My reference was to the chart.

Regardless, over the past 12 years one cannot separate Bush's party from his congressional control.  He's had carte blanche to enact whatever he wanted.  And we've all paid the price.

Only the House had a clear majority of Democrats from the 2006 election.  So, again, Bush has had the senate to set the legislative agenda and veto power.  Though with the House under Democratic control, they've been able to stop or at least modify some things Bush.

And as I've concurred with previously, ALL members of congress can take blame for being in the pockets of the Wall Street lobby.

If one were to argue that regarding the needless invasion of Iraq, they would be mistaken.   But I get your point and would present that Osama bin Laden STILL represents a credible, viable, proven threat that IS worth putting our military on.   I think that type of military action makes your point AND my point, yes?

That may be an oversimplification, but this is just an online forum, not a doctoral dissertation (despite my posts to the contrary, hehe). 

Yet, his point is very common right now.  I've read numerous pieces recently wherein the current economic collapse is seen as a full repudiation of Reagan's "trickle down economics" as well as the laissez fair capitalism of Ayn Rand.  In the same links I provided earlier, it clearly showed the gap between the upper 1% and everyone else has grown MUCH wider now under Bush.  So those tax breaks that were supposed to help the wealthy reinvest in infrastructure, employees, new business, etc. apparently were not used for that at all.  The majority of it, apparently, according to the numbers, just went into their pockets, and even more tragically, overseas.

Now, again, I am not against anyone making money.  But there comes a time when it is clear a policy approach is NOT working, neither as it was pitched, nor for the country as a whole.  The "top down" vs. "bottom up" analogy that Dozer speaks of is coming up a lot in conversations and so it may be that the pendulum is swinging back right now.  I sure hope it is.

Now, NO ONE is advocating even French Socialist, let along Marxist philosophy here, but McCain/Palin tried the "the Socialists are coming! the Socialists are coming!" and that didn't work any better than the race baiting.  At least for 52% of Americans.

So, it's my belief that after seeing how Americans were just forced (against their stated will) to buy out almost the entire financial sector, the taxpayers aren't going to accept "we can't afford basic universal healthcare for all".  And that means a little Socialism is very likely coming to America.  As far as I am concerned, it's long overdue.

That particular report was quoting the NY Times and others if you read it and I would imagine that you find them somewhat more to your liking.  Do you deny that it happened?  If so then rant to the NY Times and AP for false reporting.

A very selected choice of charts and figures.  During any war in the US history the debt as gone up considerably as the attached charts from the same source shows. Just look at the figures during the WW2 years.  However, as a % of GDP the debt now (prior to the recent housung bailout programs is actually lower than during much of the Clinton years. (As a note, I certainly give him credit for reducing that but he also was not fighting a war)

http://www.grabup.com/uploads/d559ffa3c6d79bfd0b01e8972000b3b2.png

As for the Chineese debt it is only 3% higher than it was in 1997 under Clinton and China is a far different coubtry now than it was then,

http://www.grabup.com/uploads/c3a2c5c9c18725ecb4e5ecfaec68fdc7.png

Oh okay.  I just saw that it was on Drudge and, like many people with huffpo, I just dismissed it as tabloid drivel.  I'll give it a read then, thanks!

I'm not debating the issue you bring up, and of course, I agree with your facts.

But I was asked to show HOW Bush's policies have affected the debt and the economy, etc. so I did.  And these issues - the preemptive and needless invasion of Iraq, and the tax cut that put us underwater from a cash flow perspective - were his babies. 

Unfortunately, buying out almost the entire financial sector appears now to be only the beginning. The bailout of the auto industry will be pushed through by the dems and I for one can't imagine that the airlines are far behind and of course the ever expanding insurance industry. It seems so sad to me on behalf of both parties that we have heard for years how impossible it was to adequarelty fund social security and yet they can spend what will surely be trillions after a one week debate on keeping failing companies afloat.

As for healthcare, it certainly won't be paid for.  It might be borrowed for, but paid for? I can not see how.

There is a reason that the CEO of GM does not automatically get the Chairman of the Fed job.

I did miss that (the thread is a busy one).  I appologize for not seeing your post you reference.

That is a matter of opinion not fact.  But we do have the fact that ObamaBiden gave virtually nothing to charity over the past several years (despite making millions) and that traditionally, conservatives (those professsing to be) give more to charity than do liberals.  We are talking about walking the walk - not a dissertation of who did what to whom in the economy.

Correction: You dont see or admit any.

ONly to a delusional or highly partisan person.  We are still in Kosovo (an illegal action virtually identical to Russias invasion of Georgia), and the chinese sure dont think there is nothing there.

You said seances.  Are you denying it now?  Clearly you are using selective editing.  That is your problem.

YOu dont know the meaning of the word.  But I can see the new PC - slinging insults to conservatives is ok.  Calling a liberal a liar when caught in one is taboo.  All hail Big Brother.

Um, no it is not.  It is the bastardized version.  Check out what the founding fathers created.  Hardly what you are alleging here, and you are dead wrong even then.

And you think tingling legs are Journalism?    Dream on.  Drudge never called himself a journalist, just a breaking news site (and he has the track record to prove it).

Dont you just love a source that sources itself!  Can we have a more accurate source of your contention?  One that sources the raw data and not itself?

You mean, like Social Security Reform?  You mean, like reigning in Fanny & Freddy?  You're a one-man myth machine, Ex.

All feelings & beliefs, not facts or critical analysis.  Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is just fine & dandy now.

There's no debate over the cause of the economy being in bad shape right now? Really? 

Your premise is that national debt has gone up - to which you blame tax cuts - and that is what caused the economy to worsen.

That's your argument is it not?  

There is certainly no consensus as to the slowing economy's cause. There are lots of different hypothesis's in which you named one - yours. There's certainly a debate.

The difference is that your proof is simply that Bush has a low job approval rating (almost as low as the Democratic congress).

That's not proof, that's feel-good partisan fantasy.