The bodies of dead public programs and eviscerated social services litter the American landscape like casualties of a brutal war.

It seems, at times, as though the Great Recession is systematically wiping out institutions that were generations in the making.

Governments strapped for operating capital are making deep cuts. Just last week, as most American children enjoyed their summer break from classes, school districts across the nation were mapping out strategies of planned attrition, preparing to notify thousands of teachers their jobs are no longer available.

Education isn’t the only casualty. Public libraries are also feeling the heat, and most cities on the Central Coast have either reduced their library funding, or have plans to do so.

This loss of financial support comes at a time when library staffs in many communities have already been reduced to not much more than a skeleton crew.

It’s like a chain-reaction crash. The federal government, which is $14 trillion in debt, reduces funding to states. California, whose lawmakers managed to whittle down a $26 billion budget deficit with program/services cuts — and some voodoo accounting — have less money to send to counties, which in turn, have to choke off local programs and services.

The loss of funding for public education could have catastrophic consequences. Our elected officials seem intent on squeezing school districts, at the exact moment in history when this nation needs that young brain power to be nurtured and expanded.

The kids are, after all, the real hope for solving these core problems in the future.

Throttling public libraries may very well be another problem with lasting repercussions. Consider these facts:

Public libraries are places Americans go to help them find and get jobs. It’s where anyone who signs up for a library card can check out any book they please.

Nearly as many Americans have library cards as they do credit cards. Even if they don’t have the requisite card, there are usually plenty of places to sit and read the periodicals.

Libraries are places where we can go to get answers. Don’t have a computer at home? Your public library has them. And tech training classes take place daily at more than a third of the nation’s libraries.

Every day that America’s 16,000 public libraries are open, more than 300,000 people search for jobs. Most of those libraries are Wi-Fi hotspots, so you can bring your laptop and browse to your heart’s content.

Nearly 3 million times each month, local businesses nationwide rely on the local library’s resources to help those business owners turn a profit.

Libraries are frequent hosts for family movie nights. Libraries have more meeting rooms than the nation’s conference centers, convention facilities and auditoriums combined. It’s an ideal place for community issues to be discussed, and because libraries are “quiet places,” the discourse tends to be more civil.

Each year, about 220 million Americans attend a sporting event of some kind — compared to 1.4 billion visits to public libraries. Another comparison — FedEx ships an average of 8 million packages daily; the nation’s public libraries circulate about the same number of materials.

The recession and its effects on local government are pulling support away from libraries. You may be able to help by discussing the issue with your elected representatives. Another avenue of assistance is through a Friends-of-the-Library group. Just about every community has one.

The Great Recession has changed life as we know it in so many ways. We can’t allow it to kill our libraries.

(97) comments

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Welcome to the Socialist Utopia that Obomb and his Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Marxist/Communist; Open Border Cartel is building for you.

All sorts of things are going to go away. You are getting the results you voted for in Washington and in Sacramento. Destroy the basic foundation of the democracy, Capitalism, and you destroy the democracy itself. You are witnessing it first hand.


The libraries have also overstepped their bounds. Why are offering music, games and entertainment videos? Why are they offering free computers?

As some libraries you can check out a painting or a print and take it home and hang it over Thanksgiving and impress your relatives and then take it back.

I know the answer to all of these questions. We are doing these things for the poor that can not afford the service for themselves. And there in lies the problem. It just never works. Taking from them that can do and giving to those that can't. The liberal thinking that we have to make everyone equal rater the deserve it or not is bankrupting the country.

With the exception of a fee new services, libraries should get back to basics.

One new area they should expand as fast as they can is the digital services. The on line library is never closed and I would have to guess much easier and less expensive to staff.

Ralph C
Ralph C

Here, here, Wyett! Great comments. Care to run for Mayor in Sanctuary Tijuana?

Here's my take on our local library. It was built to cater to the future needs of our illegal alien population (all part of the Downtown Specific Plan). When entering the library, one is immediately confronted with signs in Spanish. There are oodles of books, pamphlets, movies, etc. all in Spanish. But, guess what folks? The vast majority of our resident illegals have less than a fifth grade education and most are illiterate in their native tongue? How does that grab you? And these are the people whom our elected officials believe will be able to support the city's infrastructure? Who are they kidding? The illegals and their anchor babies don't care about education, and proof of this lies in the article under County in Brief today -- 4 West Side Gang Members arrested for assault. Illegal aliens and their gang-banging anchor children don't give a hoot about education as they're too busy tearing up our town.

My advice for Santa Tijuana's officials is to move the new library to a more appropriate setting like Beverly Hills where sophisticated, intelligent and learned individuals will both appreciate and care for it. It would be a pity to waste such a beautiful structure on a city that has become so beleagered in recent years, with virtually no hope of recovery.

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

I look for our library to be closed for extended periods until the "economic crisis" is over. Who knows when that will be?

John Q Public
John Q Public

Folks,

It was necessary to cut the library hours so we could pay a generous 'bonus' to top city officials like Tim Ness and Dan Macagni. They deserve it, after all, the library is operating so efficiently!

Just saying,

JQP

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

>>Who knows when that will be?<

Good question. Let us not forget that Obomb is already trying to condition us into believing that this, the severely depressed economy, just may be "the new norm". In other words, it don't get no better then this.

The thing I don't understand is why there is not a huge, huge public outcry! Isn't this the same as admitting that he and his agenda has failed and he can't do any better then this?

But some of his followers still worship him. Go figure.

Cbrown
Cbrown

The sound of America suffering- because of the liberals!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Read the last sentence of the article:

---All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”----


Progressive liberals in their anger about social justice will throw gasoline on the fire and then call it "help" They are WORSE than no government at all! They do MORE damage than help!

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

That's the welfare state for you. Greater and greater expectations, less and less results, until.........famine sets in, and ultimate collapse.

BOTH D's and R's are guilty as charged.

Cbrown
Cbrown

Here's part of your library money!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-05/california-prison-psychiatrist-paid-838-706.html

FactsMatter
FactsMatter

People who read this article and want to know how to help libraries can go to this site: http://ilovelibraries.org/
See especially the Get Involved and Take Action links on the left side of the page.

As to the others who have commented here, I invite them especially to look at the Get Informed link, b/c they clearly don't understand libraries at all. It's too bad that they hijacked the comments just to make a chance to rally against the President.

Libraries help people of all ages, ethnic backgrounds, and income levels to pursue lifelong learning on any topic. They're helping thousands find new jobs. They keep kids reading to improve their test scores. Librarians teach people how to find the most trustworthy info in the swamp of Google's info overload. They don't just help poor people; they serve anyone who asks. They'd even help you, ridiculous commenters, b/c they are trained information professionals who don't want the misinformed to be spreading lies.

Cbrown
Cbrown

Facts Matter-

I support libraries. I grew up going to a library at least once a week. Libraries opened the world of information to me.

Clearly though, the realities of the failures of government being mentioned by people bother you! The severe lack of funding that you are suffering right now is directly because of the ideas of people like B. Hussein Obama.

If you had noticed that many of these failures- like the ONE TRILLION DOLLARS of WASTED stimulus spending will cost America $5-6 TRILLION by the time it is paid back.

That money could have supplied a lot of libraries! Could have built entire new ones, too! Yes, I understand that much of library funding comes from government, but if you big government people do not realize that not ALL government spending is good- then very quickly we will have NO government spending and your library will end up being burned in the fireplace for fuel.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

>> b/c they are trained information professionals who don't want the misinformed to be spreading lies.<

There you go FactsMatter. With that one statement alone you have crossed the boundaries. Who is going to determine who is and who is not misinformed and who is and who is not spreading lies?

They have no business being in the business of "evaluating", "interpreting" and "weighing" the information.

You should be in the business of books, not music, not movies, not games. Books. Let the reader judge for themselves. I do not trust YOU or any arm of government to do that fairly and honestly.

You have already exposed your biases and inability to be a protector of free speech by saying some of us "hijacked" the thread to discredit the president.

Well guys what? This is what free speech is all about. Libraries and their supporters should be defenders of free speech, not complaining about it.

tinapalin
tinapalin


Its all the liberals fualt whaaah.


1) Iran-Contra. Basically, it involved violating federal law by trading in war materiel with the Iranians and the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

2)President Reagan ignored the health crisis caused by AIDS.

3) SDI. Reagan spent billions on the boondoggle of
an "anti-missile shield". Which, incidentally, violated
the ABM treaty, in addition to wasting a lot of money.

4) Budget deficits grow from about $20B in the late 70s
to about $150B in the mid 80s. Reagan more than tripled
the national debt.

5) Reagan told Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to produce
a report detailing the long-term physical and emotional trauma a woman
suffered as a result of having an abortion. Koop, an abortion
foe, but a good scientist, discovered that, in fact, a woman
did not suffer long-term physical or emotional trauma as a result
of having an abortion. Reagan suppressed the report.

6) Reagan provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

7) Reagan's tax restructuring (massive cuts in 1981, followed
by tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987)
transferred tax burden from corporations and the wealthy to
the middle class and, especially, the working class poor.

8) When a Marine barracks was blown up by terrorists in Lebanon, Reagan
responded...by pulling American forces out of Lebanon and invading the
small Caribbean island of Grenada.

9) Reagan's attorney general was Ed Meese, who was investigated
by three different special prosecutors for involvement in three
different scandals. Over 100 Reagan appointees were convicted
of crimes committed while in office.

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

FactsMatter, methinks thou canst not understand what thou readest.

There is no bigger lover of libraries on God's green earth than this child.

why didn't you listen to Cbrown? Public services are collapsing all over the place because the criminal bankers are stealing our wealth and turning us into paupers!

Go educate yourself and find out about TRILLIONS in MISSING MONEY!:

http://solari.com/archive/missing_money/

tinapalin
tinapalin

Freshman Republicans Lobby Federal Agencies For Millions Amid Spending Critiques

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/freshman-republicans-federal-spending_n_890518.html


Because its job creation when republicans do it.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Oh my, the nut job is back! lol

So tinapalin, because of all of that, assuming there was even a thread of truth running through it, we should limit the local library hours? Duh!!!!!!

Try to keep up.

How about the money we are spending on millions of illegales in California, do you think that may have a more direct effect on the topic? Or how about the over $800,000 in payroll that paid to one doctor of the California prison system last year? Do you think that may have a more direct effect?

How about wasting what was it, $2 or $3 million on the new transit center, just so Mayor Larry can get his name on another building? Do you think that may have a more direct effect?

Please make an effort to pay attention.


Cbrown
Cbrown

The fool know as Tinapalin-

Yes! It IS all the liberals fault. The fact that fools like you continue to give ANY credibility to the endless and constant PROVEN failures of liberals- draws the political debate to the left and damages ideas of those weak-willed on the center-right. You pull the center of debate to the left and damage all ideas of government!

Here we have B. Hussein Obama’s own economic advisors now admit that the economic stimulus was gasoline on the fire of job creation- THAT IT DID MORE HARM THAN GOOD- is something that you liberals have to deny to maintain credibility.

George Bush was not the greatest of Presidents, but most of the economic mess we are in right now is because of liberal democrats and their policies of the past 90 years. The economic situation has been made WORSE by B. Hussein Obama and the progressive liberals like those on the HuffingPuffing Post!

Just because you liberals claim to care so very much, does not mean we should trust you running around with cans of gasoline burning everything down! America looks around and surveys the burned and destroyed wrecks you leave in your wake and you sit there waiting for people to thank you!

Some minimal amount of government is necessary for orderly civilization, but a government of liberal progressives is WORSE than no government at all!

Yes! It IS all the liberals fault.


The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

tinapalin, there is no substantial difference between the D's and the R's. They play "good cop, bad cop," but they are BOTH taking us for a ride with their criminal banker friends.

The "left/right" paradigm is a myth and gets you nowhere.

I know this because NOTHING EVER CHANGES, NO MATTER WHICH POLITICAL PARTY IN IS POWER.

Cbrown
Cbrown

GE-

I strongly disagree with the both parties are bad theory. If that is true, then there is no point in arguing any of this as it all ids just a lost cause.

The progressive liberals have dominated for the past 90 years. Their ideas are so far left they have pulled too many of our guys on the right towards the center. They moved the center to the left! That is a normal, but bad, function of elections and the bastardization of politics.

Now the liberal’s ideas are easy to see SO bad, such proven failures- that compromising with their ideas is very easy to see as bad also! Should the average voter give credence to the left and compromise with them just because they have a side, an argument? Give them the benefit of their ideas and only damage America half as much? NO!

We’ve done the one half compromise idea over and over and over- so that the total measurable damage to America is now, cumulatively, almost too much to bear! The liberal’s have almost, but not quite, destroyed America.

Political pendulums do swing back the other ways. It is now swinging back to the right. We need to teach our people that the experiment of the liberal progressives was good to a tiny point- then failed after they overreached and tried to do too much! They took down the limits of government and they became corrupted with power! Yes, even some of the right’s establishment figures have become corrupted. (The Tea Party is in the process of sweeping them away. I believe the Tea Party will be the new norm for the right- pulling the debate back to the true center)

The infrastructure of civilization has reached such a critic mass- that we now have the means to do with the private sector, by private individuals- things that only government alone could do 50-60 years ago! Today, we can do them with multiple options and competition instead of the one-size only way of government.

People see the private options available to solve life’s problems. As their obvious success becomes more and more clear- the average person will become more self-reliant and conservative!

Conservatism wins EVERY SINGLE TIME IT IS TRIED!

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

Precisely my point, Cbrown, there ISN'T any point in arguing about the "left/right paradigm," since it doesn't exist (at least not anymore).

I don't know what you mean by those labels, "liberal," "progressive," etc. Do such things really exist? Or are they just propaganda terms floating around in people's heads?

Republicans are just as grandiose, greedy, and wasteful as any Democrats have ever been. Of course, they try to distinguish themselves from the D's, but THIS IS ALL LIES AND ILLUSIONS, theatre for those politically unsophisticated souls who have not looked at the overall track record of BOTH parties.

D's and R's are SUPPOSED to be different, but they are not. Deficit spending has been DECADES in the making and is the crime of BOTH political parties. They obviously have a tacit alliance behind the scenes and PRETEND to haggle and argue over the issues. To take this theatrics seriously is to fall right into their trap of mind control. It works every time it's tried, except that now the show is beginning to wear a little think because the Internet is exposing their criminal partnership more and more.

I don't buy any of it.

You know, Cbrown, I honestly wish that you were right and I was wrong. I'd sleep a lot better at night. You deserve to be right, and should be right, because our country is supposed to be a "republic." But it's not. Face it, my friend, you are living in a thinly disguised dictatorship.

The first step in resisting this dictatorship is in seeing its lies for what they really are.

Cbrown
Cbrown

GE-

Have faith! The history of politics is very clear. The average voter pays little attention until things get drastically bad and then they evaluate and go the other way.

There are some who say we have to have a Carter or Obama every 30 years or so, because that is about as long as people can remember back easily. Now we have another generation that has learned about the disasters of the liberals (and yes that is a real term that does describe a particular political group of thought)

If we compare this depression to the one of the 1930's, we can see that in some ways the numbers are even worse! We are saved by the fact that America and the average person has, since then, accumulated real substantial wealth and credit and that has helped cushion people from much of the type of suffering they had to endure back then.

The problem is that Mother Nature built in pain and suffering as the motivator to do the right things. To get off our butts and work! When civilization builds tools to help us avoid suffering, some people fail to see the need for change or work of any kind. The miss the need until they are slapped upside the head or killed outright!

Things are better! I would rather have this kind of depression rather than the one from the 30’s where many simply died from lack of food and shelter!

Now we have to WORK to pay off the huge accumulated debt we have built up! The debt has been both a savior and a curse! We can save ourselves if enough people see the need to change and do the work needed!

I think we will!

tinapalin
tinapalin


cb calls me a fool..for what. What did I post that was not true. And what proven failures of liberals have I given credibity to..?When have I panned Obama? Just because you say something doesnt make it true cb.How bout your tea party republican newbies lobbying for federal funds for their little job creating projects cb.No response on that one huh? figures.Nice job at distracting,to bad your not good at it.

It cracks me up when you wingnuts try to gain a little credibility by saying gwb wasnt the greatest president but thats as far as your narrow minds can muster up to discribe the huge failure known as george w bush.

Let me know when you guys get a true conservative to nominate for POTUS.

tinapalin
tinapalin

Oh yea wyett...your an idiot.

tinapalin
tinapalin

On July 4, U.S. officials, foreign dignitaries and conservative luminaries gathered outside the American embassy in London to unveil a $1 million statue of Ronald Reagan. As it turns out, the timing was more than a little ironic. Because even as the Gipper was honored in Britain, it's increasingly clear he would have no place in today's Republican Party.

From Grover Norquist's anti-tax promise and the Republican Study Committee's "cut, cap and balance" pledge to the draconian anti-abortion oath of the Susan B. Anthony List, hardline conservative litmus tests are proliferating at a dizzying pace. And Ronald Reagan would have failed them all.

If a reanimated Ronald Reagan suddenly appeared in 2011, there is little question his GOP descendants would brand him a Republican In Name Only (RINO) and cast off him off into the wilderness. (As California Rep. Duncan Hunter put it, "a more moderate/former liberal like Ronald Reagan...would never be elected today in my opinion.") Here's why:

1.Reagan tripled the national debt
2.Reagan raised taxes 11 times
3.Reagan expanded the size of government
4.Reagan supported the "socialist" Earned Income Tax Credit
5.Reagan negotiated with terrorists in Tehran
6.Reagan sought to eliminate nuclear weapons
7.Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants
8.Reagan approved protectionist trade barriers
9.Reagan signed abortion rights law in California
10.Reagan eventually debunked AIDS myths Republicans continued to perpetuate
1. Reagan Tripled the National Debt
As most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder Stockman lamented last year:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

And that would be a big problem for Utah Senator Mike Lee and the Republican Study Committee now pushing the government-gutting "cut, cap and balance" plan. With its draconian limit on federal spending at 18% of GDP, President Reagan would have broken that promise every year he was in office. And the supposed great tax-cutter would have been in violation of the Constitution's new balanced budget amendment eight years running.

2. Reagan Raised Taxes 11 Times
As ThinkProgress noted, the inedible image of Ronald Reagan the tax cutter is "false mythology." (It is also worth noting that it was President Obama and not Reagan who delivered the largest two year tax cut in American history.) While Governor Reagan doubled California's state spending and signed the biggest tax hike up to that point, as President he raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan "a dear friend," told NPR, "Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration -- I was here."

His hagiographer Grover Norquist may be the man behind the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project to "to encourage the naming of landmarks, buildings, roads, etc. after the Gipper." But as he did with Oklahoma reactionary Tom Coburn, Norquist would have to conclude that the tax-raising Reagan "lied his way into office."

3. Reagan Expanded the Size of Government
Marking Reagan's 100th birthday earlier this year, Sarah Palin told the Reaganauts assembled by the Young Americans for Freedom, "We need to stop spending and cut government back down to size." If that's the case, her role model should be Democrat Bill Clinton and not Republican Ronald Reagan.

As USA Today pointed out five years ago, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, average annual federal spending dropped far more under Bill Clinton (-1.8%) than Ronald Reagan (-0.6%). And as Slate's Michael Kinsley explained ten years ago in marking Reagan's 90th birthday:

Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent--a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms--less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent--more than double Reagan's reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind.

As the Gipper's biographer Lou Cannon aptly summed it up, "He was no Tea Partier."

tinapalin
tinapalin

So which one are you cb? Reganite or teabagger? Cuase they are not the same.

Cbrown
Cbrown

Tinapalin-

You can create a long list of the failures of every single President this country has ever had. George Washington is consider the wining General of the revolution, yet he only won 4 of his 11 major battles! His Presidency was fraught with failures and problems, but he set the model for all Presidents after him. He is considered one of the best Presidents, ever!

The test of history for a President is simple. Did the totality of his Presidency have greater success than failures? History has clearly judged Reagan as one of the two greatest Presidents of the last 100 years! Most lists of non-liberal news sources and historians put Reagan in the top quartile of all time Presidents!

Again, very simple. Was America and the average American better off after Reagan? The answer is a clear resounding YES! History gives the credit to REAGAN and NOT his democrat congress. History showed that his congress opposed almost everything he tried to do and they LOST! History has PROVED Reagan was correct!

The question for B. Hussein Obama will be the same. Are you better off after four years of Obama with a majority democrat controlled congress? The answer is a resounding NO! Not even close! Even liberal newspapers now write stories about how WORSE the liberals have made America!

BTW- waiting for answers from me on your individual questions is pointless. Your writing is so simplistic and similar to all the other cheerleading you have done for Obama- I don’t even bother to read what you write. I just glance at it!

I only respond for the benefit of others that might read your stuff and mistake it for something that is true and matters! The real test of history and what America thinks of you liberals came with the last election and the way things look today- it is just the beginning of your rejection! You’re on the road to political oblivion for another 20-30 years!

tinapalin
tinapalin

Well excuse me for not being the grey poupon eating elitist you are cb.I actually take the time to read your posts.(Sorry wyett not yours cause your're an idiot).

So since you might not respond to me, I guess I'll have to assume you belive Reagan's liberal policies made America a better place.I dont blame you for not answering me, but its ok I think I know why.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

tinapalin said on: July 6, 2011, 5:52 pm
Oh yea wyett...your an idiot. <<<

Oh my God!! I am an idiot!! My life is in ruin, I am crushed, I am devastated! I may have to just end it all... tinapalin the nut job has called me an idiot!!

Woes me.... woes me... what am I to do???

tinapalin
tinapalin

To the SM times.Have you thought of having an open thread section here on occasion. Thanks, tina.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Clinton vs Bush and the market crash

One of the things that always puzzle me is the seemly double standard that Clinton and Bush are being held to.

Lets look at the Clinton/Bush and the issue of the stock market crash.

When Clinton took office the Dow was at 3300, when he left it was 10,600, a 311% gain. Everyone, conservatives, liberals and of course all of Wall Street was making money. And let us not forget Hillary’s profits she made in those evil hedge funds.

All through that time you never head much if anything about corruption, insider trading, or how Wall Streeters were all a bunch of crooks and thieves. During that time none of these people were considered evil.

The 7,300-point jump by the Dow was managed right under the nose of the Bill Clinton White House and his Attorney General. Incidentally this is also the same time period in which Enron and WorldCom made their big gains that turned out to big lies, the two biggest and most corrupt failures in the history of American business. The SAME people that were later put in prison were the same ones that managed these companies through the Clinton years. In other words the corruption was fully in place and being perpetrated on the American people, liberals and conservatives alike, through the Clinton years. We need also to mention that the large percentage of the soon to default high-risk mortgages were also made during this time.

Now Bush takes office. We have a thing called 9/11 (and the events that followed including the wars) that knocked the markets for a loop. Understandable so. Of course Bush now gets blamed for 9/11 even though it has been well documented that the planning and training for those attacks had been going on, once again, right under the nose of the Clinton administration, but that’s another story.

Not long after 9/11 you have the Enron collapse. Then WorldCom and of course the markets are already shaky and get shakier. The first 5 years even with the ups and downs the market goes nowhere, stays about the same.

The then the Bear Stearns collapse and surrounding this time you have Elliott Spitzer investigating everyone he could, trying to find dirt on any and all Wall Street companies doing business in New York. On the surface that looks like the right thing to do, however he is doing it in the most outlandish, bombastic fashion he cant because he is not motivated by doing the right thing, he is motivated by wanting to be Governor and later President. In so doing he is scaring the life out every little old lady and senior citizen and everyone else with their life savings in stocks, bonds and mutual funds, nearly causing a panic in itself.

As one sensational headline after the other streaks across the news wires, the same little old ladies, small investors, pension funds and a lot of larger holders are seeing their stocks tumble at the mere suggestion that they may be the next target of Spitzer. At the same time you have the fallout form Enron and WorldCom and now the failure of Bear Stearns. The headlines get more sensational and more people are scared and more business sees their stocks crashing. Holders have to start liquidating at depress prices, short sellers step in and drive prices even lower.

Now, remember all of those shaky mortgages that were made back a few years, under the Clinton administration? All of sudden the reduced, introductory offer, interest rates are expiring and balloon payments are coming due. Money has dried up because of Bear Stearns and one of the other big financial houses has failed and now housing prices are falling, speculators are getting killed and people are losing their homes.

The house of cards that was built under the Clinton administration is tumbling all around us.

And then it starts, the Blame game. It’s all Bush’s fault. And the name-calling; Wall Street is nothing but a scam; they are all crooks. We should hang them all! They all belong in jail. Bush is the worst of them. They stole my life savings and on and on and on.

Ok, now all that said…. I have to ask. Was the American public so naive that they had no idea that all this corruption was fully in place way before the Clinton administration, but made its biggest gains during his administration? And if they did know, whey didn’t blow the whistle back then?

Was it because they making money and were willing to turn a blind eye? Or were they duped into believing that everything was ok and the gravy train would ride on forever? If they were duped, it had to be by Clinton and his people. Not Bush. The corruption was alive and well and everyone in the markets, including the Clintons themselves and liberals and conservatives alike were profiting way before Bush.

To this day you have people yelling and screaming that capitalism is the root of evil, American businesses are all corrupt and run by nothing but crooks, thieves and etc. etc. They are all evil!

These same people were enjoying the benefits of this evil during the run up through the Clinton years. If they were duped or lied to it wasn’t Bush or any of his people, they weren’t even in the game yet.

These lying, evil, capitalist did most of their lying and evil right under the nose of Bill Clinton and his administration, and those yelling the loudest today were right there enjoying the benefits. Now that it has come to an end, they blame it on Bush.

You can’t have it both ways. The Clinton era Wall Street is the same Wall Street that collapsed. It was all of the same people for the most part. It took the combination of 9/11, Enron, Elliot Spitzer and the timing of those high-risk mortgages to bring the market down. Any one or maybe even two of these things we probably would have survived. But the weight of the four of them was just too much.

Bottom line, Bill Clinton allowed for the most corrupt dealings in the history of Wall Street while he was busy under his desk NOT having sex with that women. LOL!!


WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States

C-SPAN poll

1.Abraham Lincoln
2.George Washington
3.Theodore Roosevelt
4.Franklin D. Roosevelt
5.Thomas Jefferson
6.Ronald Reagan
7.Harry S. Truman
8.Dwight D. Eisenhower
9.James Monroe
10.James Madison
11.John Adams
12.John F. Kennedy
13.Woodrow Wilson
14.Andrew Jackson
15.John Quincy Adams
16.George H.W. Bush
17.James K. Polk
18.William McKinley
19.Lyndon B. Johnson
20.Richard Nixon
21.Grover Cleveland
22.Calvin Coolidge
23.Gerald Ford
24.William Howard Taft
25.Zachary Taylor
26.Rutherford B. Hayes
27.Jimmy Carter
28.James A. Garfield
29.Ulysses S. Grant
30.Martin Van Buren
31.Benjamin Harrison
32.John Tyler
33.Herbert Hoover
34.Chester A. Arthur
35.William Henry Harrison
36.Bill Clinton
37.Millard Fillmore
38.Andrew Johnson
39.Franklin Pierce
40.Warren G. Harding
41.James Buchanan

Note: Ronald Reagan is the top rated modern day president. Also note that Bill Clinton is rated lower then Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Bill Clinton's legacy is our financial disaster by David Weidner

During his final three years in office, Clinton created a fertile environment for home-lending charlatans, hiding places for Wall Street swindlers and a regulatory structure that had served the financial marketplace so well for more than six decades.

The first was a change in 1997 to the amount of taxes a homeowner had to pay on the sale of his or her home on up to $500,000. This change effectively made buying and selling a home for profit the most compelling investment in America by tax standards. It changed our housing market from one of supply and demand to one of rampant speculation.

The second mistake was one of inaction. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management's use of derivatives and leverage required a massive $3.6 billion hedge fund bailout organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. After the fiasco rocked the markets, the administration was on the spot. Would it require tighter regulation of this new form of investment vehicle? Would it rein in the derivatives markets?

But perhaps the biggest mistake of the Clinton years regarding Wall Street and the one that rings loudest today was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a 1933 law that effectively split investment banking and brokerages from commercial banks.

In the years leading up to the repeal, Wall Street had been grumbling that the law had become an anachronism. Financial technology was sophisticated. We were so much smarter than they were back in 1929 that there was no way a financial services conglomerate could pose a threat to the system, Wall Street experts said. Besides, they argued, it was a good idea for a bank to handle customers' investments and savings as a hedge in the bad times.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Anyone can dig up dirt on past presidents. But what is more interesting is that the best thing Tina can say about her Obomb is something negative about Bush or Reagan.

Of course there is nothing positive you can say about Obomb, unless of course you endorse his Liberal/Progress/Socialist/Marxist/Communist agenda. And of course I am sure TinaP does.

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Amazing and this was all about libraries to begin with. Anyway sign me up for its a waste of time to argue the conservative vs liberal or R's against D's as an answer to anything, that is what they want you to do. Republicans and Democrats are the left and right wings of the Business Party, the only party that matters. There is no substantial difference and they only differ as to tactics, the strategy is the same, they represent the interests of the business party. Once you figure it out you can go from there.

tinapalin
tinapalin

I know charlie, thats why i asked about an open thread section.

While im here tho, I could'nt help but notice the top presidents on wyett's list are all progressives.Who's case are you trying to make wyett.lol.

tinapalin
tinapalin

hey wyett guess what...................ur dumb.

Cbrown
Cbrown

The top presidents on the list are all progressives? What a laugh! George “Mr. tied and true conservative” Washington a progressive? Thomas “Mr. individual” Jefferson- a progressive?

You guys will twist and pervert anything to your cause won’t you? All good ideas are claimed by the left, while they completely ignore the disasters and DEATH directly tied to their new untried, untested ideas! Teflon liberals- nothing sticks to them!

ALL the Founders can be considered progressives in the sense that they looked forward to the new idea that individuals are born given rights from God. (Remember that BobbyH!) Most of the ideals that this country was founded on were forward thinking, yes!

Now 235 years later, these ideas are conservative! They are the in-place foundation of this nation. They are no longer new, untried ideas. They have PROVEN TO WORK and that is the inherent main point of conservatism- using ideas that are proven to work.

The rest of the world has caught on to our now conservative ideas and are adopting them- 235-260 years after they were brought to the forefront of discussion!

To claim that we should continue to gamble with new differing ideas (as long as we spend other people’s money to do it) KILLS PEOPLE. Just look at the ridiculous letter from BobbyH. Even after the unarguable devastation brought on America by the progressives- they argue they have not failed- we just didn’t spend enough! Did not fully embrace their ideas. Liberals NEVER admit that an idea of theirs failed. That goes against their ingrained belief of their infallibility!

Forever reaching to new ideas- to be more “progressive” than the other guy- means grabbing more and more power for themselves. Eventually, under the claim of superior power of progressives- we get Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Chavez, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and all the other murderous progressive dictators throughout history.

Progressives killed 100 million people in the 20th century! Add those progressives’ leaders to your list of credentials you use to puff up your resumes!

Progressives KILL PEOPLE! That is a fact!

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

I'm with you on that one, Charlie 26. The "left vs. right" paradigm is worse than a waste of time. Sheer expediency has been a far greater force in politics than "party ideology" has ever been! Of course, some presidents have been better been better men than others. Bill Clinton doesn't even deserve to be in the same list with George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Strangely enough, though, all of them had one thing in common; their resort to expediency. Of course, Washington had infinitely more justification for his choices than Clinton did. Washinton's government was fighting for its very survival. Clinton's government was just practicing its typical and widespread criminal habits, "business as usual," in a phrase. Both were hog tied to their powerful backers and the business interests, however. Had either deviated, both would have faced loss of support, secession, removal, impeachment, or even assassination. In fact, many people are unaware that Washington did face immanent assassination (google the "Newburgh Conspiracy").

Four presidents have been assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and JFK.

Numerous others have also been the target of assassins, including Andrew Jackson, who survived by an eyelash the attempt by a man with two pistols, BOTH of which failed, and Reagan, who was shot but survived.

Should a president deviate too far from the dictates of the MIC (Military-Industrial Complex), these are the dangers of that route.

What does this have to do with "suffocating libraries"? Well, once our library shuts down, knowledge will begin to die a horrible death around these parts. Most of the world's knowledge is still in books. The Internet is great, but it still is no replacement for a library.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

[quote]Charlie 26 said: "Amazing and this was all about libraries to begin with. Anyway sign me up for its a waste of time to argue the conservative vs liberal or R's against D's as an answer to anything, that is what they want you to do. Republicans and Democrats are the left and right wings of the Business Party, the only party that matters. There is no substantial difference and they only differ as to tactics, the strategy is the same, they represent the interests of the business party. Once you figure it out you can go from there. "[/quote]

I have said that for years. But with Obomb you have a horse of a different color and that color is not black, it is red, communist red!. (Pun intended hehehehehe)

He is not a Liberal Democrat, he is an outright Communist. I would gladly take a combination of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter at ten times their worst over Obomb a his best.

And if the Democrats and the Republicans had a half a brain between all of them they would see that he is destroying this country. Instated you have the Democrats falling in lock step with him hoping to get a position in the Communist state he wants to create.

Then you have the Republicans taking their brains out and playing with them instead of quietly picking a qualified caudate and launching an all out attack on this evil monster.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

[quote]tinapalin said: "hey wyett guess what...................ur dumb."[/quote]

O boy! She still loves me!! I thought she had forgotten me.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

[quote]tinapalin said: "I know charlie, thats why i asked about an open thread section.While im here tho, I could'nt help but notice the top presidents on wyett's list are all progressives.Who's case are you trying to make wyett.lol."[/quote]


Oh boy she still loves me and still reads my junk even though she said she didn't!

I keep telling you, I am not trying to make any case. I just stick chit out there, you can do with it what ever you like.

Well maybe the case that you are a nut job, but I don't really need to do that. You do that all by yourself!! lol

No one should ever change their opinions based on anything anyone on a message board posts. If you actually think anyone is going to read your garbage and go, Oh My!! I now see the light!! You are delusional.

If anyone in here ever reads your garbage or mine or anyone else's and changed their position on any issue they are idiots.

It is only you nut job liberals that think you can brainwash people into your agenda. Primarily because it has happen to you.

tinapalin
tinapalin

cb = flip flop

first paragraph:


The top presidents on the list are all progressives? What a laugh! George “Mr. tied and true conservative” Washington a progressive? Thomas “Mr. individual” Jefferson- a progressive?

second paragraph:


ALL the Founders can be considered progressives in the sense that they looked forward to the new idea that individuals are born given rights from God. (Remember that BobbyH!) Most of the ideals that this country was founded on were forward thinking, yes

cb:I belive in apples no I belive in oranges.

Im a tea bagger, no wait Im a reganite, wait not the same.does not compute does not compute....Im so confused????

tinapalin
tinapalin

oh Im sorry wyett did you say something?

tinapalin
tinapalin

For cb's glancing pleasure.

5. Reagan Negotiated with Terrorists in Tehran.
Criticizing President Obama as weak on Iran, Sarah Palin declared in December that "just as Ronald Reagan once denounced an 'evil empire' and looked forward to a time when communism was left on the 'ash heap of history,' we should look forward to a future where the twisted ideology and aggressive will to dominate of Khomeini and his successors are consigned to history's dustbin."

That would be the same Ronald Reagan whose policy consisted of giving the mullahs in Iran a cake, a Bible - and U.S. arms.


5. Reagan Negotiated with Terrorists in Tehran.
Criticizing President Obama as weak on Iran, Sarah Palin declared in December that "just as Ronald Reagan once denounced an 'evil empire' and looked forward to a time when communism was left on the 'ash heap of history,' we should look forward to a future where the twisted ideology and aggressive will to dominate of Khomeini and his successors are consigned to history's dustbin."

That would be the same Ronald Reagan whose policy consisted of giving the mullahs in Iran a cake, a Bible - and U.S. arms.

The Iran-Contra scandal, as you'll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as the New York Times recalled, Reagan's fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself, including "a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders" and "and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ''opening'' to Iran.'"

The rest, as they say, is history. After his initial denials, President Reagan was forced to address the nation on March 4, 1987 and acknowledge he indeed swapped arms for hostages (video here):

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

Cbrown
Cbrown

“The Iran-Contra scandal, as you'll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages…….”

Reagan desperate to save American lives? How dare he! What gall, what arrogance, what nerve- trying to save American lives! He should go to jail for that!

Laid waste to Reagan’s presidency? LMAO!!!!!! The only desperation you have shown is your own! Desperate, against all evidence to the contrary, to get people to dislike- even HATE like you do (not a chance in H@ll)- the great President Ronald Reagan!

The evidence is simple and EASY to show:

A Gallup poll about presidential greatness, taken February 2-5, 2011, asked 1015 adults in the US, "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?"

1. Ronald Reagan (19%)
2. Abraham Lincoln (14%)
3. Bill Clinton (13%)
4. John F. Kennedy (11%)
5. George Washington (10%)
6. Franklin Roosevelt (8%)
7. Barack Obama (5%)
8. No opinion (5%)
9. Theodore Roosevelt (3%)
10. Harry Truman (3%)
11. George W. Bush (2%)
12. Thomas Jefferson (2%)
13. Jimmy Carter (1%)
14. Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
15. George H. W. Bush (1%)
16. Other(1%)
17. None (1%)
18. Andrew Jackson (0%)
19. Lyndon Johnson (0%)
20. Richard Nixon (0%)

Or just about any other poll you want to look at!

Note, in this poll, Reagan is at the TOP of the list, while B. Hussein Obama ranks equal with the no opinion crowd!

Cbrown
Cbrown

Tinapalin-

BTW- Notice how NONE of your arguments are in support of the liberals and trying to make a case they have done goods things. You cannot make that argument work. All evidence is against you!

All you can do- is try to bring down a great, and universally respected and LOVED president like Reagan! Try to bring him down into the basement levels of respect with all you other liberals- so you have some more company. More company to wallow in the gutter with you and your heroes.

You need Reagan in the basement for company, because even liberals themselves do not like the company of other liberals!

LOL! You're simply too funny! Your long-winded lists of so-called Reagan failures are like watching a desperate person flounder in the water to keep from drowning! You’re already going down for the third time!

Good luck trying to change HISTORY about Reagan! You haven’t a prayer. Just like Obama in the next election!

tinapalin
tinapalin

I actually liked Reagan.He had a great sense of humor, and was a very likeable guy.I'm just pointing out your support of the teabaggers and how Reagan was not one of you.

I know you dont like exposing your hipocracy, and hate answering simple questions that.... well expose you, but what the heck, here goes.

Do you want to be a good teabagger and follow our laws and constution. Or not be a good teabagger and do all those illegal left wing things Reagan did.You know like save American lives and raise taxes, and well here you go.


1.Reagan tripled the national debt
2.Reagan raised taxes 11 times
3.Reagan expanded the size of government
4.Reagan supported the "socialist" Earned Income Tax Credit
5.Reagan negotiated with terrorists in Tehran
6.Reagan sought to eliminate nuclear weapons
7.Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants
8.Reagan approved protectionist trade barriers
9.Reagan signed abortion rights law in California
10.Reagan eventually debunked AIDS myths Republicans continued to perpetuate

That dam-d LIBERAL.

As your dimwitted friend billooooorilley says

"what say YOU"

also, thanks for taking the time to read my posts cb.

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Someone mentioned Glass Steagall. Glass Steagall was repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and it repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass–Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

The bill was sponsored by all Republicans and the final congressional votes were On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[14][15] and by the House 362-57.[16][17] The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999.[18]so seems a bit bipartisan to me and eight years later we have the derivatives crash and we hit the recession big time and who is responsible for the repeal of Glass Steagall it was all of them.

Cbrown
Cbrown

You claim you liked Reagan (to gain credibility to win an argument, but I don't believe you) yet your list of failures is slanted (VERY MUCH SO) with the intent to do him and his legacy harm! With friends like you, Reagan needs no enemies!

Your claim that Reagan would not be part of the Tea Party is wrong! Reagan PROVED he changed with the times! He started out as a democrat and when he learned what they truly were all about (supporters of communism in the 30’s and 40’s) he became a republican.

I believe that today, Reagan would be concerned about how the republican establishment have been dragged to the left by the media, the opposition, the tide of history of people only knowing and seeing the progressives at work since the 1910’s and 20’s. The average person knows little else so they go with the flow.

Reagan was very much his own man and would be part of the Tea Party today! He has proven that he would not badmouth them like many establishment party people do out of fear of loss of personal power!

Further, Reagan has died and can no longer be of help to those left alive. Even his friends like Lou Cannon are motivated by the establishment party members still alive and that can be of help to their personal legacy. They do not want another “new” political movement to come along, gain power and steal theirs and Reagan’s thunder!

Just like Bush 43 had his intentions watered down by his father’s advisors. The "New Tone" idea came from them. They were motivated to see that Bush 43 did not outshine his Dad. That would diminish their individual legacies, too! These advisors give advice to help their leaders only as long as it helps them also.

tinapalin
tinapalin

dude, I said I liked the guy,that is true.have I ever lied to you? Of course not. Chill out a little ok cb.The only intent is to show you the differences between Mr.Raygun and your tea party. Come on man,the facts are right in front of your face.

Yea Charlie, Clinton signing that one blew me away, But I guess Im a lesser of the two evils kind of chick. The lock step republicans, party before country types freak me out.The Progressive dems have a more human quality to them.Dont tell cb that he'll go into another "Progressives killed everyone,We save Americans but shred the constution" tirade.

tinapalin
tinapalin

Dam-d you Charlie you made me scroll back to see who mentioned Glass Steagall, And I was forced to read wyett's post.uuugh.Well I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

tinapalin
tinapalin

Oh hey cb.Wern't the Dems of the 20s and 30s the republicans of today? I thought after Jhonson signed the Civil Rights Act The dixiecrats jumped ship to the hippocrite party.

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Sorry Tina but obviously it was a bipartisan job was the point I was trying to make.

tinapalin
tinapalin

Gotcha C.What a mistake that was too.

Cbrown
Cbrown

You're surprised by Glass Steagall being signed?

The history of government is one of many unexpected and unintended consequences. Even good politicians of both parties get their judgment skewed by the powers of the job. Conservatives, too! Nothing special about them that makes them immune. The Repeal of Glass-Steagall was a clear mistake- even if motivated by good intentions!

If you want to limit the failures or mistakes of government, the power grabs- even the ones that happen by accident or through good intentions- then LIMIT the overall power of government. Less government- less chances for the mistakes of government. That is the simple philosophy of the Founders- limited government! Too much government makes the normal everyday problems of life, of society- even WORSE, not better!

As for the difference between Reagan and the Tea Party- why do you bother? Why are you so afraid of the Tea Party if not to protect some personal benefit you are getting from the in-place establishment today? Many of the benefits come from getting underserved money “transferred” to others or yourself! The 45% of Americans who never pay ANY income tax want to keep the status quo. They support the establishment! Talk about lowering taxes makes them worried the gravy train will get cut off for them or you possibly!

Reagan was anti-liberal as president- (he changed over time as he learned the evils of liberalism) and was/is a threat to the status quo that wants other people’s money! (That is one possible explanation for your attacks on him. Or possibly your part of the GLBT crowd that hates Reagan with a passion.) Someone that claims to like Reagan would not call him Raygun! As I wrote, with friends like you…..

We all agree to the same ideals. I support the ideals of the progressives. I disagree with the methods of getting achieving them! Too many progressives think good intentions are enough. They demand to be judged ONLY by their intentions- no matter what cost or extra harm they do trying to reach their progressive ideals. Funny how with all their good intentions, it tends to involve OTHER people’s money and never their own.

I am a realist. The history of the progressive is that they forever overreach, forever try to solve new and different problems and in doing so make the case for a little more power for themselves. A little more regulation. A little more restriction of other people’s freedoms. A little more tax money for them to spend. Maybe even let a few hundred million by killed by the mistake or failures of their good intentions. The history is undeniable on that!

Progressive’s refuse to acknowledge the limitations of governments. All they can see are the problems they wish to solve with their good intentions. Every dictator the world has ever seen genuinely believes he/she had good intentions. Genuinely believed that they were going to help more than they hurt. Genuinely believed they would even out the inequities of the world! Right the wrongs.

Again, they refuse to understand their own limitations or ability to resist temptation of ever more power. Again, the history of the world is clear on this!

I judge the solutions to the problems of civilizations, of societies- by results, not good intentions! If my house is on fire and my neighbor, with good intentions trying to help, throws gasoline on the fire instead of water- what should I do in the future? How should I judge?

What if, with genuine good intentions, my neighbor has a long term record of doing far more harm than good? Do I stick with the good intentions crowd or do I align with the results crowd?

Some government IS necessary and even good! Beyond a certain point, the history of government of good intentions breaks down into failure after failure. Causing far more harm than good. Further, these arguments get clouded by those that do not have good intentions and are trying to game government for themselves! Or for their own power.

Many of the posters here see the problems and the solutions that would benefit the majority, but will argue against doing the right thing….all because it might take money or power away from them/you personally. Many of you do NOT have good intentions except for yourselves at the expense of others!

How do we decide? We can’t! So limit government and you limit the mistakes and abuses that government can bring about! We can keep the good at a certain point, but limit the bad that history has clearly shown us. Government cannot solve all of life’s problem- that is a fact!

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

[quote]tinapalin said: "oh Im sorry wyett did you say something?"[/quote]


Yes, I did as a matter of fact.

Please tell us why you are NOT promoting the great accomplishments of Obomb and be specific as to just exactly what they are?

Do you really think drudging up all the garbage of all the past presidents is really accomplishing anything worthwhile?

Do you really think that there is one thing, anything at all, that you can say and even prove that is negative about Reagan that anyone here is going to change their mind?

Do you really think that there is one thing, anything at all, that I can say and even prove that is negative about Clinton that anyone here is going to change their mind?

The reason you are not responding to me is because you can't. Posting page after page of worthless, trashing of people that are history is not going to take us anywhere positive into future. That is a big part of the reason that we are where we are at now. All anyone, republicans and democrats, what to do is blame every one else for everything.

I apologize to all the conservative's that love Reagan, but posting his past accomplishments is not going to take us anywhere either. That used to work in the past, but today's politics is a whole new ballgame.

No one or no candidate is going to reinvent themselves or overly embrace Reagan in today's political world.

None of today's "Conservatives" have anywhere near what it takes, including the courage, to pull that off.

Reagan was a great communicator. But the media was different back then. Today not even Reagan would get away with being Reagan.

The media is out of the closet and they are going to attack, destroy and viciously crucify anyone that they ever suspect has a chance to beat Obomb. Look at what they have done to Palin.

The media, like TinaP, for the most part has swallowed the Obomb Communist Kool-Aide. They are going to do what ever they have to including lie, cheat, steal and worse, to make sure Obomb is reelected so he can continue is agenda of destruction of what was the greatest country in the world.

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Here is the way it is organized, there is the top 1% whose net worth is more than the bottom 90%, there are the 400 transnational corporations and the Fortune 500. The US government either R's or D's in control operates in support of these real interests to protect in the words of James Madison, "the minority of the opulent from the majority." The people in the government our elected Presidents and congresspeople serve those interests. The media themselves are super large corporations and their job is to manufacture consent and preserve the parameters of allowable dissent. The people who present the news both electronically and in the print form identify with the top percent of the population. There are basically two models of journalism, the Jeffersonian one where a watchful and adversarial press forces government to work in the open. This is what newspeople will tell you they are. The second model is the propaganda model which is the one we actually have which works in the interests of real power. The military and the rest of the government and the police work both internationally and internally in these same interests. The economy of the nation is mostly set up to support these same interests. You can argue R's and D's all day it does not matter to the real interests.

Cbrown
Cbrown

WE-

Yes, Reagan is gone and the media is different. Still another Reagan CAN rise up and break through the mud into the mainstream. I'm not waiting for a hero, another Reagan, to solve my problems or the countries problems. Far from it! I solve my own problems and help my family and friends problems. Government makes my personal solutions harder, right now!

Still, politics is about electing individuals and it is the individuals that get things done. Things like getting government out of the way of people creating jobs. (Want more revenue for government? Create taxpaying jobs and it will happen!)

Someone is out there that will be the next Reagan. Be Reagan in the since that they will make a compelling argument for the greatness of American capitalism, a strong America internationally, limited government and the self reliant individual. He will argue about less government and less intrusion into the lives and wallets of people who make America work!

There will be a candidate who will look beyond the color of someone’s skin or group they belong to and pander to them for it. They will have the courage to make distinctions between those who work and pay taxes and those who do not work and just live off other’s taxes! It will happen.

The person that will make all of that happen will come out of nowhere and surprise everyone! Maybe we know their name today. Maybe we don’t, but it will happen.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

I believe in Reagan as much as the next guy. But here is why I am not looking very optimistically to the future. Not since we went way over 50% of the people feeding off the public teat.

If the Republicans or let's say any NON-Liberal is able to win the White House, they will have to be able to satisfy the numbers in Alexander Tyler's The Downfall of Democracy. And even then it will more then likely be a short lived victory because as they take away the "generous gifts from the public treasury" that the liberals have used to buy votes, they will get run out of office once again.

--------------------------

The Downfall of Democracy

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependency back into bondage.


-Alexander Tyler 1747-1813


The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

Well said, Charlie 26. That's about the size of it. This is not a "republic." It's SUPPOSED to be a "republic," but it's not. I wish it were. That's what we were given in the beginning, though some have even argued against that (try Charles Beard for starters).

So, if it's not a "republic," what is it? It's a dictatorship. Better meditate on that one for a while, folks, because it's your reality, like it or nor. Shall we resist it, or shall we take it lying down?

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Exactly Gimlet and you have to ask who would be interested in discrediting a guy like Beard you, me or John D? I wonder Gimlet can we find Beard in the Santa Maria library?

tinapalin
tinapalin

cb:
As for the difference between Reagan and the Tea Party- why do you bother?

For the third time Reagan would not pass the tea party litmus test.Seriously cb, be honest here. If any repub contender ran on giving millions of illegals amnesty, or tripling the national debt, or raising taxes among a litany of things,Do you think the tea partiers would have anything to do with them?
Yea I liked Raygun (remember Star Wars) it's just a name cb.He just seemed like a cool guy.Maybe if I got to know him that might change, dunno and never will.If you dont belive me I dont give a sh-t.

You also asked me why I'm afraid of the tea party.Its not that they want lower taxes,which I belive they got under Obama by the way,or the illegal immigrant issue.(except the nuts like shanna ford who do what they do under the tea party flag.
Its that they fall for every lie that comes out of fox news. its the way they called people traitors if the didnt fall in line with bombing the sh-t out of Iraq.They didnt care if they left a huge sh-t stain on our country, they were to scared someone might jump out behind a tree with a poison pen gun,or some other crazy cr-p the media fed them.Look at bachman or palin or any dumba-ss tea party leader. They make up their history as they go along,pretend
to be religious,dont know sh-t about the world, and the most scary part is people will vote for them.
So you can stove pipe the
idea that I benefit financially keeping those freaks from having power.I take care of myself.

cb:

Reagan was anti-liberal as president- (he changed over time as he learned the evils of liberalism) and was/is a threat to the status quo that wants other people’s money!

Ok. so when did he change, after he left office? All those things that I mentioned he did,happened while he was in office.So sorry that one doesn't fly.

I mostly agree with the gimlet charlie or the charlie eye, which ever you prefer on the R's (all of them) and D's(most of them).So I will vote the lesser of the two evils.That's just the way that is, just like you will probably for the freak with the R next to his name.

Dont worry wyett I didn't forget you ..........your a freak.

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

Charlie 26, I assume you are referring to Beard's famous "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution." (Forrest McDonald refuted Beard in a book of his own). I'm not sure. You might check their website for him. If it's not there, not to worry, it's available on the net to read for free. Google it under e-books.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

TinaP just keeps running off at the mouth and ragging on Reagan.

Reagan is this, Reagan is that, Reagan caused every problem in the history of mankind. Reagan is the most evil president in the history of mankind. And on and on and on… Page after page. Then the same thing with the tea party. On and on and on.

But guess what? There is no such thing as a tea party; they have no “real” standing anywhere. And Reagan, well it is pretty much a sure thing that he is not going to run again. Only way he could do that is become a Liberal Democrat and move to Chicago.

But the resident Nut Job, TinaP just keeps running of that the mouth about Reagan and the tea party. But TP cannot answer one simple question about her fearless leader. She cannot list one positive accomplishment of her “Chosen One”. TP is obviously a self appointed expert on meaningless dribble and totally ignorant about Obomb but worships him anyway.

Total nut job!! lmao! ☺ ☺ ☺

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Yes I was Gimlet and thanks for the tips. The only Tea Party thingy I attended was a big disappointment to me. It was supposed to be about taxes but was anything but and as it turned out was a big rah rah session for the Iraq War with all the trimmings. Everyone I went down there with went home slightly mystified why they couldn't have kept to the advertised agenda and I would have been a lot more comfortable with it if it identified more with the American people than with one party which is why I never attended one again. I am with you on that one Tina.

tinapalin
tinapalin

Hey you guys hear about this yet?

Breaking: Arizona Voters to SB 1070 Architect: Papers, Please: Senate President Pearce Has Been Recalled

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/07/08/breaking-arizona-voters-to-sb-1070-architect-papers-please-senate-president-pearce-has-been-recalled/

Seems like the people in AZ thought this guy was to extreme.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

If Job Numbers Don't Improve Obama Can Kiss the 2012 Election Goodbye

The notion that a Democratic president can win reelection with an unemployment rate that is edging upward and talk of cutting Social Security is beyond unrealistic.


The following article first appeared in The Nation magazine.

The big story out of Washington—and rightly so—is the debt-ceiling fight that President Obama seems to be coming very close to losing. If the president abandons his 2008 campaign promise to be an absolute defender of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, he will have very little indeed to run on in 2012.

But that won't be what beats him.

Because the biggest story in America is a different one from the biggest story in Washington. Americans are not that into the debt-ceiling debate. Polling has suggested that less than a quarter of Americans are "closely following" the fight. Those numbers will rise a bit as the deadline gets closer and as the media hypes the issue.

The issue that Americans have been following closely, and will continue to follow straight through the 2012 election cycle, the issue that tops the polls on the list of concerns, is the jobs crisis. Americans are worried about unemployment and underemployment.

And on Friday they got a lot more worried.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Lies! Lies! Lies! Can’t you post anything without it being full of lies??

tinapalin said: "Hey you guys hear about this yet?Breaking: Arizona Voters to SB 1070 Architect: Papers, Please: Senate President Pearce Has Been Recalled

Pearce HAS NOT been recalled! He is facing a recall election. You can have every voter in the world sign a petition and that will no remove him from office. You can only remove an elected official my impeachment or an election.

They have gathered the required number of signatures to force a Recall Election that has NOT taken place yet. In fact from what I can tell, they have not filed for the election yet even though the signatures been verified. I’m not sure of that part. I am not sure if it works the same in Arizona as it does in California or not but it used to be once you had the verified signatures on the petition, you had to then ask for the election to be put on the ballot. All of that may have changed. And of course there is also time allowed for challenges to the wording of the petition and the validity of the signatures. It has been years since I was involved a recall or petition drive to qualify an initiative.

Other factors include the time frame. A recalled cannot be put on the ballot if it close to a regular scheduled election or to close to the last election.

Gathering and qualifying a petition is the easy part of a recall.

But bottom line, Pearce HAS NOT BEEN RECALLED. Once again the nutjob TinaP is lying to us.

Get back to us nut job after the election is held. My guess is that if the only reason on the petition to recall him is the immigration issue, he wins.

You are so typical liberal. Lie, deceive, distort, obfuscate, twist, bend or destroy the truth any way you have to, to push the liberal agenda. Never use the truth when a lie will work better because the means justifies the end, which is to destroy America and bring about Communism.

tinapalin
tinapalin

What do you think recalled means.He is facing a recall election. Have I told you latley your an idiot wyett.

tinapalin
tinapalin

David Stockman. Reagen's man.Must Watch.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/367134/december-02-2010/david-stockman

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

>>tinapalin (the nut job) said on: July 8, 2011, 8:28 pm
Hey you guys hear about this yet?

Breaking: Arizona Voters to SB 1070 Architect: Papers, Please: Senate President Pearce Has Been Recalled<

You blatantly posted a head line that said "Senate President Pearce Has Been Recalled"

This is a blatant lie! He is still in office and will not be "recalled" unless he loses the election. Or are you to stupid to know how a recall works? lol

How many recalls have served as a paid political consultant on? I have been in involved in several.

The only thing you have been involved in is spreading lies. That's all you got.

Still waiting for you to tell us one thing, just one thing that your chosen one has done that is positive. Just one.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

[quote]tinapalin said: "What do you think recalled means.He is facing a recall election. Have I told you latley your an idiot wyett."[/quote]

No it does not nut job. To be recalled, you have to be voted out of office. He has not been voted out of office as you said.

They are attempting a recall...

As I said, getting the petition signed is the easy part. Well over 50-70% of recalls fail even if it goes to election.

That makes your statement of him having been recalled either a statement from an ignorant person or a an out right lie intended to distort the facts.

tinapalin
tinapalin


What do you think recalled means.He is facing a recall election. Have I told you latley your an idiot wyett.


tinapalin
tinapalin

David Stockman. Reagen's man.Must Watch.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/367134/december-02-2010/david-stockman

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Seems pretty clear about Russell Pierce, he can resign in five days, doesn't seem like he will or face a special election later this year. According to the NYTmes there have been a total of 20 recalls in Arizona in the last century and only one recall in Arizona history was successful. Arizona is a bastion of Republicanism since the party controls all the top statewide offices, both United States Senate seats and both chambers of the Legislature. Even so most of the opposition to Mr Pierces efforts such as denying citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrants has been from his fellow Republicans and the business community, no surprise there, events of course are unfolding.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

tinapalin said on: July 9, 2011, 9:48 am

What do you think recalled means.He is facing a recall election. Have I told you latley your an idiot wyett. <<

You can back peddle all you want but your lie is there for all to see! lol

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

Good point, Charlie 26. Most of the higher R leadership is IN FAVOR of illegal immigration, I don't care what they say.

tinapalin
tinapalin

Yes.That will be an interesting story.We'll see how it plays out.

tinapalin
tinapalin

wyett, I think people know you're an idiot, but if you want to keep posting it be my guest.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

[quote]tinapalin said: "wyett, I think people know you're an idiot, but if you want to keep posting it be my guest."[/quote]

Well here's the thing, Nut Job TinaP, you know and I know and everyone else knows that I am not an idiot. That is just your way of trying and failing to defend yourself from the fact that I have proven you and out right liar on several occasions.

But if I was and idiot, that would be a mental illness and one I would have no control of to do anything about.

YOU on the other had are a liberal, nut job, liar and that is something that YOU CHOSE to be.

Still waiting for that one great and wonderful deed your boy Obomb has accomplished. You can't name one can you? lmao!!

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Looks to me as if Tina posted the title to the article at alternet.org, I am not sure what all the fuss is about.

tinapalin
tinapalin

Thanks C. I saw the artical,passed the link on, now im a liar to dimwit the strawgrasper.

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

I wouldn't about it Miss

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

worry that is

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

TinaP, the nut job, posted an obviously misleading headline. One that was posted on the net by some sleazeball blog. She either did not read it or is to dumb to understand how the recall process works.

But the shock value of it and the fact that it was a lie and trashed some one she hates is all she cared about. Taking the cheap shot at the target.

And Charlie Chan is okay with that. Why? Because they are two of a kind.

They are both so typical liberal. Lie, deceive, distort, obfuscate, twist, bend or destroy the truth any way you have to to push the liberal agenda. Never use the truth when a lie will work better because the means justifies the end, which is to destroy America and bring about Communism.

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

There is no cheap shot going on here I googled it when I saw it and the first article that came up was the NYTimes article which I quoted from. I thought it was a pretty reasonable post and explained what was going on. You're are the one with the problem Wyett, if the article was misleading as you say then that is a reasonable stance. You are the one who says you are on here for s...s and grins and no one's mind will be changed here. I agree so why are you getting all bent out of shape over it.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Simply stated, any fool should have recognized that headline as wrong. So not job TinaP is either a fool or chose to post a bogus headline knowing full well that Pearce had not been recalled.

As for getting bent out of shape... not much gets me riled up anymore. If you remember, I have already conceded that you Communist are going to win the day, just a matter of time. I am old enough to where it will not effect me all that much. So I am just kicking back and laughing at you fools that are going to help GodObama create this Socialist/Communist state and then dump all over you dummies.

So I am here for the entertainment value only and part of that entertainment is continue to point out the lies and distortions especially from you habitual offenders like you and not job and you her twin NutiCan't.

You did it again in one of the other threads where you are tying to blame the TSA for sticking their hands down people's pants on Bush when you know good and well that policy was all GodObama.

You are so typical liberal. Lie, deceive, distort, obfuscate, twist, bend or destroy the truth any way you have to to push the liberal agenda. Never use the truth when a lie will work better because the means justifies the end, which is to destroy America and bring about Communism.

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

Wyett, in the other post I merely pointed out who it was that sponsored the legislation and who it was who signed the law creating the TSA and that was Bush. No where in that post does it blame Bush for anything, but it does point out that he is the one who signed it into law, and for that he is responsible as is Obama who administers the legacy of the law and adds to it as he sees fit. For your information I cut and pasted the information from Wikipedia and added nothing of my own so if you see blame for Bush in there it surely is a creation of your own mind. That was all TinaP did also. It seems you have a lot of anger over this issue, Russell Pearce and perhaps that is the subject you should be really discussing. Take care.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

It was intended to blame Bush for what the TSA is doing today. It was a lie by omission fool! You see all the animosity out there because of the TSA following GodObama policy of sticking their hands down people's pants so you try to defect the blame from your GodObama over to Bush.

No one was asking who founded the TSA or why. The discussion TODAY is should they be grouping people and the answer is NO! But GodObama says yes, not Bush. No one was groping and feeling people up under Bush. That is all on GodObama!!

You know very well what you were trying to do.

You just get ticked off because some of us can see your game, call you at it and expose your lies and deceptions.

Are going to tell us just out of the blue, what president started all agencies through out history, or just the ones that you can in some way hopefully twist and deceive people into believing Bush was to blame for something negative they did?

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

It was intended to blame Bush for what the TSA is doing today. It was a lie by omission fool! You see all the animosity out there because of the TSA following GodObama policy of sticking their hands down people's pants so you try to defect the blame from your GodObama over to Bush.

No one was asking who founded the TSA or why. The discussion TODAY is should they be grouping people and the answer is NO! But GodObama says yes, not Bush. No one was groping and feeling people up under Bush. That is all on GodObama!!

You know very well what you were trying to do.

You just get ticked off because some of us can see your game, call you at it and expose your lies and deceptions.

Are going to tell us just out of the blue, what president started all agencies through out history, or just the ones that you can in some way hopefully twist and deceive people into believing Bush was to blame for something negative they did?

Charlie 26
Charlie 26

I am certainly not the one ticked off here, my points are made, others can judge them.

Friend of ICE
Friend of ICE

Wyatt, are you sure that you and NuniCa aren't one in the same person or at the very least kissing cousins? Because, just like her, you are always angry and crazy as a loon. Just Saying!

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

[quote]Friend of ICE said: "Wyatt, are you sure that you and NuniCa aren't one in the same person or at the very least kissing cousins? Because, just like her, you are always angry and crazy as a loon. Just Saying!"[/quote]

Have you ever had a worthwhile or meaningful thought in your life? Most of the stuff that you post seems to be about 6th or 7th grade level.

You should have stayed in those Special Ed classes or did they do the best they could with you and dump you?

Friend of ICE
Friend of ICE

Wyatt said, “Have you ever had a worthwhile or meaningful thought in your life? Most of the stuff that you post seems to be about 6th or 7th grade level.”

I sincerely apologize Wyatt. I will dumb them down for you and your bobble head lemmings from now on. Still my dumbing down of my comments so you can understand logic doesn’t take away from the fact that you are still always angry, irrational, and quite crazy.

WyettEarp
WyettEarp

Nope, just as I thought. Friend of Ice has never had even one worthwhile thought come out of his peabrain.

About what you expect from a Special Ed dropout.

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

Charlie 26, I think what is happening here has to do with human psychology and the teaching of civics in our country. The thesis that the two-party system is actually a farce, theatre, and a fraud is simply too much for most people to take.


Ok, we were promised a republican form of government by the Founders of this country, right? So, most people here in this forum expect and assume that still to be case. Why shouldn't they? After all, that's what this country is supposed to be, isn't it? Has anything changed?

So, we can't very well blame them for insisting on the continuing reality and health of the republic, the two-party system, or the "deep differences" which the two parties, D's and R's, supposedly "manifest."

Here is where the psychology comes in. If that state of affairs no longer really holds, then what basis do they have for political faith in anything? In their minds, SOMEBODY, SOME political party, has to stand for what they believe in, while the other political party has to stand for the "opposite." That's just the way it has to be for our political system to make any sense to them.

If you take that paradigm away by pointing out that our political system long ago degenerated into a criminal enterprise in which there are really no meaningful choices between the two main parties, at least at the higher levels, then the system no longer longer makes any sense to them. Think what that would mean. It would mean that the Constitution has been nullified! It would mean that this country is governed by organized crime, by oligarchs, a collection of loosely confederated mafias!

How does that grab you? Can you sleep at night knowing that? Can anybody? No wonder they can't handle it and some of them dismiss it as nothing but the silly "conspiracy theories" of nutcases!

How can they live with that which no longer makes any sense to them? How can they function? How can they have any faith in their political parties if this philosophical paradigm NO LONGER EXISTS? Well, they CAN'T live with it. Therefore, it CAN'T exist! Therefore, you must be a closet "leftist," while others must be unabashed "right wingers."

Most folks are psychologically blinded and must remain so because it is too painful and frightening to acknowledge the truth. How can there be a strong and healthy republic and a fully functioning two-party system on the one hand, and a criminal state overseeing everything on the other? Ridiculous! Can't be! If such were, they would be lost, in limbo, they would have no foundation for rational discourse on politics. They would be psychologically paralyzed. They would be forced to reevaluate everything that they believe about our political system, and everything they thought they ever knew about it. They would have to go back to the beginning and get almost completely reeducated about it.

For most of them, forget it, ain't gonna happen. Thus, the blogs just go on and on and on, back and forth, with the finger pointing, the casting of aspersions, the pidgeon holing, the "left/right" political paradigm, ad infinitum.

Don't get me wrong. Some of the argumentation here is very good and useful information does come out sometimes.

But psychological block remains.

Justin Case
Justin Case

Wyett,

Be gentle with friend of lies, cant you see she’s in a bad mood because the dry cleaners lost her wonder woman cape?

Just saying,

JC

The Gimlet Eye
The Gimlet Eye

"How can there be a strong and healthy republic and a fully functioning two-party system on the one hand, and a criminal state overseeing everything on the other?"

Should have read:

"How can there be a strong and healthy republic and a fully functioning two-party system on the one hand, while a criminal state oversees everything at the same time?"

Has to be one or the other.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.