Obama's Analogy: D 4 Drive; R 4 Reverse

In a recent speech, President Obama presented an analogy, of sorts. When comparing the Democrat and Republican parties he said, and I paraphrase:

If you want to go forward you put your car in D for DRIVE; if you want to go backwards you put your car in R for REVERSE.

I'd like to discuss several questions about this analogy:

1) Is the analogy an accurate depiction of reality. In other words, is it true the Democrats move us forward and Republicans move us backwards?

2) If this IS an accurate analogy--then is moving forward necessarily a good thing?

3) Was it a wise move on Obama's part to use this analogy in his speech?

1) Is the analogy an accurate depiction of reality. In other words, is it true the Democrats move us forward and Republicans move us backwards?

There are two ways to go about analyzing this analogy. One is to see if it is accurate in our current situation and the other is to see if it is accurate in general--or over the long haul.

I think the analogy is accurate in both senses.

Short-Term Analysis
The car (US economy) is currently driving towards a cliff. If we keep moving forward (D) we will plummet off the cliff and die (our nation will cease to be the nation it has been in the past). If we stop the car and put it in reverse, then we can move back away from the cliff.

Long-Term Analysis
Progressivism has always been about changing the US constitution, and transforming America into a socialist or communist country. In the past, there have been numerous times when both Democrats and Republicans have followed Progressive Policies and have moved us in this direction, away from constitutional government. Generally speaking, Republicans have been [low gear] moving us slowly; while Democrats have been [high gear] moving us more rapidly.

In recent months, since the financial collapse and the rise of the TEA PARTY movement, (the conservative ascendancy) more and more Republicans have begun to return to their conservative roots, while Democrats have become [overdive gear] moving us even more rapidly towards the cliff than ever.

2) If this IS an accurate analogy--then is moving forward necessarily a good thing?

In just a few years, the US arose from being a small, backwards country, devastated and deeply in debt from a revolutionary war that it almost lost...

Unlike most nations, who essentially declared bankruptcy after a war and thus didn't pay off the debts that it had aquired during the war, the U.S. insisted on paying off its war debt. This was one of the things that gave it such a great stature in the eyes of those countries who had loaned it money. As a country that was not only determined but able to pay off its debts--it garnered the trust and respect of other nations.

With the British Monarchy still doing it's best to undermine the newly formed US, how did it manage to rise from such lowly beginnings to become (in just a few short years) one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world?

The answer is that it followed the timeless principles of liberty and free markets as set down by the founders in the US constitution. America was so wildly successful that it soon was referred to as the SHINNING CITY ON A HILL. Bush wasn't the first to use this phrase. Other countries around the world, seeing the previously unimagined success of the American political and economic system, began to adopt aspects of the American system. The whole world became significantly freer, and vastly more prosperous.

Virtually all of the difficulties that America is facing today are a direct result of the cumulative creep of progressivism, undermining America's constitutional principles:

Here is an economic analysis by Thomas Sowell:

For the first 150 years of this country's existence, the federal government did not think it was its business to intervene when the economy turned down.
All of those downturns ended faster than the first downturn where the federal government intervened big time--the Great Depression of the 1930s.

There are two conflicting assumptions about what happened during the Great Depression. The most popular assumption, especially among politicians, is that the market failed and the government had to intervene to save the economy.

Another assumption is that the market went down and was on its way back up when federal intervention sent it down again and led to massive unemployment.

...if you look at the facts, they go like this: Unemployment never hit double digits in any of the 12 months following the big stock market crash of 1929 that is often blamed for the massive unemployment of the 1930s. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the October 1929 crash, and then began drifting downward.
Unemployment was down to 6.3 percent by June 1930, when the first big federal intervention occurred. Within six months, the downward trend in unemployment reversed and hit double digits for the first time in December 1930.

What were politicians to do? Say "We messed up"? Or keep trying one huge intervention after another? ... President Hoover's interventions were followed by President Roosevelt's bigger interventions-- and unemployment remained in double digits in every month for the entire remainder of the decade.

There is another set of facts: The record that was set in 1929 for the biggest stock market decline in one day was broken in 1987. But Ronald Reagan did nothing-- and the media clobbered him for it. Then the economy rebounded and there were 20 years of sustained economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment.

When Progressives put the US (car) in Drive (D)the economy sputtered failed (we were headed towards the cliff). Reagan put the (car) in (R) and (despite ridicule by politicians and pundits alike) the economy rebounded with renewed prosperity--just as it did in the early days after the American revolution.

Here is what George Washington had to say (in letters to friends), just two years after America's new charter was put into operation:

The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.

Tranquility reigns among the people ... our public credit stands on that [high] ground which three years ago it would have been considered as a species of madness to have foretold.

In other words, the incredible success of the U.S. was almost immediate; and it was unimaginable even to those who predicted that the founding principles would lead to eventual success.

3) Was it a wise move on Obama's part to use this analogy in his speech?

On the surface, if you don't give it any thought at all, Obama's analogy is very clever. People are goal oriented, so going forward (towards a goal) seems good, while going bacwards (away from a goal) seems bad.

Unless you stop to consider what the goal is?

Obama's goal is apparently to destroy America using the Cloven-Piven strategy--whereby you overwhelm the system with poor decisions and severe crisis, until the whole things necessarily collapses. Then, as any good Marxist knows, the new order can supposedly be rebuilt (in its more perfect form) from the ruins of the old.

There is a riddle that goes something like this.

A man gets in a car that is facing North. He drives for 3 miles, but on getting out of the car he discovers that he is further South than when he started. How did this happen?

The answer is that the car was in REVERSE.

Most people don't think of that possibility, because (as I said) our minds are geared towards a certain perspective.

Progressives have been using this psychological fact to nudge US politics in the direction they want it to go--and over the years they've been wildly successful using this strategy.

But too many people's eyes have been opened in the past couple of years under Obama's administration. And so, I think most of them instinctively see the logical error in Obama's analogy. Which means that pointing it out to them was a big mistake. It's just another example of him telling us we're all too stupid to understand the wisdom behind spending more money that we don't have to get out of the debt we are in.

Obviously, someone is being stupid, but most Americans know that it is not us.

Antone I am not American just observing world politics in general and American economy appears to being doing better with Obama at the helm. Note the world is going over the edge of the cliff economically. Long expensive legal and illegal War tend to get expensive for any and all nations.

Obama recently asked

"Do we return to the same failed policies that ran our economy into a ditch, or do we keep moving forward with policies that are slowly pulling us out?" Obama said. "Do we settle for a slow decline, or do we reach for an America with a growing economy and a thriving middle class?"

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/n ... etter-off- with-democrats-in-charge/1120417

This could be what he means by Drive forward or Reverse.

Antone I am not American just observing world politics in general and American economy appears to being doing better with Obama at the helm.

This just proves what an amazingly effective tool propaganda can be.

America is going bankrupt. We are spending ourselves into oblivion. The fact that other countries are being equally (or in a few cases, perhaps even more) stupid is not a valid defense.

Obama claims credit for a predicted economic upturn... then the actual reports come out and the pundits are amazed that the economy is "doing worse than expected."

How many times can the liberal mainstream media get away with this same transparent lie? Virtually every meaningful economic indicator shows that the American economy is in serious trouble--with absolutely no signs of recovery any time soon. My prediction is that real recovery will begin to come in about 2-3 years from now, a few months after Obama is removed from office and the new (conservative) president's policies have a few months to begin taking effect.

This just proves what an amazingly effective tool propaganda can be.

So if I disagree`s with your unexplained assertion that America is going bankrupt under Obama`s watch this means its me falling for propoganda, I see. I actually quoted Obama`s words from his live televised speech. He admits its slow progress, but under Republican GW Bush who invoked a costly long drawn out War is where America was going bankrupt and that wasn`t under Obama`s watch. The corrupt bankers and wall street under GW Bush`s watch, caused the collapse of the stock exchange, along with the $dollar falling which made the £pound fall and the Euro currency in other smaller countries bankrupt it was a chain reaction and was a downward spiral. I suggest you research how America under republican`s made other countries bankrupt before themselves. Obama has only been in office for five minutes he has this oil disaster to contend with and he is trying to rectify what Rebulicans caused.
It appears that Republican`s with their foreign policy want to drag American`s into a third world war, if they get back in office, which will include them pressuring allied nations [of which I belong]to join them. More bankruptcy is what you will get if America elects a Republican rule.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... backdoor_t o_war_with_iran

Republican administrations over the last 30 years have provided less than reasonable governance in many areas but their history of fiscal irresponsibility is beyond compare. Let's look beyond their words and see what their actual actions have brought us to.

Fiscally the republicans have been strikingly imprudent. When Ronald Reagan was running for president his big talking point was a $50Billion deficit run up by Carter during a recession. Average deficits during the Reagan years was around $200Billion. GW Bush ran up even higher deficits and eventually raised taxes which cost him the election but did not remove the deficit. His son inherited a budget surplus and a lower national debt from Clinton, a democrat, and a long term plan to make Social Security whole for the future. Instead of sticking to the plan he engineered massive tax cuts that threw the government back into massive deficits. Before Bush left office the CBO projected a $1.8Trillion deficit for the next year, Obama's first.

Anybody but a moron would think that the government should be running budget surpluses and paying down the national debt in times of economic prosperity, especially with large obligations to Social Security coming due soon. Instead the republicans have proven remarkably moronic, running up the national debt like a teenager on spring break with dad's gold card.

The democrats have put the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the budget for the first time, removing the sleight of hand of the Bush administration of keeping the cost of these wars out of budget considerations. The democrat controlled congress has reintroduced a budget resolution that calls for all new spending to be paid for, something the republican controlled congress refused to consider during the Bush years as they spent freely without considering how to pay for it.

The anti-democrat mantra of tax and spend points to democrats as far more fiscally responsible than the borrow and spend republicans.

Republican candidates talk about reducing government regulation on a wholesale basis, more tax cuts, etc. This is the platform that created the mess the nation finds itself in. Their anti-regulation stance deregulated banking and finance and we got an economic collapse from banking and financial shenanigans that the regulations they got rid of were designed to prevent, and did for over 70 years yet they fought against new banking regulation.

The health care system is broken, everyone who has ever actually tried to get health care knows that all too well. The health care reform bill addresses a real problem in a practical manner. Since the republicans have no practical arguments against it, it has become a matter of "rights".

This is no different than the specious argument used to get poor dumb crackers to fight the civil war for the rich plantation owners, get them fighting for their "rights", whatever that means in these days when you can be tossed to the curb by your health care plan because they just do not feel like paying for you. In this health care debate the people crying about their rights are really crying about the right of insurance companies to let them die.

Eight+ years of oil industry lobbyists and executives running the Minerals Management Agency resulted in $Billions in lost revenue from government owned resources and such lax oversight that the oil industry has created unprecedented environmental catastrophes. The failure of agencies overseeing mining has resulted in deaths, environmental degradation, and serious health problems in mining areas. The republican idea that those closest to industry can regulate them the best for safety and in the governments interest has proven less than reliable.

Sometimes I think that the US has regressed 100 years, to the days of rampant disregard for anything but immediate monetary profit.

To those who wish to undo the progressive agenda, I hope you are filthy rich because if you are not you are screwed. Say goodbye to the 40 hour workweek and overtime pay. Say goodbye to the minimum wage. Say goodbye to public schools and state colleges and universities. Say goodbye to student grant and loans. Say goodbye to employer provided health care, or any other health care that you can afford. Say goodbye to working in safe conditions. Say goodbye to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, public health clinics, food banks. Say goodbye to appliances that actually work and will not kill you. Say goodbye to unleaded gas and airbags and seat belts and shatterproof glass in your car. Say goodbye to child car seats that are actually safe to put your child in. Say goodbye to safe food and drinkable water. Say goodbye to a clean environment. Say goodbye to progressive taxes. Say goodbye to small business. Say goodbye to charity.....

Say goodbye to the government, or anyone else caring about you at all. Good luck with that.

So if I disagree`s with your unexplained assertion that America is going bankrupt under Obama`s watch this means its me falling for propoganda...

Historically, virtually every country that participates in communist principles has fallen into decline. The USSR collapsed, and now Cuban ex-dictaor has 'admitted' that communism doesn't work--even in Cuba. He denies that's what he meant, in retrospect, but 1/2 million Cuban government workers are being fired and told to find jobs in the private sector. That's 1/10th of the entire working age population. In addition, other policies are being employed to rapidly move Cuba away from communist principles.

Some might point to China as an exception to the communist rule of abject economic failure--but China abandoned a purely communistic approach many years ago when China's Chairman Mao's plan led to the death of millions. So he instituted significant reforms that adopted many free-market principles. In many ways, China's economy is closer to a free-market than the US economy is--and that was true before Obama took over: Car Companies, Health Care Industry, Financial Institutions, etc.

Look at the US cities and states with the most radical, liberal policies: California, Detroit, etc. They're the same cities and states that are currently on the verge of bankruptcy--while those cities and states that have had the most conservative oriented policies are almost invariably the ones in the best economic shape.

Ford Motor company is the only one of the big three car companies that didn't take a massive bailout (or in some cases more than one)... Yet (out of those three) they're the company that is doing the best now.

Look at the US industries that have the strongest UNIONS: car Companies, steel Companies, Public School Teachers, etc. They're all industries that are failing--precisely because the UNIONS have suffocated the industries with excessive costs and inefficient regulations.

Look at all the big, government-run (socialist) institutions: Medicare, Post Office, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.They're all going broke--and many of them are riddled with fraud and abuse.

Look at countries around the world who (although not communist) engage in the most socialistic (redistributive) schemes: Greece; U.S. (during Great Depression) Japan (during their lost decade), etc.

Look at the countries who are rebounding from previous economic declines: France, etc.

Compare corruption in the Republican Party to corruption in the Democrat party... How many of the tax cheats are Democrats? Who receives more more campaign funding from big business AND unions? Hint: it's not the Republicans. And the discrepancy is huge. I wouldn't be surprised if big business gave more to Obama's campaign than they gave to all Republicans running for any office in the US. Which Party has a congressman with 90 thousand in cash stuck in their freezer. Which Party has funneled many millions of dollars to their buddies to build CHEAP public housing--only to let those units be condemned a few years later because of the disgraceful and unsanitary conditions of the units. We're talking about sewage backing up into the poor people's houses--and nothing being done.

Look at twin (states) countries where we can contrast liberal versus conservative principles: East vs. West Germany; North vs. South Dakota; etc.

Or consider the early history of the first two American colonies: In both cases, they were granted financial assistance based on the condition that they would live under a communistic charter. And, in both cases, those communistic experiments failed dramatically--and the communities nearly starved to death before they abandoned their foolishness.

Every single anecdotal instance that I am aware of confirms the overwhelming superiority of the free-market system and the immense inferiority of communistic principles. Therefore, when someone fails to understand this obvious truth... it seems self evident to me that the most obvious cause is that they watch the liberal media which saturates them with outright lies and more subtle propaganda.

Fiscally the republicans have been strikingly imprudent. When Ronald Reagan was running for president his big talking point was a $50Billion deficit run up by Carter during a recession. Average deficits during the Reagan years was around $200Billion. GW Bush ran up even higher deficits and eventually raised taxes which cost him the election but did not remove the deficit. His son inherited a budget surplus and a lower national debt from Clinton, a democrat, and a long term plan to make Social Security whole for the future. Instead of sticking to the plan he engineered massive tax cuts that threw the government back into massive deficits. Before Bush left office the CBO projected a $1.8Trillion deficit for the next year, Obama's first.

And now Obama's projected deficit, PER MONTH, is $1.4Trillion. News flash - the deficit has gone up for every President in the past 100 years !!! Check this out - both Parties screw us, of course!

Anybody but a moron would think that the government should be running budget surpluses and paying down the national debt in times of economic prosperity, especially with large obligations to Social Security coming due soon. Instead the republicans have proven remarkably moronic, running up the national debt like a teenager on spring break with dad's gold card.

You're right - they should be figuring out how to get RID OF UNSUSTAINABLE PROGRAMS LIKE THESE. Please explain to me how a program that has ~ $100,000,000,000,000 [that's TRILLION] in unfunded liabilities willl EVER be reformed into working condition again?

The democrats have put the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the budget for the first time, removing the sleight of hand of the Bush administration of keeping the cost of these wars out of budget considerations. The democrat controlled congress has reintroduced a budget resolution that calls for all new spending to be paid for, something the republican controlled congress refused to consider during the Bush years as they spent freely without considering how to pay for it.

Actually, that's how the Bush deficit got so high. The war was in the budget. If you dispute this, please source it. There's just one that I could find off-hand.

The anti-democrat mantra of tax and spend points to democrats as far more fiscally responsible than the borrow and spend republicans.

You're right, they both suck.

Republican candidates talk about reducing government regulation on a wholesale basis, more tax cuts, etc. This is the platform that created the mess the nation finds itself in. Their anti-regulation stance deregulated banking and finance and we got an economic collapse from banking and financial shenanigans that the regulations they got rid of were designed to prevent, and did for over 70 years yet they fought against new banking regulation.

The pipe that exploded the other day had just been inspected. Same with the Oil Platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Regulation doesn't equal safety. One regulation for one problem is good enough, BUT IT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED THROUGH ON. Unfortunately, as a government worker, there is no incentive. Your pay is unionized and guaranteed, firing is damn-near impossible, and repercussions for mistakes don't exist.

So why regulate when we can let people just learn from their own damn mistakes by letting them FAIL - like we do with CHILDREN.

The health care system is broken, everyone who has ever actually tried to get health care knows that all too well. The health care reform bill addresses a real problem in a practical manner. Since the republicans have no practical arguments against it, it has become a matter of "rights".

Please, get us the N.H.S.!!! I hear they offer a wonderful Dental plan, as well! Just ask your local average British person!

In this case, maybe we can NOT USE MEDICAL INSURANCE SO DAMN MUCH. I should probably pay Walmart [a Capitalist-based system] $12 for a three month prescription WITHOUT notifying my Insurance so that I can save my claims for Operations that cost THOUSANDS. That would lower my overall annual premium!

Eight+ years of oil industry lobbyists and executives running the Minerals Management Agency resulted in $Billions in lost revenue from government owned resources and such lax oversight that the oil industry has created unprecedented environmental catastrophes. The failure of agencies overseeing mining has resulted in deaths, environmental degradation, and serious health problems in mining areas. The republican idea that those closest to industry can regulate them the best for safety and in the governments interest has proven less than reliable.

Right, the FAILURE OF AGENCIES OVERSEEING MINING .... what do you suggest, that we create AGENCIES THAT OVERSEE AGENCIES THAT OVERSEE MINING? What happens when they, too, become lax?

To those who wish to undo the progressive agenda, I hope you are filthy rich because if you are not you are screwed. Say goodbye to the 40 hour workweek and overtime pay. Say goodbye to the minimum wage. Say goodbye to public schools and state colleges and universities. Say goodbye to student grant and loans. Say goodbye to employer provided health care, or any other health care that you can afford. Say goodbye to working in safe conditions. Say goodbye to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, public health clinics, food banks. Say goodbye to appliances that actually work and will not kill you. Say goodbye to unleaded gas and airbags and seat belts and shatterproof glass in your car. Say goodbye to child car seats that are actually safe to put your child in. Say goodbye to safe food and drinkable water. Say goodbye to a clean environment. Say goodbye to progressive taxes. Say goodbye to small business. Say goodbye to charity.....

Say goodbye to the government, or anyone else caring about you at all. Good luck with that.

Yeah, I'm sure workers will give that stuff up now. And I'm sure that it NEVER would've been invented without that oh-so-wonderful, invisible, guiding hand of govenrment!!! Can you tell me, who invented the Airbag? NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! How about your wonderful shatter-proof glass?

Laminated glass was invented in 1903 by the French chemist Edouard Benedictus, inspired by a laboratory accident. A glass flask had become coated with the plastic cellulose nitrate and when dropped shattered but did not break into pieces. Benedictus fabricated a glass-plastic composite to reduce injuries in car accidents. However, it was not immediately adopted by automobile manufacturers, and the first widespread use of laminated glass was in the eyepieces of gas masks during World War I.

WoW - NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! As for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, public health clinics, food banks .... I SAY GOOD RIDDANCE.

If you can't afford Insurance, go to Family, Community, Church, Other Hospitable Sources, Privately-Subsidized Hospitals, etc.!!!

If you can't eat, FIND WORK!!! If you can't work, rely on those things I've listed above. But don't come to me and tell me that your broken leg is my responsibility to pay for, along with your food and medical bills just because life's rough - I know it sucks, that's why I PREPARED FOR IT !!!

Republican administrations over the last 30 years have provided less than reasonable governance in many areas but their history of fiscal irresponsibility is beyond compare.

I do not support or defend Republicans... I support conservatives. Without a doubt, the Bushes were poor stewards of fiscal responsibility, and they squandered a golden opportunity... which is one of the reasons contributing to why they were voted out of office.

Unfortunately, the alternative (Obama) makes them seem like staunch conservatives by comparison.

Now, in fairness, it must be recognized that Reagan was saddled with a Democratic congress, and much of the blame for spending can be placed on them--although Reagan wasn't steadfast enough in sticking to a budget that cut spending--even if it shut down the government. Reagan felt had a COLD WAR to win, and wasn't willing to the military efforts to get the reduced spending that he wanted. Bush had a similar problem after 9/11. Time after time he allowed massive spending additions to be made to his budgets (over and above what he wanted) because the Democratic congress threatened to shut down funding for his War on Terror--and he wasn't willing to place our soldiers at risk.

Similarly, Clinton had a Republican congress that was very effective at keeping his spending in check.

Too often we give the president far too much credit (or blame) for the spending that occurs under his watch. The US government isn't a dictatorship. So we (far too often) end fallaciously crediting the president for the spending that occurs under his watch--even though it is in direct conflict with the policies that he advocated and worked to achieve.

In fairness, The second Bush, during part of his presidency, had a Republican congress that lost it's way and began to act like the bunch of progressives that far too many of them are.

And Obama, also with a Democrat congress, has far surpassed anything that any other president has ever contemplated.

In the first 19 months of Obama the publicly held federal debt increased by $2.526 Trillion.

Eight months after President Reagan left office the publicly held federal debt was only $2.1907 Trillion. So Obama spend $335.3 billion more in 19 months, than all the presidents including Reagan, and nearly one year of Bush.

Now, Reagan spent about $1.4788 trillion over a period of 9 fiscal years. (Terms don't coincide with the fiscal year) So that means all the presidents before him spent only $.7119 Trillion--which means Reagan more than doubled spending... Clearly, then, Reagan did the country a disservice in this respect--But again, he was dealing with a "war" and he had a Democratic congress that was in a big spending mode.

Even so, what was spent in nine years (mostly under Reagan's watch) is more than 1 trillion less than what Obama spent in little more than 1 1/2 years.

Another comparison...
In the four months (May through Aug 2010) Obama accumulated $464 billion in deficits--which is more than the $458 billion that the Bush administration ran through the entire fiscal year of 2008--and that includes his massive "stimulus" plan that was passed at the end of 2008.

Thus, while it is true that Bush definitely got things going with the foolishly progressive economic policies that he bought into at the end of 2008--And Republicans (in general) have been grossly irresponsible over the past few decades--it is simply false to suggest that the history of Republican "fiscal irresponsibility is beyond compare". It doesn't even come remotely close to the towering records set by Barack Hussein Obama. And even when Republicans were being irresponsible, in general, Democrats have still tended to promote spending more than the Republicans have.

The democrat controlled congress has reintroduced a budget resolution that calls for all new spending to be paid for

HA, HA, HO, HO, Roflmao. I'll believe they're serious about this when they pass it. It won't happen as long as Dems control congress (unless they're running in fear of their political lives--which is exactly why they introduced the resolution, to pretend that they have a few conservative principles, not that they're getting shellacked in the polls.) Even then, I'd bet my life against $1,000 that this progressive/spend crazy/Democrat congress will never pass it.

Their anti-regulation stance deregulated banking and finance and we got an economic collapse

Wrong. Look up the facts. The Democrats were primarily the ones who encouraged banks to relax their regulatory standards and adopt the practices of the Community Reinvestment Act. (Again, republicans, including Bush are not without blame, but Bush warned the liberals in congress about the approaching dangers of the housing market crash some 17 times... The progressives in congress ignored his warnings. When the Republican regulator called attention to the financially unsound practices of GSE's like Fannie Mae, he was ridiculed by those same Democrats who called him a racist and said he didn't know what he was talking about.

What good does more regulation do if the people you put in charge of regulating things aren't listened to when they beg you to stop doing insanely crazy things?

That's squarely on the Democrats--no matter how much they lie about it.

The health care system is broken, everyone who has ever actually tried to get health care knows that all too well. The health care reform bill addresses a real problem in a practical manner. Since the republicans have no practical arguments against it, it has become a matter of "rights".

Again, either you're intentionally lying, or the people you're getting your information from are, because this is wrong on every account.

While health care is now broken, before ObamaCare was passed it was still the best in the world. There were problems, yes, but Republicans had many ideas which would have addressed the actual problems--rather than making things many times worse--as ObamaCare has. Nothing about ObamaCare is even marginally workable. Obama lied every time he talked about it. To make it look like it wouldn't cost as much as it will, he had to tax us for ten years for 6 years of services--and even then, by those flawed numbers, the system is entirely unworkable and inefficient. Which is why it will probably be repealed shortly after Obama leaves office in about 2 years.

Sometimes I think that the US has regressed 100 years, to the days of rampant disregard for anything but immediate monetary profit.

We can only dream of such a wonderful scenario--but no such luck. We've been headed in the opposite direction at warp speed. Although the Tea Party movement is finally turning things around... and in the long run, if we are persistent, we will make things better than they were before Obama nearly destroyed our country.

To those who wish to undo the progressive agenda, I hope you are filthy rich because if you are not you are screwed.

I'm not rich... not even close, but I'll take my chances with a free market. And if progressives try to screw things up, I'll fight to the death to protect my freedoms and the principles that America was founded on.

After all, (despite the commonly held belief to the contrary) there was no income tax for much of America's history. And when there was, in the early days of America's history, the rates were extremely low... in the 3% range.

So... how did people exist back then? How did America rise from a tiny, backwater, upstart nation... to being the great nation that it became in just a few short years, without those 'necessary' taxes you think the government should be stealing from us?

The answer is, when you keep more of the money you earn, the economy runs better, which makes everyone wealthier--especially the poor. That's why France gave us the Statue of Liberty. It was a testiment to the vast economic productiveness of our free-market system. And the poem on the statue says, "Give us your poor, your down trodden... etc..." because it doesn't matter who you throw into a free-market system, even the poorest dregs from other societies (when placed into a free-market) will become rich compared to the standards of other countries. That's why America still has the largest GDP of any country on earth--because we live in a free market, where everyone makes boat loads of money.

It's not because we're better or smarter people--obviously we're not, since we elected Barack Obama--but we have been bequeathed the greatest system of government ever invented. Now, as Benjamin Franklin said, it's up to us to "Keep it".