Please. You neglected to post THE NEXT PARAGRAPH to this statement that you use as the crutch of your latest argument.

Allow me to do so:

Whatever the downsides may be, strong and immediate action by government was essential last year if the financial system was to avoid a total breakdown. Had that occurred, the consequences for every area of our economy would have been cataclysmic. Like it or not, the inhabitants of Wall Street, Main Street and the various Side Streets of America were all in the same boat.

So, in essence, had we followed John Boehner and Richard Shelby's path of doing nothing and letting the free market heal itself, it would have been a complete meltdown according to Buffet.

Buffet is also a contributor to the Obama financial team.

Daisy picking your facts doesn't make your argument valid. Our last President daisy picked and look at what a morally corrupt, truth-challenged disaster he was - of course, I expect you to blame this all on Clinton, naturally.

You people have no ability to learn from your mistakes or take blame for anything you've done.

...and by the way, we DID win, and that does have consequences - especially for those who's ideas failed us for 8 years.

Verbal

Thanks for quoting the next paragraph, which has nothing to do with the stimulus legislation.

RIF

Obviously you can't be honest with me or your audience (not that your conservative audience cares much about facts).

Your first paragraph explains your distaste for the stimulus and the lack of details you expect.

Your second paragraph tries to justify your argument by showing that Buffet, a supporter of Obama, is technically against him on principle now. Your quote;

Finally a Democrat has emerged to comment on the recent legislation and also make some worrisome predictions that taxpayers would be advised to heed.

So you are trying to tie Buffets words to the effectiveness of the use of the stimulus.

I'm not one of your dead-enders who doesn't read or doesn't want to read. This is your post. Don't try to divert the substance of it because you can't defend what you've done.

and in case you can't read, the second paragraph is a response to the first paragraph in Buffet's letter - thus a response to the stumulus and the government's reaction.

Call it what you want, your audience can read it for themselves and decide.

Verbal,
I read somewhere where Democrats like yourself (I presume) become hard pressed to specifically address Bush's failures when asked. So, Iraq? Seems to be going well. Too much spending? Obama seems to be just an extension of that but in multiples. Housing crisis? The Bush administration tried to initiate legislation for Fannie/Freddie reform against marked Democratic resistance. Please expound further.

All petty bickering aside the prediction that corporations will continue to suckle at the government's teat is accurate. we've already seen it with the auto industry.

The first and foremost thing which should be done in the current situation is DO NOT PANIC! The massive amount of cash being thrown at this without a plan is what concerns me.

The first and foremost thing which should be done in the current situation is DO NOT PANIC!

Hmmm....and what has The One been pedaling, besides PANIC! His constant doom and gloom speeches got those idiots in Congress to pass a bill that they never read.

Personally, I don't think Obama gives a rats ass about the economy. He cares about the cover it gives him as he tries to move legislation through Congress that will result in massive government control over our lives and our wallets.

Yo Verbal: Read the whole letter. Warren doesn't think 2009 is going to be a good year. As for 2010, it's a toss up.

So your main man will either be a saint or a fool in 2010. We'll find out. But don't worry, if The One fails, just blame it on George Bush.

The way I read that second paragraph,he was talking about the first stimulus that Bush signed off on for last year.One that Buffett believed the economy needed. The first paragraph was the warning that they have gone batshit crazy over there and bet the farm with this years stimulus.

So your main man will either be a saint or a fool in 2010. We'll find out. But don't worry, if The One fails, just blame it on George Bush.

Nope. Won't do that. Adults actually take responsibility for our mistakes and as Obama said - if it doesn't get better you're looking for another President.

Can't expect the same from you guys.

This debilitating spiral has spurred our government to take massive action. In poker terms, the Treasury and the Fed have gone "all in."

Warren Buffett is using the poker term, "all in" as I have on this site for the past month. I also use the term "all in to open", which is really a stupid poker move regardless of what hand you hold. I don't think Obama understands poker or the economy.

Sorry, I cannot buy that Buffett is honest. Like all Democrats, he's trying to find excuses to loot their real enemy, the middle class. If Buffett were honest he'd apologize for supporting Obama. He won't. He's a crook like all Democrats.

Honest Democrat is a contradiction in terms.

Verbal,

...and by the way, we DID win, and that does have consequences - especially for those who's ideas failed us for 8 years.

During the last 8 years our economy expanded for 54 straight months, the longest such expansion in the history of the U.S. Only by the audacity of ignorance can those 8 years be labeled as "failed" by an administration that has yet to produce a single month of economic expansion.

Yes, Obama did win election, but to claim he has a mandate to impose his ideas for spending on Congress ignores both the Constitution and the fact that EVER representative in the House also won election in 2008.

I always like that "I have a mandate" statement.
52 vs 47% of the vote. That's one hell of a mandate.

last 8 years our economy expanded for 54 straight months, the longest such expansion in the history of the U.S.

Okay lets STOP RIGHT THERE with this bald-faced lie that you people have been shoveling for the last few years.

The STOCK MARKET increased, the NET WORTH of companies increase...

The income of the average American DID NOT INCREASE.

Why? Well, because most large companies had the ability to shift many of their jobs overseas (to places like India, which Bush made a deal with way back when for the price of mangos), they;ve moved their primary residence to places like Bermuda and Dubai, where they do not have to pay corporate taxes.

Or they've actually made more but have not payed their employees more - instead spreading the stock options liberally to upper management and giving insane packages to CEO's who leave - or are forced to leave - due to their failures.

Look at the amount of jobs created during the Bush administration.

That tells you all you need to know about their "success" over the last 8 years. You might be able to fool yourself with this rubbish but anyone with an IQ over 23 knows the score.

And then there's fiscal responsibility, which, for the last administration, was an absolute job.

Mac Lorry, it's nice that you live in this delusional world where George Bush was such a success, but the democrats won this election because of the last administrations countless failures - not because of some "mistake" in the media or fear.

And if Bush had a "mandate" in 2004 ("I've got political capital and I'm going to spend it") than Obama has quite the political capital now with more votes.

Sorry. Just the fact.s

During the last 8 years our economy expanded for 54 straight months, the longest such expansion in the history of the U.S. Only by the audacity of ignorance can those 8 years be labeled as "failed"

Probably by the same naysayers that called the Titanic's voyage "failed". Why, prior to hitting that iceberg, it was wonderful!

And the Challenger's launch was spectacularly successful, until it exploded.

I'm not the first to say it... "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

I always like that "I have a mandate" statement.
52 vs 47% of the vote. That's one hell of a mandate.

If you're referring to Obama's win, it was actually 53% vs. 46%.

And it's nice that you like it, but you obviously forgot that the "mandate" was first claimed by George "51% vs 48%" Bush. So whatever hell of a mandate Bush supposedly had, Obama has a 4% greater one.

Putz.

...of course, HughS still can't defend his failed attempt at justifying his post with a misrepresented quote. Typical.

Verbal,

Okay lets STOP RIGHT THERE with this bald-faced lie that you people have been shoveling for the last few years.

Economic performance is, and can only be, measured by GDP. There's always winners and losers, so only the aggregate performance of the economy is relevant. Sorry you don't like facts, but nevertheless, they are the facts.

Why? Well, because most large companies had the ability to shift many of their jobs overseas (to places like India, which Bush made a deal with way back when for the price of mangos), they;ve moved their primary residence to places like Bermuda and Dubai, where they do not have to pay corporate taxes.

You're either in forth grade or you have your head up your ass if you think Bush was the first president to promote free trade. Even Obama is backing off his protectionist rhetoric now that he's elected.

Or they've actually made more but have not payed their employees more - instead spreading the stock options liberally to upper management and giving insane packages to CEO's who leave - or are forced to leave - due to their failures.

Any you blame Bush for what private companies do? Where do you live; Cuba? Are you going to hold Obama responsible for what private companies do, assuming we still have any when he's out of office in 2012?

And then there's fiscal responsibility, which, for the last administration, was an absolute job.

And Obama has pushed through more spending in his first 5 weeks than any President before him. Obama's record is already worse than Bush's

Mac Lorry, it's nice that you live in this delusional world where George Bush was such a success, but the democrats won this election because of the last administrations countless failures - not because of some "mistake" in the media or fear.

They won primarily because most voters voter their pocketbooks first and their ideology second. What that should mean to people like you is that if Obama's bet fails to rescue the economy by election day 2012 Obama and democrats will be swept from office.

If you don't want to see that then you have a duty to spend your own money to stimulate the economy. Take vacations, buy a new car, large screen TV, and remodel your home. If you voted for Obama and don't support him with your own spending then you are an economic chickenhawk.

And if Bush had a "mandate" in 2004 ("I've got political capital and I'm going to spend it") than Obama has quite the political capital now with more votes.

Even with a Republican majority in both houses of congress, Bush was stopped cold in his attempt to fix Social Security. Funny, that's now one of Obama's plans after he and most democrats said it didn't need fixing.

Probably by the same naysayers that called the Titanic's voyage "failed". Why, prior to hitting that iceberg, it was wonderful!

And the Challenger's launch was spectacularly successful, until it exploded.

I'm not the first to say it... "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

All of which is totally irrelevant drivel as in all life ends in death, thus all life is a failure.

Mr Lorry:

"Economic performance is, and can only be, measured by GDP. There's always winners and losers..."

Economic performance can be measured in various ways, one of which is by measuring the growth, or lack of growth, in real middle class buying power. And it seems that the "winners" the last 8 years were always the top 1%, and the "losers" the rest of us.

"And you blame Bush for what private companies do?"

I think Verbal was pointing out that the middle class did not share in the "54 straight months" of economic paradise that Bush apologists claim is reality, not that Bush was directly responsible for how corporations compensate executives.

In my own opinion, what appeared to be middle class prosperity was largely the result of people using their mortgage equity as a credit card. In other words, living off the housing bubble. Not something Bush or his apologists can be proud of.

Any you blame Bush for what private companies do? Where do you live; Cuba? Are you going to hold Obama responsible for what private companies do, assuming we still have any when he's out of office in 2012?

This is your previous quote as a counter to Bush's "failed" policies:

During the last 8 years our economy expanded for 54 straight months, the longest such expansion in the history of the U.S

Okay. So what's your issue? I've just pointed out a fact that you can't lie your way around. Company's can do whatever they want to do, obviously. And it seems you find no place for any regulation.

Well, numbnuts, it's the complete LACK of regulation that got us into this mess in the first place. That will change whether you like it or not. And the lack of regulation was another part of Bush's terrific attitude and slim package of tools for managing this economy...AND - HE - FAILED.

You're so consumed with your own need to be right (even when you're clearly wrong) that you can't actually see the facts as they lie.

And what I will hold Obama responsible for is, well, the health of this economy. In a year from now if things are not back on track, I won't act like child and refuse to admit he's failed like you people do with your dear leader. That's because as REAL adults we're willing to take responsibility for actions of our elected officials. we see them as employees, not fathers, not kings. All of them are accountable.

But this incessant criticizing of Obama is laughable. He's been in office a month. Give it some time, then make your pathetic case, which still will be based on 8 years of failure.

And your points, as always, are worth ignoring.

Economic performance can be measured in various ways, one of which is by measuring the growth, or lack of growth, in real middle class buying power.

There's nearly an infinite number of ways to measure economic performance and if a critic or supporter of a particular administration is allowed to pick the measurement then every administration has failed or succeeded depending on which critic or supporter you talk to. Thus, there is only one relevant measure and that's the GDP. By that measure Bush produced the longest unbroken economic expansion in the history of the U.S.

I think Verbal was pointing out that the middle class did not share in the "54 straight months" of economic paradise that Bush apologists claim is reality, not that Bush was directly responsible for how corporations compensate executives.

First, it's not Bush apologists who claim the 54 months of economic expansion, it's a department of the government and it's the same department that will measure Obama's results. That's the most objective measurement we have.

Apart from those who accept toxic TARP money, publicly held corporations are responsible to their shareholders. Unless Obama nationalizes our economy corporations will continue to compensate executives in a way most people find offensive. Are you willing to hold Obama responsible for that? If not, neither can you honestly hold Bush responsible.

In my own opinion, what appeared to be middle class prosperity was largely the result of people using their mortgage equity as a credit card. In other words, living off the housing bubble. Not something Bush or his apologists can be proud of.

Nor can Obama apologists blame Bush for the housing bubble. Many of the key enabling changes in laws and regulations came from the Clinton administration.

"If you voted for Obama and don't support him with your own spending then you are an economic chickenhawk."

God love you, Mac Lorry!

Okay. So what's your issue? I've just pointed out a fact that you can't lie your way around. Company's can do whatever they want to do, obviously. And it seems you find no place for any regulation.

The point is as I exactly said. Bush presided over the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. It's lunacy for the left to claim that was a failure. And I never said there's no place for any regulation. That's your strawman.

Well, numbnuts, it's the complete LACK of regulation that got us into this mess in the first place.

Well, dumbass, it's a complete LACK of knowledge on your part to suggest there has been a complete lack of regulation, and it's laughable that you cite your own ignorant rant as proof. In fact, according to this AP article, one of the key pieces of deregulation came from the Clinton administration.

You're so consumed with your own need to be right (even when you're clearly wrong) that you can't actually see the facts as they lie.

That's your self-description.

And what I will hold Obama responsible for is, well, the health of this economy. In a year from now if things are not back on track, I won't act like child and refuse to admit he's failed like you people do with your dear leader. That's because as REAL adults we're willing to take responsibility for actions of our elected officials. we see them as employees, not fathers, not kings. All of them are accountable.

And you just proved yourself a liar for all to see. If you were anything but a political hack you would accept the unbiased and indisputable fact that Bush presided over the longest expansion of our economy in U.S. history. You would also accept the fact that Democrats were also responsible for the subprime mortgages mess, which caused the housing bubble.

But this incessant criticizing of Obama is laughable. He's been in office a month. Give it some time, then make your pathetic case, which still will be based on 8 years of failure.

Yes, he's been in office a month and pushed throughout the largest spending bill in history, a bill that goes directly to the budget deficit and the national debt. Now he's proposing some of the largest tax increases in history. What's laughable is to think this is the change people voted for.

And your points, as always, are worth ignoring.

Your response demonstrates this statement is just another of your lies.

Verbal, I'm not sure what you're talking about

if The One fails, just blame it on George Bush.

Nope. Won't do that. Adults actually take responsibility for our mistakes and as Obama said - if it doesn't get better you're looking for another President.

Can't expect the same from you guys.

Obama has bashed Bush at every turn - Katrina, foreign policy, personally blaming Bush for the situation he inherited (and is doing all that he can to make worse). Do you recall Bush crying about the dot com bubble bursting, a previous administration letting N Korea get nukes or Bin Laden going free?

Sadly, it seems that the last adult to leave DC forgot to turn off the lights on his way out...

Mac Lorry: Great posts! Keep them coming.

In case you haven't seen it, you might also be interested in this Karl Rove article that appeared in the Wall St. Journal about the fake straw men that Obama uses in his speeches. Here is the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561484923478287.html

Liberals twist and create facts that aren't true. Obama is doing the same in his speeches by making statements about opposing viewpoints that aren't true. It's a good article.

Buffett deserves to lose a lot of money for supporting Obama! Maybe next time he'll pay more attention to the message instead of getting swept away by the messenger.

Obama hasn't changed stripes at all. Obama is a liberal socialist at heart and he, Pelosi and Reid are determined to move the country towards Socialism.

Buffett was duped.

Even after losing millions of dollars, Buffett will still be rich. Its the rest of us who will really pay.

Well, Mr Lorry,
First you say that "economic performance is, and can only be, measured by GDP." Then, you say there are "infinite ways" to measure it, and finally that there is only one "relevant" way to measure it. That's your opinion, not a fact. "Relevance", by definition, is subjective.
I think the one in the middle is correct, and that you are correct when you say there are always winners and losers. And that every administration can be labeled as having failed or succeeded in various ways.
54 months of expansion of the GDP can only be termed a success, in my opinion, if that expansion benefited the middle class. And it did not. 54 months of GDP expansion and what did the vast majority of us get out of it? A smaller "real" paycheck, a shrunken 401k, a house worth less than it was worth 3 years ago, higher health care costs, and a sense that our government has been letting the fox guard the henhouse.

And, Mr Lorry, also re #23, I wasn't blaming Bush for the housing bubble, just pointing out that much of the spending which raised GDP during the Bush years was a result of it, and not the TaxCutTrickleDown magic wand that Bush waved.

As for BrotherBob's comment that Bush didn't "cry" about inheriting the Dot Com bubble bursting, well, maybe he personally didn't cry, but every excuse-making, fact-denying, faith-based Bush apologist since 2001 certainly has.

TOhio:

Since you are so much smarter than Warren Buffett, as evidenced by your not being "duped" by the "Obamessiah," I guess you're richer, too, huh?

Yeah, Bruce - and the foxes had a (D) attached to their names. Damn, they SAID they were sheepdogs... should have done a DNA check!

Am I better off, as a middle-class peon, than I was 8 years back? Hell, yeah! My pay went from $40k to $60k - though things were pretty dicy around 9/11. My 401K has taken a hit, to be sure. My house is worth more than 5 years back, according to the refi appraisal. We're paying a bit more for health care - but I'm also paying a lot more for gasoline.

THAT, I have Madame Pelosi and Mr. Reid to thank. The "No Drill!" policy and the "BANANA*" policies seem designed to make sure we're stuck on the ME for our oil - and you've got to wonder just who greased THEIR palms to make it so. That lovely little oil price spike REALLY FUBARed the economy last summer, didn't it? Just in time for a 'savior' to appear, who will solve everything for everybody!

So - am I better off? Yes. Do I think I'll be better off after Obama's 'helped' the nation? I'm waiting to see - but him pissing away well over a trillion in the last month does give me some cause for concern.

(*BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.)

By the way, the Dow is down another 230 points now. The folks recording how the economy is doing sure haven't gotten the message, have they? Obama is in office, he's spent lots of money, things should be doing better! Why won't the people with money TRUST him?

All of which is totally irrelevant drivel as in all life ends in death, thus all life is a failure.

Do all boat trips end in sinking? Do all space shuttle trips end with explosions? If not, then your analogy is inapplicable, and my point stands.

Gee, Mr Lawson,

It seems like only a couple of weeks ago you claimed, on another thread, that your 401k had actually gone UP in the last year, due to your incredible financial acumen. I remember commenting that yours must be the only one in America to perform that way. Do you remember that?

Are you seriously claiming that there was a conspiracy by Reid, Pelosi, and the AY-rabs to manipulate an artificial oil price spike to swing the election to Obama?

And by the way, the stimulus bill has passed, but I'm not sure any money has been spent, yet. So, expecting that "things should be doing better," may be a LITTLE premature. Not being disingenuous, are we, Mr Lawson?

First you say that "economic performance is, and can only be, measured by GDP." Then, you say there are "infinite ways" to measure it, and finally that there is only one "relevant" way to measure it. That's your opinion, not a fact. "Relevance", by definition, is subjective.

I agree that there are many ways to look at economic performance, but on the broadest measures (NBER) the economy expanded (grew) from the forth quarter of 2001 to sometime in 2008. There's room to argue that the growth rate was not as high as it had been at times in the past and there's room to argue that the 1990's expansion was longer, but there's little argument that the economy grew in real terms for 54 months of Bush's 8 years in office. If liberals define that as failure then they create a nearly insurmountable standard for Obama.

And, Mr Lorry, also re #23, I wasn't blaming Bush for the housing bubble, just pointing out that much of the spending which raised GDP during the Bush years was a result of it, and not the TaxCutTrickleDown magic wand that Bush waved.

The bursting of the housing bubble accomplished all the reasons you cite in your post #29 for dismissing the 54 months of economic expansion. As for what drove that expansion there's no way to know for sure, but tax cuts are correlated with economic expansion going back to JFK. Saying the last 8 years was a failure is like telling an old person who outlasted their savings that their life is a failure because they ended up poor.

Nope, Bruce - check again. (And how about providing the link while you're at it, so we can see what I actually said? Not that I'd accuse you of deliberately misttating anything, of course.)

My HOUSE appraisal went up. My 401K has taken a hit. It's share-based, though, so if the market recovers, I'll still be okay.

Oh, a conspiracy to drive up oil prices? No - I think Obama tuned his message to what people wanted to hear, whether he intended to actually keep his word or not. Pelosi and Reid, however, ARE complete lackwits when it comes to reality outside the Beltway. They were pandering to their most noisy constituencies - and still are. Oil leases and drilling would provide a lot of jobs AND revenue for California, and the technology is a hell of a lot cleaner than it used to be.

As far as spending money goes - I EXPECT that the markets are going to show some indication that there's trust in what Obama keeps promising. But the more he promises, the lower the markets go. (Down 223 points right now. Wow, what a RECOVERY!)

Does THAT indicate any level of trust in Obama's abilities?

Do all boat trips end in sinking? Do all space shuttle trips end with explosions? If not, then your analogy is inapplicable, and my point stands.

Your points are irrelevant drivel as in judging the life of an elderly person who outlasted their savings as a failure.

Mr Lorry:

I'm not sure if you are deliberately ignoring my point or if I'm just not making it clear.

The fact that there were 54 straight months of GDP growth is IRRELEVANT to most of us in the struggling middle class, because we DID NOT SHARE in the benefits of that growth. Instead, our real wages stagnated or shrank, our retirement funds shrivelled, our home values plummeted, and our costs, for everything from gas to college to healthcare, exploded.

So, the "54 straight months" talking point is an empty statistic, one that doesn't resonate with voters. So, hey, run with it.

Now I see why there are dup posts. There's a bug in the code that runs this site.

The fact that there were 54 straight months of GDP growth is IRRELEVANT to most of us in the struggling middle class, because we DID NOT SHARE in the benefits of that growth. Instead, our real wages stagnated or shrank, our retirement funds shrivelled, our home values plummeted, and our costs, for everything from gas to college to healthcare, exploded.

I get your point, but I'm using the figures from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which takes into account many of the metrics you cite. I'm sure that in 4 years I can cite a long list of economic negatives and claim the Obama administration was a failure even if the NBER says otherwise. Would you accept my argument and ignore NBER? If not, then why should I accept your argument and ignore NBER?

Your points are irrelevant drivel as in judging the life of an elderly person who outlasted their savings as a failure.

You should get a tshirt with "irrelevant drivel" on it. It would save you some typing.

But I accept your analogy. YES, an elderly person who outlasted their savings FAILED to have an adequate economic plan.

Your attempt to generalize it into "the life" was a failure is, well, irrelevant drivel.

Mr Lorry:

Yes, I would, for the reason that you and I both agree on: that all administrations can be termed both successful and unsuccessful, depending on what they're being graded on.

For instance, I give the Bush administration high marks for increasing funding for AIDS in Africa, and also.....well, the AIDS thing was pretty cool.

If Obama enacts a workable universal health care plan, but unemployment is still high, he will be both a success and a failure.

Mr Lawson:

Sorry I can't provide a link. I can't even remember the thread it was on. I think it had something to do with whether Barney Frank was the singlehanded nemesis of GSE reform, or something. Still don't remember it? It was the one in which you finally admitted that "I was wrong about that, but my larger point is still valid." Still no? Perhaps I am mistaken.

Nice way to walk back the conspiracy craziness. How silly of me to think you were implying that. After all, you only asked who "greased their palms" to ensure that "we're stuck on the ME for our oil." How could I posibly have inferred a conspiracy from that?

Nice slideback yourself, Bruce. Call me a liar on my 401k, then say you can't remember where it was? Could it be you were wrong?

"Perhaps I was mistaken."

Yes, you were. Does it give you any doubt about what OTHER things you're so sure about could possibly be WRONG? You were sure enough to accuse me of misrepresenting myself, but you weren't willing to verify YOUR facts.

Re Pelosi - I'm SURE she would have reported any quid pro quo 'suggestions' when she visited Saudi Arabia in '07, aren't you?

Pelosi visits Saudi Arabia's council - USATODAY.com

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Saudi Arabia's unelected advisory council Thursday, the closest thing in the kingdom to a legislature, where she tried out her counterpart's chair -- a privilege no Saudi woman can have because women cannot become legislators.

Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the House, said she raised the issue of Saudi Arabia's lack of female politicians with Saudi government officials on the last stop of her Mideast tour, but she refrained from criticizing the kingdom over it.

"It's a nice view from here," Pelosi said as she sat in the chair, facing the ornate chamber with its deep blue and yellow chairs and gilded ironwork. "This chair is very comfortable."

On such thin stuff are conspiracy theories laid. You remember the one about Reagan sending Bush to Iran in an SR-71 to negotiate them keeping the hostages until after the election? There wasn't any real evidence of such - but Bush wasn't seen around the campaign for a couple of days, so where could he have been?

Pelosi and Reid have done all they could to stall more drilling in the US. That's on record. The price of oil went to record highs. THAT is on record. Our economy took a hell of hit when gas went above $4 a gallon. Do you think we could agree on THAT? Do you think Pelosi got a lot of donations for her anti-drilling stance?

Where do we get a lot of our oil?

Who got the benefit from that price spike, Bruce?

The Dow was down 299 points today, at 6763. THAT'S reality. It closed at 9338 on 4 November. Last August, it was around 11,500. October 2007 it was around 14,000.

But I'm not worried. I'm sure Obama will come up with some program that'll fix things. Eventually. And if he doesn't, he can promise it, and that's just as good, isn't it?

The man IS one hell of an orator... as long as he's got a teleprompter.

Complain, complain, complain. This will be the only sounding board you people have for that, because no matter what you say it will make no difference. Instead, your party is having a cat fight between a drug-addicted talk show host and an inconsequential party head who's ideas for fixing the party are hilarious. Obama is in office and the democrats are in power - and you can call them any name in the book but your words have no weight anymore. Site any statistics you like. They're unimportant drivel to anyone but you dead-enders.

And the republicans have no power due to the failed ideas of eight years. Simmer on that for a while.

But I accept your analogy. YES, an elderly person who outlasted their savings FAILED to have an adequate economic plan.

But of course you had to modify the analogy before accepting it. The original complaint was that liberals call the last 8 years a failure, not an economic failure, just a failure. So to accept my analogy you have to think someone who outlasts their savings is a failure. You should get a T-shirt with that written on it and go to your family reunion and see how long before your relatives set you straight (assuming they haven't already given up on you). You've gone beyond irrelevant drivel into foaming drool.

Bruce Henry,

Yes, I would, for the reason that you and I both agree on: that all administrations can be termed both successful and unsuccessful, depending on what they're being graded on.

Then you have to admit it's wrong to label the last 8 years as a failure without specifying the metric. I don't think anyone takes exception to a statement like Bush failed on immigration reform, or Social Security reform. However, those making politically motivated blanket statements are going to be called out.

Obama is in office and the democrats are in power - and you can call them any name in the book but your words have no weight anymore.

Apparently you learned nothing from the last 8 years. Republicans and conservatives are doing to Obama what Democrats and liberals did to Bush. If that strategy had no weight Republicans would still be in power.

Site any statistics you like. They're unimportant drivel to anyone but you dead-enders.

Here's one for you. Most voters vote their pocketbook first and their ideology second. Even Obama admits that if his "all in" bet fails to produce real results he'll be voted out of office in 2012. I'll put this in simply terms for you. You have to get in another lane to pass someone ahead of you. That's what the constant drumbeat of criticism is about. It puts Republicans in another lane and give voters a clear choice in 2010 and 2012.

And the republicans have no power due to the failed ideas of eight years. Simmer on that for a while.

If you think the last election was about anything other then people's pocketbooks you are setting yourself up for a fall. Simmer on that for a while.

Mr Lawson:

I apologise for alleging something I can't back up.

I thought you had claimed that your 401k had grown last year, but I must be mistaken if you don't remember it. Sorry.

So, because conspiracy theories are routinely made up out of thin evidence, you feel justified in making one up to support a point in your argument?

If you think the last election was about anything other then people's pocketbooks you are setting yourself up for a fall. Simmer on that for a while.

I'm not setting myself up for anything. I don't have to. My candidate is in office for four years and yours is in the political wilderness.

So I'm not getting all flustered and twisted inside-out over the next thing Obama does. It is fun watching you people do that, though. Your frustration is hilarious to us since your power has been reduced to that of a flea.

So I'm not getting all flustered and twisted inside-out over the next thing Obama does. It is fun watching you people do that, though. Your frustration is hilarious to us since your power has been reduced to that of a flea.

If you think Obama can ram whatever he wants through congress you have the brain of a flea. All the representatives in the house also won election in 2008 and each one has a mandate from their own constituents to represent them. In case you haven't gotten to that point in your lessons, Congress is an independent branch of government and it's members don't work for the President nor are they under his authority.

We'll see just how far Congress lets Obama go, and if they let him go too far then voters will elect a Republican majority to the House in 2010, which will put an early end to Obama's plans. You got just 20 months before election day and if Obama's "all in" bet doesn't take hold by then democrats may lose the House.

You voted for Obama, so you need to support his efforts to stimulate the economy by spending your own money like there was no recession, but I know your type. You're an economic chickenhawk, happy to spend other people's money, but a coward when it comes to spending your own.

You're an economic chickenhawk, happy to spend other people's money, but a coward when it comes to spending your own.

On the contrary, my wife and I do well and guess what - we pay our taxes and don't complain about it.

And I'm not a little complaining child when it comes to my taxes, like you obviously are. But there's no talking to someone lke you anyway. So just remain ignorant and wrong.

And I'm not a little complaining child when it comes to my taxes, like you obviously are.

Most likely I pay more in taxes than you make. My only complaint is when taxes are spent wastefully or when taxes are used for social engineering.

But there's no talking to someone lke you anyway. So just remain ignorant and wrong.

You have not only demonstrated your ignorance, but that you are also a liar as documented in comments in this thread. Go back to your play pen. You are out of your league here.