From day one...the secret meeting that launched the GOP as the party of "No."

Our economy had totally crashed and they did that! Treasonous!

yep

And after the GOP tanked the economy, Obama saved it.

Despite the fake-tea party trying to bring down the country and hold back the recovery the entire time.

Doesn't affect them.

One would have to have some kind of moral compass for that to happen.

Except for the first two years of Obama's presidency, the democrats controlled the House.

Showdown from Corn, explains it all. Obama has always been trying to be "with" while, indeed, they decided not to be so. Power, white power!

Making believe that a country has the same economics than a household. This is called demagogy and democracy is our of context as in Michigan (Flint and other cities) because there is a majority of colored people. But they are not racist, they just dislike colored skins.

Excellent and Clever Note, Gilbert

Thanks a lot, you make me smile.

I know that you have a Great Education, Probably in science too !

Thanks for your ideas, valor, courage !
....

The Democrats were in the majority the first two years and Nancy Pelosi proved herself to be one of the most effective Speakers of the House in recent history. Controlling the house is one thing, but to no avail when the Republicans filibuster everything in the Senate. The Republicans decided that jamming up the president of the United States was more important than helping out the country or the economy. Typical.

I guess you're missing my point.

If the republicans are to blame for the mess this administration has gotten us in, the debt, the rising food and gas prices, the unemployment numbers, the out of control spending, etc...then you must be asking yourself this question:

What did the Obama administration do for two years when the democrats controlled Congress? How do you not blame congress in the first two years with the dismal failures of this presidency, but find it reasonable to blame the HOUSE since 2010.

No wonder Obama can get away with saying the things he says. You actually believe it.

Why didn't anything get down in the first two years? Why?

Too many of the Dems were"Blue Dogs" ... owned by Wall Street and voting with the Republicans. So, Obama had a Dem majority for two years but never a liberal majority to get anything wonderful done.

Health care. The Affordable Care Act. Presidents of both political parties had been trying to do it for years. Obama's problem was that he let congress work it out through compromise rather than advocating for a stronger position. He got it done even with the Republicans plotting to block everything he proposed. Anyway you look at it, that's a win. It is a great first step that should be refined, not repealed. We need to go to a single payer system. Those who want to buy their own insurance privately can go do that. For the rest of us, single payer sounds good.

Roryann, getting things bass ackwards has become a trademark for you, but doing it straight up like the comment at the head of this thread is special, even for you.

Democrats have never had the lockstep party control Republicans have had. So we had, but didn't have, the supermajority it would have taken to truly force things through. Since the TEA-Twits vision of 'working together for the good of the country' is actually "pass our agenda and shut up," nothing was gonna happen. Attempts to give a little and trade were met with fake outrage, and poison pill legislation. And now, thanx to TEA-Twit shenanigans, Congress enjoys a rating lower than your apparent single-digit IQ, an accomplishment indeed.

No, I think it's you that has it backwards, Chuck.

I'll ask you the same question:

"Why couldn't Obama do anything that didn't fail miserably, when he had the democrats controlling Congress for his first two years in office?

Enough with the adolescent name-calling Chuck. We know that's your only defense, because try as you might, you cannot find anything to defend this president with anymore.

It just proves what I say all the time. Obama says these things because he knows that his fans will believe him. He knows that liberals who hang on every word he says, are as dumb as a box of rocks, as dumb as the Casey Anthony jurors.

Answer the question. Stop acting like a little girl and answer the question.

Chuck, How lockstep was the Democratic HC bill? How good were the Republicans? Who stepped out from their party? Olympia Snowe who is retiring this year.

I'm registered Declines to State, have been since 1970. I'm not a supporter of either party. It is a fact that the Democrats controlled the House for a couple of years and, while they did have the super-majority necessary to invoke cloture in the Senate (by one vote) for a good deal of that time, they didn't have the kind of party discipline necessary to get all senators to vote as a bloc. Getting anything passed was touch and go

Seems to me that the GOP "No" tactic was designed to demonstrate ideological purity in the 2010 election. They could campaign on "We didn't support any of this nasty stuff." Politically it seemed to work. Of course it meant that for two critical years government was effectively hamstrung. The "general welfare" mentioned in the Constitution took second place to winning an election.

"Enough with the adolescent name-calling Chuck...Answer the question. Stop acting like a little girl and answer the question."

See, this is what pisses me off about you Pubs~you're the 1st to call out people for name-calling, but in your very next breaths, you resort to the same thing. And, your name-calling tactics go beyond retort~anyone who disagrees and/or challenges what you say and/or believe (no matter how warped) is subject to verbal assault. One simple solution, if ya can't take it, don't f'n dish it out!!!

President Obama turned this country around after being handed the deepest recession since the Great Depression. And he did it despite the "party of no" fighting every recovery effort along the way, holding the American middle class and working poor hostage in order to give more tax breaks to the super-rich 1%, and holding back investment in small businesses that create the vast majority of jobs in America in favor of giving even more taxpayer subsidies to the super-rich corporations.

After what the Republicans caused, their nominee Mitt Romney wants to go back to the same policies that caused the massive recession, started two wars, and bankrupted the nation.

That's insane.

Thanks William and David

I am in total agreement with your article and comments in this page.

....

David writes: "That's insane."

That's the current crop of the Republican party.

If Republicans caused 'this' whatever 'this is, who caused it for the first two years when the democrats were in control?

Using your logic, wouldn't that mean that the democrats caused this mess we're in for the first TWO years?

Geez, am I talkng to 3rd graders? Why can't you answer that question? Who caused the mess we had for the first two years of your anointed one?

No messes were caused in Obama's first two years. He did try to clean them up, though.

And he is not an "anointed one". How silly. He's just a President.

You mean he added 6 trillion to the national debt in the last year? It's worse than I thought.

Unemployment has been ABOVE 8% for 39 straight months, so doesn't that include the first year of his presidency?

You guys are really buying all of this, aren't you? Where do you get your news from? You don't know that the national debt is 15.6 trillion?

33 straight months of job growth under the Obama administration, even as the Republicans worked to thwart his every move.

Just what do you think the unemployment rate would have been under a president Romney who wanted to let Detriot go bankrupt?

Just because you won't alter your opinion of the president doesn't mean you can enter a fact-free zone here. Look at the chart of job losses and job gains from 2008 to 2012 and then you tell me who screwed up. Again with all the Republicans voting against the president (Obama) even when he was proposing their own policies. Real mature. Way to "put the country first" Republicans.

It is a matter of public record that the economy has been recovering since 2009. The pace is slow, but there's no doubt that things are better than they were three years ago. We're not back to where we were in say, 2006, but we're getting closer to 2007 when things started falling apart.

BTW, all, or almost all economists agree on the idea that recovery from a collapse like the one we, and the rest of the world, went through takes more than four years. There's a tremendous amount of inertia in the world economy. It's much easier to fall into a hole than it is to get out of it when the hole is economic.

The experience of Europe with austerity over the last few years shows how effective an alternative to stimulus has been. The big problem in the US is that government, even those who favored a Keynesian approach, was way to timid about spending money. We enacted a largely symbolic spending program and approached monetary policy very gingerly. The recent quantitative easing program is a fine example of not spending enough.

We'd probably be worse off had we not done what we did, but we didn't do nearly enough.

S/B "way too timid"

Why do you frame the collapse/recession in the past tense? The whole world is still realing (sp) under it. We may here and there find a little gasp of air, occasionally, but we are not out of hot water by any means, and we are not on a track to recovery. We are alive, but still in the deluge. We are not safe on the shores, out of the flood waters. I'm talking about the world economy, of which the U.S. is a part. I'm glad I'm a good swimmer, but then, we have also the ongoing Fukashima delima going on, on the planet.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

This relevant article was in the Washington Post. Authors are at the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution.

i saw that on climateprogress, David.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/28/473228/american-enterprise-institute-and-brookings-must-read-the-republicans-are-the-problem/

sad.

I never heard of the stalwart Rep they talk of, that are extinct. I guess that's because their performance certainly never stood out for anything. If it weren't for the health care vote I probably would have been just as oblivious to Olympia Snowe.

Sigh, another 6 months of this propaganda left to go. You guys actually believe this BS? Wake up! Neither party is working for you.

"Wake up! Neither party is working for you."

That's a cop-out, and I'm truly tired of it. I hear and see it a dozen different ways, but the truth is, we get a better government, a more human government, out of Democrats. We get stupid and dangerous government out of Republicans. There definitely IS a difference.

Beyond that, this is the system we're working within, so it's what we'll use. Opting out is an option, but it's a stupid one.

Wake up! Neither party is working for you.

Even if that were true (which I don't believe), what for sure is true is that one party is working actively against me. No surprise that I'm not voting for those guys. Nor will I ever for a Ron Paul.

Sound asleep, both of you, must be nice to think so. Will, it's true one party is working against you, but so is the other one. Seriously, there comes a point when you cannot continue to endorse this crap, right? Oh wait, you don't even know all of it is crap. Nevermind. Sweet dreams!

Matthew, the truth is we're a whole lot smarter than you and the conservatives are willing to give us credit for being. The proof of that is you having to continually tell us (and thus yourself) that we're not. Somebody does indeed need to "take the blinders off," but it's not me.

None of this, in any way, challenges the assertions made in my original post.

While I'm not pleased with either major party, the Paul alternative is economically illiterate.

Actually, William, I've learned it is a wasted effort to make substantial comments on some posts. I'd rather save that time to write a post that at least gets viewed by more people.

Nippy, the Paul alternative is the only remotely literate option.

You mean you decided it is a waste of time to make "substantial" comments on posts where people disagree with you, don't you? Your insecurity aside, you're obviously free to comment when and where you like. You don't have to give a reason to turn tail. You could just do it. It's okay.

Uhh, no. Most "substantial" comments were on posts that I disagreed with.

"the Paul alternative is the only remotely literate option. "

Yup, like returning to the gold standard and doing away with the Fed. Uh huh.

Pretty close. Bout time we put an end to the regressive taxation of the current inflationary system. Join us in standing up for the common man, Nippy.

Mathew, you're a good man!

David, the WashedUp Post? They're part of the "defend this president by any means necessary" media.

Instead of reading and buying everything they say, do your own research. Check out what economists are saying. Check out the things that Obama actually does, instead of reading the accolades that the leftist media has you believing.

Geez, let me guess...you also believe Al Gore when he says Neptune's bones are dissolving? LOL

First off, it would be helpful if you actually read the article under discussion so you could offer an informed viewpoint. As you didn't, you offered exactly the kind of mindless asininity that the authors suggested. Your choice to hide your attack on my comment in a separate string instead of replying directly to it signifies and intellectual cowardice that eliminates any contribution you thought you might be making.

Second, modified names intended to insult, i.e., "WashedUp Post" is a sign of a weak - or usually nonexistent - argument and demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking. Again, exactly the kind of behavior that the authors allude to in their piece.

Third, the suggestion that a major newspaper in the 21st Century exists to "defend this president by any means necessary" indicates a profound ignorance and disregard for fact.

Fourth, the Washington Post merely published the piece written by two prominent "resident scholars" at two eminent "think tanks." The American Enterprise Institute is one of the most conservative "think tanks" in America. The Brookings Institution is generally considered a centrist or center-left leanings (though both of course claim to be "non-partisan"). Again, lack of any effort on your part to become informed before reflexively blathering out ideological talking points is exactly the kind of non-thinking behavior that the authors suggest is causing the problem.

Fourth, saying "Instead of reading and buying everything they say, do your own research" when it's clear you couldn't even be bothered to do the same before offering your shovel-ready talking points straight out of Frank Luntz' playbook is, well, hypocrisy at its most extreme.

I'm sorry, but it is exactly this kind of thoughtless blathering that the authors suggest allows the extremist ideologues in the party to hold hostage anyone who even tries to offer workable plans for the future. You embarrass yourself and you hurt America.

Goodbye

Ah, yes...the name-calling and the insults.

You couldn't answer the question, and instead, resorted to juvenile catfighting.

Was the the chicken little comment that riled you? LOL

I explained quite clearly the fact that you hadn't even read the linked article before commenting. That you employed typical ideological tactics of issuing talking points with no support, and that those talking points lacked logic and critical thinking.

Which, of course, are in obvious evidence. You relied on non-thinking mental crutches like calling one of the top national newspapers the "WashedUp Post" to avoid having to address any of the points made in the article written by two prominent scholars from two prominent think tanks. The article you didn't bother to read.

You couldn't answer the question, and instead, resorted to juvenile catfighting.

You didn't ask a question. Unless your "question" was your inane reference to Al Gore? That wasn't really your "question," was it? I sincerely hope you weren't suggesting that was "your question," because it would highlight the points I made in my previous comment. As does your choice of avatar to represent yourself on this venue.

As for "juvenile catfighting," I suspect readers can ascertain just whom is offering thoughtful discussion and who is, well, not.

Was the the chicken little comment that riled you?

You didn't make a "chicken little comment," not to me and not in this entire thread.

So not only have you demonstrated a profound lack of critical thinking or relevancy, you seem to be confused. Perhaps an alter?

LOL

Case in point.

Actually, I was first commenting on remarks made in the thread.

And then I most certainly did infer that you must be one of those who also believes the sky is falling, if you believe Obama's doing a good job and that it is the republicans who are doing a bad job.

Here's what I said:

Geez, let me guess...you also believe Al Gore when he says Neptune's bones are dissolving? LOL

Do you have probles with reading comprehension? I'm a girl so catfighting wouldn't be something that is weird for me. It is for you though unless you're a girl named David. YIKES!

Do you have probles with reading comprehension?

The readers can clearly see how you are covering up the fact that you didn't read the article in question. See my original comment for further explanation.

Now that you have confirmed that your "question" was the completely irrelevant idiocy mentioning Al Gore, I think readers can put your "contribution" into context.

I'm a girl so catfighting wouldn't be something that is weird for me.

So you believe "catfighting" is an acceptable tactic in lieu of actual intellectual conversation of an article you felt the need to comment upon without actually reading?

Readers can assimilate that into their conclusions regarding your "contribution" to this and other discussions.

It is for you though unless you're a girl named David. YIKES!

You seem to have devolved into 2nd grade. What an embarrassment.

Goodbye

No, I believe you that you still haven't answered the question.

David, did you read this from the post above or not?


I don't really know what the big deal is, except now we have confirmation that the Republicans met on the day of President Obama's inauguration and decided to vote against on everything that he proposed.

Because the problem with this statement is that on the day Obama was inaugurated, the democrats controlled Congress. So how could the republicans be at fault for the disastrous first two years of Obama's presidency?

I'll ask any Obama fan on this page, this question again:

Why did all of Obama's policies fail in the first two years of his presidency when the democrats controlled Congress?

Two words, Roryann. (now pay close attention) Supermajority, and filibuster.

8 words: How do I stop getting emails about this post?

Some things you have to figure out for yourself.

David, did you read this from the post above or not?

So readers are supposed to guess what you're talking about? That's interesting. The general rule of thumb is that a discussion requires both parties to actually state the point being made. Attacking people for not guessing your point when you haven't presented it is, well, crazy.

David, did you read this from the post above or not?

Yes. And?

You seem to have quite a bit of trouble keeping track of your thoughts.

Because the problem with this statement is that on the day Obama was inaugurated, the democrats controlled Congress.

Why does that represent a "problem with this statement?" There is no contradiction whatsoever.

Fact: The Republican party met before President Obama even got into office and decided that they (the Republican party) would vote against every proposal that was supported by the President.

Fact: That is called obstructionism. It's also dishonest. And in violation to the oaths each of the Republican members of the House and Senate took when they were sworn in at the start of their session.

Forward.

I dare you to watch the entire video.

This is what has been accomplished.

Despite Republican obstruction. Despite the fake-tea party holding 99% of Americans hostage solely to give even more tax breaks to the super-rich 1% and the super-profitabable corporations. Despite the tea party acting to increase the debt. Despite the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block even the most simple bills. Despite the decision by the Republican party before Obama was even in office to vote against everything that would help the country dig its way out of the massive hole the last administration left us in - even to the point of voting against the ideas that Republicans themselves offered and supported.

The achievements of the Obama administration have been extraordinary given where we started from and the Republican decision to throw away economic recovery for partisan expediency.

So don't lecture us with your uninformed blather and incomprehensibly confused commenting practices. You embarrass yourself and you dishonor our country.

Goodbye

How embarassed are you that you lack comprehension of this statement in the original post?

we have confirmation that the Republicans met on the day of President Obama's inauguration

Were the Republicans in power, in Congress, on the day Obama was inaugurated? Or was it the democrats? Why couldn't Obama pass anything that actually helped the out-of-control spending, the rising costs of food and gas, the mounting unemployment, or the massive debt?

Still, no answer.

Still, no answer.

Liar.

Both William and I have addressed the question already. Do you need it written in another language? Do we need to go back to Schoolhouse Rock and explain the legislative process to you? Can you find a five-year old to explain it?

Let's try this again.

Were the Republicans in power, in Congress, on the day Obama was inaugurated?

No. The Democrats held both the House and the Senate. There were 41 Republicans and 55 Democrats in the Senate on inauguration day. There were also 2 Independents. By July 7th the number of Democrats had increased to 58.

Why couldn't Obama pass anything that actually helped the out-of-control spending, the rising costs of food and gas, the mounting unemployment, or the massive debt?

He did. He also passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which saved millions of jobs, maintained our credit standing, and brought the US back from the brink of a second Great Depression. [Remember that the massive recession that put us in this hole started in 2007 and completely tanked the economy in the summer of 2008, obviously well before Obama was even elected to office, never mind long before any of his policies could be put in place.]

If you had watched the video you would have known that. But of course you chose not to.

So to recap. You've repeatedly hopped from one conversation in your head to another, lied about not having the question you apparently asked others being addressed, and frankly, showed an intellectual dishonesty that highlights the very topic of this post.

Oooh...namecalling now.

You got nothin' David. Once the namecalling starts; debate's over. I won.

He neither saved nor created any jobs.

All you know is the Blame Bush/Blame Republicans game. The good news for the country is that Bush isn't trying to get re-elected, Obama is.

You just repeated soundbytes of Obama's campaign ads. "Brought us back from the brink"

Come on, you can do better than that.

If I'm a liar, according to you, you're a zombie for Obama and don't really know what a dismal failure this president is.

And since your train of thought was clearly derailed again, let's go back a few comments to this question:

Why did all of Obama's policies fail in the first two years of his presidency when the democrats controlled Congress?

The shear number of fallacies in that question are astounding.

To begin with, Obama's policies didn't fail during the first two years. In fact, and as already noted, the amount of accomplishments during his first two years were simply extraordinary. Especially given the decision by the Republican party before Obama even took office to stand in the way of recovery purely for political expediency. So despite the fact that the Republican party put their party and politics ahead of the American people, Obama saved the economy, created millions of jobs, passed a health care law to deal with spiraling costs that were bankrupting many Americans, and put us on the road forward.

Which you would know if you had watched the video.

But let's go a step further. Despite your bobble-heading from one non-question to another (seriously, Al Gore and Neptune's bones??), your basic question seems to revolve around your apparent profound ignorance of how the Republicans have abused the filibuster process (to which William already noted).

To be so ignorant of legislative processes and their current abuse, and yet so arrogant in your discombobulated attacks on those knowledgeable about basic civics, is simply astonishing.

In a nutshell, the Republican party decided before Obama took office (did you read the article above?) that they would stand in the way of any effort he made to help the country recover from the economic devastation that occurred before he was even elected. Their main ploy was to use the filibuster so as to force the need for a supermajority for every single bill to be passed through the Senate. They didn't just do this on the voting for the actual bills, but for each of the several procedural steps needed to get even to the point of having to vote on the bill. That meant that 41 Republican Senators could hold the entire country hostage. And they did it time after time after time.

During the first 2 years there were times when the Democrats held the supermajority (i.e., 60 votes), but this was not true for much of that period as various delays in certifying elections and special elections made the supermajority a transient occurrence. So the vast minority was able to stop action even when the vast majority was in favor of action.

And unlike the automaton Republican voting block that acted entirely for the benefit of the party itself, the Democratic party members actually represented their constituents as they had taken an oath to do.

Do you get it yet? Do we need to find someone to read this stuff to you?

And since you never read this either, feel free to read it now. You can see my comments to your last display of willful ignorance in my comments above if you want to be honest about the authors of the piece instead of merely flapping off a Pavlovian drool response.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

Enough

You got nothin' David. Once the namecalling starts; debate's over. I won.

You lied. That makes you a liar. People can read the comments, you know.

He neither saved nor created any jobs.

False. He saved and created millions of jobs.

All you know is the Blame Bush/Blame Republicans game. The good news for the country is that Bush isn't trying to get re-elected, Obama is.

The recession started in 2007. That is fact. The near destruction of our economy happened in the summer of 2008. That is fact. The Republicans agreed en masse to vote against anything the Obama administration tried to do to help the US recover from those economic calamities that happened before he was elected. That is fact.

You, on the other hand, are blaming Obama for things that happened before he was even elected?

You just repeated soundbytes of Obama's campaign ads. "Brought us back from the brink"

It's a common phrase used for probably a hundred years. Oh, and it is fact.

Come on, you can do better than that.

Unlike you I still to actual facts. You make stuff up.

If I'm a liar, according to you,

You're a liar because you lied. Repeatedly. Facts aren't subjective. You seem to have a problem with that concept.

you're a zombie for Obama and don't really know what a dismal failure this president is.

Facts in both cases demonstrate that you are wrong. The economy has been recovering almost from the day his policies started going into effect. Millions of jobs have been saved and created. He got through major legislation to deal with problems that had been dragging the majority of the American people down for decades - health care, unequal pay for women, predatory banking, etc. He's gotten us out of wars, gotten bin Laden, and gotten us back in the forefront of the world.

All while the Republican party has been working against him, and against the country.

Fact.

Perhaps next time you accuse someone of being a zombie you should look at your Gather avatar photo. Now look at the avatar photos of the people you most admire on this venue.

Good luck with that.

"David, the WashedUp Post? "

The "Post" has the largest number of conservative columnists of any major newspaper I can think of. Let's see what I can remember off the top of my head: George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, Jennifer Rubin,... Seems to me there are others too. Rubin appears daily and the others appear at least once a week and generally more.

From day one...

William,

Remember Senate Minority Leader McConnell's Public Announcement, after the 2010 Mid-Terms?

Absolutely outrageous. Fully and completely.

Was the first thing out of his mouth, something like the notion that he would move forward to support Republican Domestic and Foreign Policy and seek bipartisanship on important disagreements?

Nooooooooooo, of........course........not!

The first--VERY FIRST--thing out of his mouth was,

(and I paraphrase), `We will now be fully committed to defeating the President in 2012'

WHAT KIND OF PUBLIC SERVANT--WHO HOLDS A MAJOR POSITION IN THE CONGRESS--WOULD MAKE THIS TO BE HIS FIRST PUBLIC STATEMENT, AFTER AN ELECTION?

WHAT KIND?

Boehner is Speaker of the House. It used to be a position from which one would not shout "hell no" and whine about "Obama slush funds."

sad.

"Wake up! Neither party is working for you."

oversimplification. Both parties have their problems. Dealing with the deficit is the looming agony. But how to do it when the Republican Party insists that any taxation must remain revenue neutral? How to do it when the Republican party pretends that the rich are not rich enough? How to do it when the Republican Party shouts praises to the Ryan Budget, then runs away from it as if it were the plague when the need to prevent a student loan collapse becomes obvious?

ridiculous.

How did Obama NOT do it, when for the first two years of his failed presidency, the democrats controlled Congress?

Does the left have memory loss, or do they just want to skip over 2009 and 2010, before the democrats took a beating in the elections of November 2010.

If the mess the country is in, is all the republicans fault, whose fault was it when the democrats were in total control for two years?

You literally don't know what you're talking about.

The Democrats had to water down the stimulus package to get it passed in Congress--regardless of the number of seats held. A larger stimulus package might have increased more growth, than has been realized with the current sluggish recovery.

What's more, many career economists claim that economic trends--especially ones that are disastrous--such as result of the Economic Meltdown of 2007--takes years from which a country can recover.

Your comments are strictly, and purely, political bias.

Brett, either they are in denial or they've conveniently forgotten what caused the near economic meltdown. Here it is in a nutshell.

Republican deregulation of the banking industry.

Bush era tax cuts.

Bush immediately turning the Clinton surplus into a deficit.

That's what happened in a nutshell.

Word.

Forward.

William, What I want to know is why you threw in Gingrich? When he was speaker there was a balanced budget, and true bi-partisanship. Great compromise, and the good of the people, and the economy came first. Don't you remember the saying, "It's the economy, stupid."? He was elected on it, and with Newt pushing stuff through they set up about 10 more years like they did under Reagan, when they set up the longest expansion in history. of course, as soon as Newt left, they started spending again. It took a while, but they finally collapsed the economy again. I personally think it was NAFTA and the trading policies that did it. All the little turncoats passed tax policy that encouraged the offshoring of jobs, but Newt was not a main part of it. What he left was sound. We should have let him fix it now, but oh well. Anyway, he's out, so leave him alone, would ya? Especially lying about him!

BTW! I meant Clinton was elected on it. He was bipartisan, Obama NEVER was. He had that majority, and it was his way or the highway.

despite Gingrich, Clinton had a legislative partner in the Republican House. Obama never did.

Read "Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem." Gingrich is the epitome of the problem.

"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

works for me.

That is as ludicrous as saying the blue dogs are enamored with the far left that seems to have taken over their party. They are breaking from the ranks, as it has gone too far, even for them. This polarization is a symptom of having poor leadership, and the intentional polarization of the American people to a position of intolerance from the top.

Here is the quote from the disgraced former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, "You will remember this day. You'll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."

Clearly Newt thought that if the Republicans could keep the American economy from making any progress by opposing any legislation proposed by President Obama and the Democrats, the chances for political gains by the GOP would be greatly improved, regardless of what it might do to the nation. Given the conditions in which our country found itself on the day President Obama took the oath of office, Gingrich and company seem to define the term "anti-American."

That's why Gingrich was included. He included himself. He was there.

"Given the conditions in which our country found itself on the day President Obama took the oath of office, Gingrich and company seem to define the term "anti-American."

Yes, he and all the others hoping for a great depression ought to be tried for treason. The length Republicans will go to weasel themselves into the White House flabbergast me.

Forward.

I dare you to watch the entire video.

From NPR just this morning.

Whatever you may make of the quote, it would have been impossible to stand against the will of the people, as Democrats did on Obamacare, without a majority. Most of the people realize there is no budget because the will for all the spending is not there for all the people, so they will just do it without a budget. They repeatedly overspend, then back republicans against the wall about raising the debt limit. It is hard for one House to stand against wrong legislation, but I see the actions as putting brakes on bad legislation, regardless of the political wins and losses.

We know how you see it. I still say it constitutes working against the interests of your own country for political gain at a time when your country needs people willing govern. That sure sounds anti-American to me.

Look at the Ryan budget (which Mitt Romney calls "Marvelous") and look at the implementation of similar counterparts in countries like England and Spain. What austerity in a time of deep recession did to those countries would also happen here. There is a time for reducing spending, but this isn't it. Nor is it the time to trash the safety net that left our seniors in relatively good shape during this serious downturn. A blind and deaf pig could understand this. Why can't Republicans?

I agree with Mathew. In the list of things done or accomplished by Obama, you should include his signing the NDAA.