rickrick91 saidriddler78 -
you're just like southbeach.
A partisan Republican who claims to be an independent.
The fact that you only attack Democrats, and make excuses for the Repubs, tells the real story on what your party affiliation is.
Have the stones to admit you prefer the Repubs, and can the "I'm an independent" bs.
BTW, please list some examples of the "manufactured" Republican scandals you claim exist.
And, your claim that the media has looked the other way on the Democratic scandals you listed is total BS.
They were all headline news, and covered by the media.
Your attempt to blame Rangel and Dodd for the Bush recession is particularly lame, laughable, and absolutely right-wing spin.
You've clearly been listening to Fox and Rush if you believe that bs.
The buck stops on the president's desk, and if you're making excuses for Bush and trying to blame a recession that happened 6 1/2 years into his presidency on someone else (of the other party) - you are clearly a partisan REPUBLICAN.
Sorry Rick - I'm Canadian - but I think you've largely misunderstood my position. You're probably right, I do prefer the Republicans, but only marginally and only sometimes on economic issues. Bush was a disaster when it came to managing domestic spending and pork - especially when it came from his own party. If I'd been an American, I would have voted for Obama as I didn't see much of a substantive difference between what I thought Obama would do versus McCain. If McCain had won, however, and followed in the same footsteps, there would have effectively been no viable alternative for those who believe that people spend money more efficiently than the government does. I'm a strong believer in competition - especially in politics.
One silly controversy in the past was the intense level of gossip surrounding Palin's kid Trig speculating it was really her daughter's. More serious ones include the criticism over New Orlean's (largely downplaying what was a rather corrupt system of spending on locks/water management system and inept response at the state level) and the response in the Tsunami aftermath (I remember Bush was openly mocked by a news anchor on CNN for sending an aircraft carrier for disaster relief while Obama was praised - quite rightly - most recently by Michael Moore, of all people, for sending one to Haiti). Then there's the National Guard issue and I imagine you know what happened to Dan Rather.
But setting aside the partisan rhetoric for a moment, look at the media response following many of these scandals. Then compare and contrast to Rangel. Despite being found guilty by a committee of his own peers of numerous ethical violations, he is still the Chairman of the primary committee responsible for guiding national spending/policy - the House Ways and Means. This is news from today: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33668.html
As for my supposed attempt to blame Dodd and Rangel for the Bush recession, I said that the former were at least contributed to the subprime disaster - which most objective observers would likely agree with. This isn't to say that Bush was also not responsible - he was - especially many members of his administration in their response to the crisis and in the leadup in legislation that allowed for it to happen (even if provisions were drafted in some cases large part by Democrats).
I don't watch Fox (don't get it here - you have to pay for the premium news package on cable and I can do without that and MSNBC for that matter since I rarely turn on the tv anymore as it is anyway), I also don't get Rush that I'm aware of - but from what I've seen as for the cascade on many of these scandals, the NYT has still not really done much of an adequate story for its readers on Acorn or the inspector general scandal (more to come on the latter given the progressing lawsuits). Certainly, Acorn was somewhat manufactured but it is sort of telling that the Democrats felt the need when they had solid unbreachable majorities in both houses to censure and exclude Acorn from Federal funding when little was reported in the NYT (I don't know about other US networks - they largely annoy me because watching news is largely far too slow, too slanted and too sensationalist for me except when I'm stuck watching CNN at an airport).
Let me again be clear, I believe Bush deserves responsibility but given the insane level of spending/bailouts by Obama he owns at least part of this recession as it is a tacit endorsement of how Bush responded to the tactics. Further, Obama's spending on stimulus in all its inglorious failure, corruption and inefficiency are all his own.
I'm actually far far from grim in my outlook and I disagree strongly with Southbeach's view that there is a [small?] part of him that hopes for a collapse. However at this point it's almost inevitable that the current fiscal crisis will force lending costs to rise - which is a problem because, as you may know, the rate that the government borrows at is the "risk free" rate which means the cost of everyone else's borrowing in the US will also rise going well into the future. So I fear for instance, that the cost of stimulus will actually be lower economic future growth. The worst part of it is that the spending as directed by those like Rangel (and yes, also some Republican cronies) has been wasted.
So in a very long winded response to whose party I favor - I wish there was a "throw the bums out" option. Also presumably like most reasonable people you pretty much dislike Charlie Rangel and what those like him have done to the Democratic Party. Which leads me to wonder - given that this is the case for most Democrats that I know, why aren't there more fiscal conservatives here? More spending and regulations means a bigger government and a greater intrusion into our lives. If we accept that many of our leaders are absolute buffoons who seem to have been beaten by some universal stupid stick out there (an unfortunately party and country-independent issue), wouldn't we want them to have less rather more control/influence in our lives?
If you're looking for change, create a business - finding ways (joining organizations) to deliver more effective healthcare cheaper will do far more than anything implemented by government fiat - that is if history is to be any sort of a guide. Ditto that if your cause is free speech - look at the impact of Twitter, Facebook (vs State Department's VOA - which has had a good impact but I'd argue the former has had a much more substantial one). After all, who do you trust more - yourself and your peers or [insert politician's name here]. The good news is that there's never been a better time to start a business and great ideas have a much higher probability of finding an audience/customer base today than they've ever had irrespective of source. We should be enabling and supporting these people - not politicos. Ugh. If you made it this far, thanks for letting me vent
. Enough procrastinating. Later.