"We Rescued the Economy" and other silly sayings at the Obama Health Care Press Conference

[mpoole424]

Impeach Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama

End the Fed

Investigate 9/11

Protect the Constitution/ Bill Of Rights

End Obama care

Cut taxes

And we can save America!!!

[howdythere34]

You fuck up...you didn't rescue shit dumbama....this stuff isn't over idiot...where is your head...obviously up your ass.......pull it out and take a look around.......

[jiggakilla666]

I know Obamas approval rating is getting lower but the dems dont have to make fake accounts and spread total lies about how Obama helped people. Its sad.I hope anyone with a brain can see this.

[jxford]

we are so excited that the economy is on a rebound I just got my Job back at my old Financial firm. We were let go on October of 08 and it was a struggle. Our company recently started receiving earnings and stimulus as tax break rolled from the Obama Plan. I didn't vote for him last time but He has my and the rest of my firms vote next Election cycle in 2012. Obama Thank you for Being a Working Mans President.

[jiggakilla666]

Dont lie shitball.

[NiteSkyLookr]

We Rescued the Economy...this would be like a swimmer drowing and the Lifeguard threw him a concrete block.

Rescued.....but he blames Bush for the state it's in.....Twilight Zone time

[micsc50]

6 months ago he took office during a bad economy so whats he do he makes it worse He got his stimulus package passed that did absolutely nothing except costing the tax payers millions. Its time to impeach this lying idiot before he and his administration of GYPSY'S TRAMPS AND THIEVES destroy America.

[curtishawkley]

this may go down in history as the biggest load of crap ever to leave a human  beings mouth.

[zzx2847]

0:56 "The recovery act will continue to create more jobs over the next TWO YEARS"?

Really? I thought it was supposed to work right away. Remember they needed to cram it through without reading it? It was an "emergency".

[mejdrich]

Do you know ANYTHING about economics?

When economies grind to a halt, it takes a primer to get it going again. This is why, after the Great Depression, we don't have any classical economists. Pure free-markets are dead, and they aren't coming back.

[ITown35]

Yes, you're right... we don't have a free market and this is exactly why we have the mess we have today... see how easy that was?? FDR's (Democrat) socialist plans that were enacted during the Depression, (which did absolutely nothing to get us out of the depression, it only extended it) are still around today which has lead us to the nanny state with a citizenry that feels entitled to everything. Government is the answer to all of our problems, right??

[mejdrich]

Do you actually know what classical economics is, without looking it up on wiki?

Here's a little perspective. We have the most free-market economy in post-industrial countries on the planet. All of Europe, Japan and Austrialia embrace socialistic systems (at least compared to ours), and yet their economies function ... somehow.

The financial meltdown didn't come out of regulated markets. They came out of ours. Blame goes to whom it is due.

As for the Great Depression, read a book.

[ITown35]

Obviously you don't have the guts to come out and say you're a Socialist but, you're definitely eluding to it. I started the whole debate saying that we no longer have a laissez faire "classical" economic system (Please "read" my comments). The only time we had anything close to what Adam Smith envisioned was in the early to mid 1800's... and guess what!... it worked well, except when government meddled, which created every depression we've ever had.

[mejdrich]

You seem really excited to elude that I'm a communist -- why don't you label yourself. Are you a libertarian or a Ayn Rand anarcho-capitalist?

[Silveracity]

Never met a real communist before, wow!

But there isnt anything wrong with an Ayn Rand, libertarian, capitalist is there?

[mejdrich]

if you want to join in, at least keep up with the conversation. ITown seems to think anyone who sees validity in Kensian economics (read- the majority of economists) are Socialist/Communists. I was calling him out on his partisanship / borderline bigotry.

[ITown35]

Borderline bigotry??? WTF are you talking about??? See everyone, this is the way liberals debate. Here comes the liberal catch phrases (racist, bigot, etc) You must be a fan of Barbara Boxer... fine example of liberal bigotry.

[mejdrich]

You're claiming that, unless I agree with your economic policy, I'm a socialist/communist/marxist, that I'm not aligned to the founding fathers, that I haven't heard of the constitution.

In other words, if I don't agree with you, I'm not a patriot. I've been hearing that from bigoted, self-righteous Republicans for years. It's called false patriotism.

[ITown35]

Actually I was eluding to the fact you're a Socialist, but maybe you are a communist, or sorry a "Marxist". I don't know, you tell me.

My political views are aligned with our founding fathers & the U.S. Constitution. Ever hear of them?

[mejdrich]

Of course I'm not a socialist or a communist or a capitalist, for that matter. I'm for whatever economic system works.

The founding fathers were farmers.

So do you consider yourself a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist?

[ITown35]

Oh, how convenient... you're "whatever works". Good way to dodge that one. So, you obviously believe socialism is the system that works based on what you've been spewing off.

Yes, we did have an agrarian society when the constitution was written but does that mean that it isn't a good form of governance? Absolutely not! What is your alternative? Despotism and socialism...

[mejdrich]

Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist?

And explain wtf depotism has do with socialism?

Btw, do you think the MILITARY would be better of free-market? Blackwater?

[HEALTHEWORLD2012]

Some people are obviously not listening. The republicans have been closed out of presenting solutions. Obama and Pelosi are in charge and creating a partisan approach. Count the number of times Obama uses "control" in his statements. Healthcare is a Trojan Horse to a bigger, more intrusive government.  may you get what you wish for.

[LenovoFightsPoverty]

DOW at 9.000 points

[mejdrich]

Right on, Willow. The Republican economic recovery strategy is to put all their political chips betting that we WON'T recover and then doing everything in their power to block any plan, no matter what it is.

The irony is that Republicans got us here through their own irresponsibility -- massive spending, tax cuts, and killing regulations.

[ITown35]

All of you party-line towing sheeple need to understand that this whole problem is the fault of both parties and it's so much deeper than what has happened in the recent past. This all started long ago, first with the creation of the Federal Reserve which has slowly diminished the value of the dollar, and then the switch to a keynesian economic system instead of what the founding fathers intended as a laissez faire, free market system. If you're a Socialist then you'd like what's happening now.

[mejdrich]

Both parties? You should check out federal deficits in the last 20 years. All of the out-of-control spending happened under Republicans. I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but at least he knew how to manage an economy.

The fact that Keynesian economics pulled us out of the Great Depression and deregulation has put us in this one is as well accepted by economists as global warming and evolution is by scientists. If you want to be a fringe wacko, that's your own prerogative.

[ITown35]

You proved my point. Both parties are at fault. The Dems have been in control of congress for the past 3 years and now the entire government is controlled by ONE party. Do you see spending coming under control? No, they're spending more money. And the fact you think Keynesian economics pulled us out of the depression is absurd. it was WWII. Every depression was caused by Government interference in our economic system. If you're a socialist then you'll definitely like the way we're heading.

[mejdrich]

Are you having trouble understanding my post? Where did I say both parties were at fault?

Maybe you have a short memory. The Republicans have had a monopoly on power for a LONG time, more so because their supporters are radical and willing to follow them like sheep (just so long as they hate gays and abortion).

Again, if you think WWII, Keynesian economics, pulled us out of the Great Depression, then you are a fridge radical, like creationists and global warming / holocaust deniers.

[ITown35]

Am I a "Fridge" radical??? The whole fact you're blaming all of "this" on ONE party tells me that you're a sheepish party follower that spews off party talking points without seriously thinking about what you're saying. I'm not a fucking Republican you dip shit. I hate them just as much as Democrats because neither party actually does what they say they're going to do, yet people, like you, will follow along like a loyal dog. Come on, don't be ashamed... just admit you're a socialist...

[mejdrich]

If you want to disagree with the consensus among economists, that's your own purgative.

This isn't my opinion, it's a matter of the historical record. Is our failure in Iraq 1/2 Dem and 1/2 Rep when the people who had 95% of the power going in were Republican? Of course not. Same with the economy.

If you want to give the democrats blame, that actually makes you the ideologue, sir. I don't hate Republicans and I'm not spewing talking points. I'm spewing reality.

[ITown35]

Just admit you're a socialist and move on. It's your purgative to spew off talking points as much as you want, which is exactly what you're doing. Also, I love your revisionist history lesson. Please indulge with some more of your B.S.

[mejdrich]

So in your view, Democrats are responsible for our failure in Iraq? Even though a Republican was Commander-in-Chief? I'd love to hear your argument.

See my other comment for your socialist charge.

[ITown35]

I blame both Reps and Dems for our economic failures as well as our military failures. That's my whole point!! Again, the whole problem with this country is that sheeple, like yourself, try to turn every debate into a partisan one and start spouting off stupid talking points, instead of debating the real issues.

[mejdrich]

I hear you, and yet you are ignoring the facts that I'm bringing up. You honestly think that Dems are equally responsible as Repubs, even though the Repubs were IN POWER?

As for partisanship, this is coming from a guy who uses socialist as a pejorative. Doesn't that just make you a free-market partisan?

[Silveracity]

I believe everyone, who voted for the bailouts are responsible, and thats the democrats and the republicans.

I believe every democrat and the republican who voted for the bailouts is responsible. The voters are responsible for not voting them out of power when they had a chance.

We are still on the brink and falling.

A plan that saves or create jobs means nothing, because you cant prove its working.

[mejdrich]

bailouts didn't get us into this economic mess.

The concensus is that wallstreet is starting to recover. Jobs are the last things that will stabilize, unfortunately.

[Silveracity]

I dont believe that we have a consensus.

While I do believe that job growth may be lagging indicator if we DID have a recovery.

My belief is that the rate of economic decline has slowed, but the economy is still moving downward into something neither you or I has seen before.

Meanwhile, yesterday, July 24 on bank failure Friday seven more banks failed.

[mejdrich]

We don't have a concensus among politicians and pundits. The economists seem to all have fallen in line, at least in the broad view of stimulating the economy with bailouts.

[ITown35]

Oh, the consensus... you love to state that the "consensus" says this.... What are you even talking about. Get your head out of the sand and stop feeding such lines of bullshit. The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, said Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s. But under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

[ITown35]

yes, Socialism is bad in my view... any form of government that requires Despotism to function and limited freedom to the citizenry is bad and "evil" in my book.

As for the partisan bickering, I have no idea what you're referring to at this point. Let me check my partisan political handbook to see what the current "talking points" are. I believe the "Dems" are in complete control right now... and, WOW, they're doing a "fantastic" job!!??

[mejdrich]

If you think socialism requires depotism, then you need to learn something about economics. Do you think the post office is despotic? How about public roads?

If you want to have an adult conversation about politics or economics, I'm down.

But at the moment, you are simply running through your own talking points, from the "ultra-libertarian/republican" point of view. In my view, at this moment those positions are more dangerous to this country than terrorists.

[ITown35]

Do you know what Despotism means?? Of course the post office and public roads are socialist. They would function much better at much less cost to the public if they were privately managed like rail roads or UPS/ FEDEX.

Why are you so scared of freedom? Why do you welcome Big Brother?

[mejdrich]

"Why are you scared of freedom?" <-- bigotry

Look, compared to a dogmatic free-market fundamentalist, sure, call me a socialist if it makes you happy. I -only- care about what is going to work. If that's 100% laissez-faire, great. Problem is that it didn't work. Again, ALL of europe is more socialist than we, and the crash came from us, not them. Acknowledge that, at least.

[ITown35]

It didn't work, because people... like yourself, believe that the government needs to meddle in every affair of daily life. Why do you feel that government is the answer to almost any problem we have?

And that's not bigotry... it's a simple question, which apparently you have no answer for.

[ITown35]

Socialism needs a form of despotism to run... that's a fact. Christ, despotism is basically what we have now! Defending the nation with a military is one right that is given to the Federal Government to protect the citizenry not for imperialism and nation building.

[ITown35]

If you're a socialist or believe that's the form of government that "Works" then yes, I don't believe your views and consider you an enemy of the state for the simple fact that I don't want despotism and tyranny I want freedom and individualism which is completely in line with the Founders and the Constitution.

[mejdrich]

"enemy of the state" Are you f**ing insane?

Carrot top =/= good camedian

Adam Smith =/= Patriotic

Standing Army = Socialism

If you think socialism requires depotism, then you either don't understand economics or government systems. It's called DEMOCRATIC Socialist governments. I'm not a socialist, but they're all over Europe, and they're doing fine. They are happier than Americans. They live longer.

Seriously, dude, "enemy of the state"? You're a f***ing wingnut.

[ITown35]

Oh... "Democratic Socialism"... sounds so "nice". Ok, so the majority needs to vote to "share" their possessions with the minority, right? After all, Democracy = MAJORITY RULES. That's why we have a REPUBLIC, because our founders new that true democracy can be a very dangerous form of government.

"You're not a Socialist" but you sure do love to argue in favor of it...

Haha, you're right, you're a Statist, so you're an enemy of the people.

[mejdrich]

.... you got to be brain dead. You just argued against Democracy and then accused ME of being an enemy of the people.

Well, it's either stupidity or hypocrisy. Whatever.

[ITown35]

Haha... So, apparently you don't know that the U.S. is a Republic and not a Democracy. Do you know what true democracy is? It's the direct Majority Rule by the people, which has no protection for the minority. That's why the founders chose a REPUBLIC to protect the minority. LEARN YOUR HISTORY FUCK NUT.

[mejdrich]

No, they chose a Republic to protect state's rights, not minorities.

[ITown35]

OMG, this is laughable... research what Republicanism is and get back to.. MORON. And I'm not talking about Minorities as in "race" I'm talking about the minority in a voting situation... Please try to keep up with the discussion.

[mejdrich]

I didn't say "race," I said "minorities," which includes voting blocks.

Like I said, a Republic doesn't protect minorities, it protects states. In a country of 300 million, individuals are roughly equally powerless in a Republic versus a Democracy.

Never the less, our country was founded on both Republic and Democratic ideals.

[ITown35]

It most certainly does protect the minority! Unless you're changing the definition of a Republic. The State's were protected by limiting the powers of the Federal Government.

[mejdrich]

Yes, by giving it straight to the States.

Sure, it more or less keeps states from taking advantage of each other through the Federal Government, but that's it.

The only way to use our Republic to protect your rights, as a minority, is to do something like the Mormons in Utah and take over an entire state. If you only have 49% of the population of that state, you're no better off.

[mejdrich]

And, since you don't seem to have taken high school economics or government, socialism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Despotism is a GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

It's even the wrong system. Socialism is a system of whole societies of people working together. Despotism is one person controlling the rest.

You mean to say dictatorship, but that's more damning to you than me. If you believe socialism requires dictatorship, then the contrary must be true: capitalism requires anarchy.

How patriotic.

[ITown35]

No Moron, I don't "mean to say dictatorship", I mean DESPOTISM, which can be a group of people tyrannically ruling over the citizenry, example; the FRENCH REVOLUTION and the Committee for Public Safety.

Read your history, Socialism and Communism were tried multiple times in the U.S. in the 1800's... why did they fail??

[mejdrich]

Okay, I'm going to assume you've never taken a history/economics/government class and just educate you.

Socialism isn't about big/powerful government, it's about redistributing wealth equally among a nation's people. Despotism tends to gather power and wealth into few hands. Not socialist.

Incidentally, do you even know what anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism is? You seem to have the idea I'm a Democratic ideologue. YOU are coming across like a Ron Paul wingnut.

[ITown35]

Again, LEARN YOUR HISTORY. You obviously have absolutely no clue that both Socialism and Communism were tried on small scales within the U.S. in the 1800's. Why didn't they work????

You're the one arguing for Socialism and Communism. I'm the one arguing for the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and Capitalism and you call me the wing nut??? hahaha.. what a fucking retard!

[mejdrich]

Seriously, are you 13?

Like I said before, the founding fathers were farmers.

And, historically speaking, this country didn't have the sort of rabid, idiotic fixation on capitalism until the cold war, when god, country, and capitalism become synonyms in the minds of idiots like yourself.

Seriously, dude, you're not saying anything new, you're just trying to say it louder. Get a job.

[ITown35]

As if your ideas are new??? Are you kidding me? You still have no answer about the end result of the experiments with Socialism and Communism in the U.S. Read history, Robert Owen, A FOUNDER OF SOCIALISM, created a socialist society in the early 1800's in New Harmony, IN which completely FAILED!!!! You fucking liberals all think you have some brand new idea but what you fail to realize is that.. IT"S ALREADY BEEN TRIED BEFORE.

[mejdrich]

Look, you aren't even honest (or knowledgable) enough to answer my thrice-asked question about libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Answer that and maybe I'll look at Robert Owen.

[ITown35]

OK, so you have know clue about the history of Socialism and where it has been tried and experimented with, yet you're so adamant that it works. It's not just Robert Owen's experiments, A FOUNDER OF SOCIALISM, but there were multiple experiments with Communism and Socialism in the 1800's within the U.S. You can do your own research and please do, you may learn something. I haven't reanswered your "thrice-asked question" because I've already told you where my political leanings are. READ.

[mejdrich]

Reread my last comment, specifically where I say "Answer [whether you are a libertarian or a anarcho-capitalist] and maybe I'll look at Robert Owen."

Honestly, you come across like a free-market fundamentalist. Maybe you're not. I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself.

[ITown35]

I don;t care if you "look at Robert Owen" or not. It just show your own ignorance.

[ITown35]

SO, you're a left wing socialist. You degrade the Founders as "Just a bunch of farmers" and don't give them the philosophical credit they deserve. You think the Constitution has no place in today's society and you preach that Socialism is the way to go. Who the fuck is the left wing nut here??

[mejdrich]

Take out all of your loud, jingoist ad-hominems and your arguments are hollow.

I said "the founding fathers were farmers," not "Just a bunch of farmers." It shouldn't be surprising that their understanding of economics, whether capitalistic or socialistic, wouldn't hold water in a post-industrial consumerist society.

If you want me to take you seriously, calm the f*** down and talk like a rational person.

[ITown35]

Your ignorance of history is really frustrating, but I guess that's the norm in today's society. Just because we have a technological society doesn't me that we don't face the same dangers of government that they did. They lived in tyranny and knew what causes it. Everything you're preaching now will most definitely lead to tyranny.

[mejdrich]

Again, you are conflating economics with government. Socialism and Capitalism don't require any specific form of government.

[ITown35]

Again, another laughable unintelligent response. It was precisely that time when Keynesian economics and socialist programs took hold in this country. You're right, laissez faire capitalism was a much better economic system in the 1800's.

[mejdrich]

If you're having trouble understanding my posts, just ask and I'll illuminate you.

Wrong on the time-scale. Keynesian took off during the Great Depression, not colonial America.

Make points, not ad hominems. It makes you look like you're either 13 or you don't have any arguments to rest on.

You misquote me again. Here: you quote where I say that liassez faire capitalism was a much better economic system in the 1800's, like you claim, and I'll concede the whole argument.

[ITown35]

Hahaha.. where the fuck did I say that Keynesian Economics took off in Colonial America??? Who's the one having a hard time following along?

[dtaijo174]

Your an idiot...

[mejdrich]

I think you mean, "You'RE an idiot..."

I'll let the irony speak for itself.

[dtaijo174]

yeah you'RE right. i messed that up :)

how bout this...

yeranidiot. Better?

[mejdrich]

If you aren't going to bother to try saying something intelligent, why bother? I mean, at this point I could call you a moronic troll. Would you find that persuasive?

[sogairborne]

Actually the budget was balanced after a conserative congress was elected, under Clinton. Then Bush 43 was elected and things turned more moderate .Also looking back "experts" claim the great depression was extended 7 years with all the government spending.The community reinvestment act, lead to bank failure.

[mejdrich]

Uh, no... google "us deficit history"

Clinton came into office with over a 300 billion dollar deficit -- about 6% of GDP. Immediately, and under a Democratic congress, the deficit began shrinking (virtually linearly) so that it was an over $200 surplus.

This evaporated once Bush came into office.

Say what you will, Clinton has been our most fiscally responsible president of at least the last 30 years. He produced the greatest surplus in over 50.

[ITown35]

More Democratic talking Points!!! Do you work for the DNC?

[mejdrich]

Are you stupid? GOOGLE IT.  Look it up. It's not a talking point, it's f*ing REALITY.

"US Deficit History" -- do an image search. What do you find?

What do you find?

[ITown35]

I know your feeble little mind can't grasp what I'm talking about. It's hard to break through the constant brainwashing from the party talking points and think broader than recent history to see what the true cause of the major problems we have today. It's ok, you're a useful idiot for the people in power.

[mejdrich]

lol -- believe what you want, but all you're doing is dodging the point.

Do an image search on Google for "US deficit history" and pick the prettiest picture. Tell me what you find.

If you can't do this, all you're showing is that you're all talk and no brain.

[ITown35]

OK, you can't grasp the fact that the current crises we have today have stemmed from the long, slow diversion away from what our Founders intended. What does the little graph that you "Googled" show? That a Dem was "The President" and the Congress was in Republican control during a peak in false economic prosperity? After all, the events that lead to our current downfall were already put in motion long before the time frame your little graph illustrates.

[mejdrich]

Well, I hear your personal dogma, but that doesn't make it true.

The graph shows that Clinton (before he had Republican majorities) had adjusted government spending to fiscal responsibility. It has little to do with the current crisis, but it does debunk the idea that fiscal conservative is a Republican thing. It may have been fifty years ago. Not anymore.

You didn't even look, did you?

[ITown35]

Your head is so far up the DNC's ass you're spitting donkey shit.

[mejdrich]

Oh please.

You can call me names until you are blue in the face. You still aren't dealing with the fact that Bill Clinton's administration (without the help of Republicans) balanced the budget.

I'm not even saying that has anything to do with Obama's policies. But it DOES show that there is a difference between parties and between Presidents, which you seem to ignore in a temper-tantrum against all government.

I happen to like American. I think supporting my government is patriotic.

[ITown35]

That's just it, you don't support your government. You blindly support your political party, which is as unpatriotic as you can get.

[mejdrich]

See, that's the thing I don't get with you, ITown. Why do you think the Democrats are "my party"? You seem to have made that assumption somewhere.

And lets be fair. At this moment in history, Republicans are FAR more partisan than their Democratic counterparts. You don't see Democrats being expelled from the party for being too moderate.

[ITown35]

Ummm.. because you're clearly a liberal, Democrat that really "loves" socialism and thinks it would be a "neat" thing to try out for a while... because it's such a "new" idea.

[mejdrich]

*sigh* Quit making assumptions. I'm not. Socialism isn't "neat" and it's certainly not new.

What I have a problem with are those on the far Right that have politicized the recovery of our economy for their own gain. They vote on party lines and are screaming "socialism!" at the top of their lungs.  They're what are now being called, "free-market fundamentalists"

I like capitalism. History shows it doesn't solve ALL of our problems.

[ITown35]

You're not a liberal, you just play one on YouTube.

That's my point, Socialism isn't neat and isn't new but you certainly seem to think so. Stop talking in circles, I could point numerous times where you've said the completely opposite thing within a few comments.

I'm not far right, I'm up... above the fray.

I never said capitalism solves all of our problems, we will always have "problems" and more government should always be the last resort to solving our problems.

[mejdrich]

Debate my ideas, not the label you want to attach to me.

I don't think socialism is new. But it's just a fact of economics that de-regulating the banking industry led to the current crisis.

I could point to numerous times you've completely sidestepped very simple, straightforward points of mine. But this is what you get when you debate in YouTube comments.

I understand where the "capitalism is patriotic" mindset comes from. But I don't want privatized roads. I don't think it'd work.

[mejdrich]

Oh, and just one other little thing: between the two of us, who is willing to tell another fellow American that he is an enemy of the state for not agreeing with his economic opinions? Not very 1st-Amendment of you.

[ITown35]

I retracted that and said you're an enemy of the people.

[mejdrich]

right...

well, that hardly makes you any better. I find it's better to disagree with people's opinions without going out of your way to demonize them personally.  But hey, to each their own.

[ITown35]

I do completely disagree with you and I also believe your views are extremely dangerous to a free society, which makes you an enemy to free people. I'm not saying you should be imprisoned, because that would go against the first amendment.

[mejdrich]

When I see people point fingers and say those that disagree with them are aiding the terrorists / unpatriotic / dangerous to a free society, it makes it hard to take anything else they say seriously.

[rugger0606]

I was enjoying your debate with ITOWN until this statement about Clinton balancing the budget without the help of Repubs...That is hillarious! Clinton did exactly what Obama is trying to do in his first two years and was handed his Ass in the '94 elections and the Republicans took back control...It was then the Republicans led by Newt and the Contract for America that led to things such as Welfare Reform and Balanced Budgets. I don't disagree with everything you say but that was crazy.

[mejdrich]

I encourage you to check out the links I was trying to show ITown. Google "US Deficit History" and click on any of the images. It shows pretty clearly that the trend toward surplus was started almost immediately in '93, when Clinton took office.

You can also look up Greenspan (fiscally responsible deregulater) talking about working under Clinton on YouTube. His reviews of Clinton are glowing.

[WillowSpringsNSJ]

Doesn't sound very "silly" to me. What's silly is Republicans not contributing to any kind of solution for this horrible problem.