middle name is Hussein" so therefore he must be Al Quada. Not one of these people can speak intelligently about where EACH CANDIDATE STANDS POLITICALLY, just base their decisions on rumor and rhetoric.

"We the people" are now sheep in this country, following and following, ignorant as ever, and we wonder why we are where we are today.

Only my opinion. Like it matters. Baaaaaaaa.

[Dr. Tim Whatley]

One other thing about Tyra. I want somebody to ask her and discuss, without any preparation, Obama's AND McCain's stances on all of the things listed above (Oil, Taxes, Immigration, Iraq, etc.) and see how intelligent she really is about it all.

I'll bet she doesn't really know jack shit. And she is the one some people will listen to when it comes time to vote.

[Vandelay]

I'll bet she doesn't really know jack shit.

I don't see you getting very good odds on that bet unfortunately.

Exactly what legislation increased gas prices?

This was my contention as well. I don't know. That seems to be the indication though, doesn't it?

Also the entire premise is completely flawed. They're making the argument that it's Congress' fault that the economy is so bad (despite Bush spending over a billion dollars a day for a war the Dems never wanted) but then saying that this is the reason we shouldn't vote for a Dem for president. If the president has such little power over these matters, why would it matter?

[Newman]

I get emails like this all of the time (and it's usually from the pro-right side of things), and I must admit, some of them are convincing. And I, like Dr. Whatley and you, Vandelay, am not nearly well-versed enough to come up with reasons why each one of them is misleading or just plain wrong.

[Assman]

Shades of the same argument made when 9/11 happened, saying it was Bush's fault, while Bush's people said the groundwork was being laid on Clinton's watch.

These emails (from both sides) are aimed at people who aren't paying attention and hoping it'll sway them to vote for their guy in between games of Guitar Hero in November. People love to vote when they're afraid they're gonna go broke. In reality, exactly zero of the things above are the direct fault of this Congress and a lot of the lack of production comes from a lack of cohesive gov't.

If you had a Congress, Senate and prez that could all co-exist, we'd have a better gov't.

[Jack Klompus]

Can't we all agree that like Jesse Jax and Fox News, political emails (and people that send them) cannot under any circumstance be taken seriously? I used to get 10 emails a day from my parents about jokes, how Bill Gates would pay money if they forwarded the email to 25 people, and/or something political. Then I just put the spam filter on them. Every time I talk to them, they're like, "Did you get my email?" Nope.

[Jack Klompus]

I think there are a few good points being made here. And some not-so-good ones. Rather than address each point I agree or disagree with, I'll just throw my opinion into the compost heap.

In my estimation, most of the damage was done during Bush's first term. Spending was outta fuckin' control. Defense spending and the war were not the big culprits. Discretionary spending as a whole went through the roof. As well, entitlement programs were either increased or not reconciled. People like to point to individual items, like 9/11, the Iraq War, or Katrina. While expensive, they do nothing to explain the spending increases across the board. Is this Bush's fault? Yes. Is this the Republican-controlled Congress' fault? Yes. Is this the Democrat-controlled Congress' fault? Yes. They all had a hand in it. But then again, we allow it to happen. We allow them to push through ludicrous subsidies and countless pork-barrel projects and don't call them on it. We allow them to have unlimited terms. So in the end, it's really our fault. We don't want to be bothered with all the details while we enable them to spend our money like complete fuckheads. Instead, we latch on to simple talking points, like gas prices or the war because they don't take too much effort to form an opinion on.

[soupnazi]

the country went to shit when FDR initiated the "cost-plus" system for virtually all materials needed for WW2(still in place today), but thats another story. The republican congress set an all time record for pork in the session before the dems took over, then the dems broke that record!! So, basically, FUCK them all!!! i really believe that zero incumbents is the only way to break the backs of the 2 corrupt partys and take us back to a system of public service. It will take several elections, but eventually the good ol' boys and their connections will be gone.

[Bethany]

Economies are cyclical. And one year ago, it was already on the decline, just less noticeably.
Just as Bill Clinton had the luxury of taking over the presidency when things were on the upswing (and took a fair amount of credit for it) Bush has been our leader during a downswing. (Granted, I think Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever, for a million reasons, but that's another story.)
I would argue that a significant share of the blame could be aimed at his administrative policies, which included, among other things, tax cuts and deficit spending, failure to create progressive energy policy, failure to regulate industries, particularly financial industries which allowed risky lending, etc., to cause the foreclosure crisis.
The democratic congress sworn in on 1/1/07 inherited this mess.

But it's the bullshit and blaming that will keep us in it!

But we all know about the separation of powers, remember from the 4th grade? It takes the president and congress to work together. Both have failed. Big time.

Congress has failed to take a proactive approach to anything. Gas prices are the perfect example--no legislation to require better gas mileage, no proposal to increase drilling or lower gas taxes until there was a price crisis. Then, they have to react, instead of study and plan and do what is best. No plan to provide universal health care to all Americans. No fix for social security. But my Congressman just announced his retirement after serving for 12 or 13 terms. Good gig that was for him.

BUT, only about 50% of those who can, are registered to vote, and only about 50% of those 50% turn out to vote. More Americans recognize Joe Camel than Dick Cheney, and a single digit percentage of us can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. SO, whose fault is it? The lazy fuckstick government? Or the lazy fuckstick voters?

Sometimes I think we get the government we deserve.

In any event, Obama makes me believe that it can be different. Obama makes me believe that my little mixed race baby-on-the-way will grow up in a country that won't notice his skin color. Obama makes me believe in America. Have you ever heard a die hard republican talk about Ronald Reagan and how he affected the morale of America in a positive way? (a. I was a kid. b. I was unimpressed.) Sometimes, just that spiritual uplift, that positive belief, is what we need when it seems like our country is in the death spiral.

Shit can't get worse!
Obama '08!

(*disclaimer; I'm my upstate NY county's democratic committee chairperson; elected to the NYS Democratic Committee; worked for 8 years for the democratic NYS Assembly; served 2 terms on my county's legislature. I might be a little biased. OR,maybe I'm part of the problem!)

[Newman]

Can anything be done about pork? That always seems like a big problem and has led to stupid attack ads, like "Kerry voted against fetuses".

[Jack Klompus]

@Bethany
"The democratic congress sworn in on 1/1/07 inherited this mess.

Most of them were already there, so they were part of the mess. It wasn't until 1/1/07 that they took ownership of it, then proceeded to do nothing about it.

"failure to regulate industries, particularly financial industries which allowed risky lending, etc., to cause the foreclosure crisis."

Really? You want the federal government to oversee that?

"it seems like our country is in the death spiral."

Shit can't get worse!"

How bad is it really? Are you living better or worse than your parents did at your age? Ask anyone you know the same question. Not saying we don't have problems. But you yourself said the economy was cyclical. Whether it's Obama or McCain, it will come back around.

[bethany]

@ Klompus

Totally agree that the 1/07 congress looked remarkably like the 12/31/06 congress, save a few old white guys that may have gotten swapped out. And, they have done nothing.

I think that reasonable federal regulation wouldn't be a bad idea in lots of industries. History has shown us that when the private sector has the opportunity to screw the peeps, they will.

And I concur, regardless of who becomes the president, the economy will recover, because it always does. I just think Obama's policies will favor the little guy more.

[Ocho Ocho]

No one has addressed the true issue of the Harpers Issue. It Illustrates what a Cosbyesque oval office will look like to heighten even the most subconscious racial animus. Shock therapy is more subtle.

[Assman]

failure to regulate industries, particularly financial industries which allowed risky lending, etc., to cause the foreclosure crisis."

Really? You want the federal government to oversee that?

It's not a matter of 'want' at this point. The laws are already on the books and they are legion, as anyone who has ever worked for a financial institution and had to get certified on the latest regulatory laws can tell you.

The issue is that they haven't been enforced as of late. You know how many laws there are against predatory lending, specifically to prevent the clusterfuck we have right now?

[Jack Klompus]

"It's not a matter of 'want' at this point. The laws are already on the books and they are legion, as anyone who has ever worked for a financial institution and had to get certified on the latest regulatory laws can tell you."

My point is that I don't care so much about the government launching umpteen investigations into lenders because I know it will (at best) only address a small part of the problem. What we need is less involvement from the government, particuarly the bail-outs and safety nets they give to financial insititutions, as well as careless borrowers. That will force lenders to stop giving out as many ridiculous loans (or go out of business) and people will be less likely to take unncessary equity lines out of their houses (become homeless).

[Assman]

What we need is less involvement from the government, particuarly the bail-outs and safety nets they give to financial insititutions, as well as careless borrowers.

Duly noted. The libertarian approach. Which works, but only after everyone that's either stupid, greedy or short-sighted ends up in the tank.

Unfortunately, we have no shortage of those kinds of folks in our economy. Just look at all the neck tattoos walking down the street. All those folks gone broke and desperate is only going to make the streets look like 28 Days Later.

[Jack Klompus]

"The libertarian approach"

Not exactly. Libertarian would mean little or no government involvement. I'm not that extreme. I'm saying the goverment shouldn't be as involved in (a) making sure people of all credit levels are able to get home loans (unless it remains fully self-funding), and (b) in most cases shouldn't be in the business of bailing out financial institutions that have clearly been mismanaged. Subsidies shouldn't be given to groups that prove they are incapable of doing what they are in business to do.

[Assman]

I'm saying the goverment shouldn't be as involved in (a) making sure people of all credit levels are able to get home loans (unless it remains fully self-funding), and (b) in most cases shouldn't be in the business of bailing out financial institutions that have clearly been mismanaged. Subsidies shouldn't be given to groups that prove they are incapable of doing what they are in business to do.

Understood and 'word'.

[Mr. Kruger]

I don't think you can blame the Democratic Congress for anything other than being lame-asses. The first six years you had a Republican House, Senate, and Executive. What are they supposed to do with that? The last year and a half the House has sent a shit load of bills to the Senate only to be blocked by a the Republican minority who are 1 down and constantly use procedural tactics to block votes.

Sometimes I think we get the government we deserve.

In a nutshell- except I would say "all the time."

[steffanwolf]

In answering those emails that blame Dem's for our economic problems, I have this to say.

5 year subprime option ARM's started this mess, and the Alt-A's are just starting to reset now. The goal was home ownership at any cost. The American Dream for everyone. Well by next month we will all own at least a little of a foreclosed home after a taxpayer bail out.

John McCain's former economic advisor, Phil Gramm wrote the deregulation legislation, Bill Clinton signed it, George W. Bush encouraged it, and Everyone bought in along the way. A Fed that kept interest rates low, chased all the smart money into commodities, and blew yet another bubble can be largely but not entirely blamed for the high gas prices.

And yes, I fully believe the Zombie Apocalypse is on it's way. U3 and U6 unemployment ranges between 5.7 and 10.3% right now. If the credit crunch tightens further and unemployment continues to increase the pain will be widespread and brains will be at a premium. That's why I'm supporting Obama.

If he wins, see Night of the Living Dead for what his tenure in the White House will look like. A final storming of the gates by the politics of the baby boomer generation if you will. I'm hoping this version will have a better ending, though.

[Jack Klompus]

@Kruger
"The last year and a half the House has sent a shit load of bills to the Senate only to be blocked by a the Republican minority who are 1 down and constantly use procedural tactics to block votes."

And the Dem minority didn't do that 6 years prior?