Lucky...

I think you mean the GDP.

Psssssssssssssssst, yes there was an annual surplus, 236B Clinton's last year in office per gov docs. Yes, there was still a debt, has been since 1840ish, but it appears you don;t understand the difference. DEFICIT: An annual measure of the government budget to collect more revenues versus spend more. DEBT: A grand tally of the total amount of money the government has gone into the red. Darius wrote: We had a RECORD surplus, an amazing economy, and all over America people were living better then they had before,We were also respected more in the world, We had not lost personal freedoms, We still believed that Everyone is entitled to due process. I can go on and on. All this is known as an IMPROVEMENT. Now we have a deficit, have lost all credibility in the world, It seems every day we are finding out that we were lied to, Started a false war (at least the reasons that were original given were not true), Our troops are getting killed every day, We have the blood of hundreds of thousands of inocent Iraqis on our hands, loss of personal freedoms,and the economy is in the toilet. I can go on and on again. He wrote that we now have a deficit when we did not at the end of teh Clinton era, that is a true statement even if you don't like it.

ME: See the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, slavery and the very taking of this country for more, long-term moral flubs, it's not just the last 6 years. Scooby: You sound guilt ridden. I wasn't around then, why I be guilty? Genius. __________________________________ ME: That's because the military indust complex doesn't want to win, winning means the ATM is closed. SCOOBY: What a ridiculous statement. Winning could also mean more money for advanced projects. You missed the point, a long, sustained war is more profitable for the military industrial complexers, so a quick win means they have to go make a new enemy to fight....a long war is better for business. _________________________________ ME: Yea, Taiwan works due to honor, has no one realized thay honor is bought and sold here? SCOOBY: Another ridiculous statement. Have you ever worked in the financial area? Nope, do you think honor is present in America, esp the fiscal sector?

ME: Socialist nations are kicking our asses in quality of life, healthcare, value of currency, etc..... AWL71: Are you serious? What socialist nation has a better quality of life than us? I lived in Sweden for two years. Very nice country but all socialism does is take from the rich and give to the poor. There is no reason or desire for people to succeed because they know the government will pay their rent if they can't. I don't know how you quantify quality of life and it is generally subjective anyway. So I see you have acquiesced on teh others; healthcare and value of currency. Those are part of quality of life, IMO. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Capitalism has not failed but the collapse of AIG and Lehman has shown the main weakness of capitalism which is Greed. Greed is what has driven AIG into the ground. If we pick our heads up and look at all fiscal indicators we see that the debt is 10T and class seperation is gross, so yes, our economic system has failed, we're now just waiting to hit the ground.

I have, I work with them. They decry our healthcare bigtime.

And what would you change at this moment? All the regulation in the world cannot stop management from making bad decisions and driving a company into the ground. I am just pissed they use tax dollars to save them before they go splat! They're not using tax dollars, they're writing rubber checks, just like with military operations and Iraq.

This isn't socialism, the gov is protecting people of wealth, so if it is socialism it is corp welfare, not the conventional, poor-based welfare that you want to coincide it with. Just as with the post-911 financing of the airlines with no requirment to maintain employees, this corporate gift is for the rich not for the poor, so try to keep your hate for the poor classified.

Really? Where has it failed, esp contemporarily? Socialist nations are kicking our asses in quality of life, healthcare, value of currency, etc..... There is a balance and this free-market concept has failed.

Yes, you: - Think Obama has been a US Senator for 2 years Whereas I: - Know he has been in the US senate for 4 years as of this January. You think: - Obama has no other experience than the US Senate I: - Know he was a state senator since 97. It is amazing..... I actually research stuff and you watch cartoons for your information.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. That's hilarious! Good grief...okay, I'll explain it this way: The amount of scrutiny being applied now to Gov. Palin would crush Sen. Obama. She's been in elected office five years longer than the Senator, yet everyone is claiming "we don't know about her". It's not like she's not been in the public eye. What I am seeing from this is that her selection caught the democrats completely off guard. We know all about Senators McCain and Biden. Politicos know about Gov. Palin. What's been discovered about Sen. Obama, and gets no coverage is disturbing. The Chicago political machine, Ayers, contributions received from Freddie/Fannie (he's number two on the list for all time, he's only been in the US Senate for two years)...all the things that people wish we could change away from! I'm not part of that whole smear crowd about his religion, skin color, et al...this person is a tax-spend socialist. He's been building his campaign on "anti-love" of country. He claims this country isn't as good as it once was. When was it better? He got rich these past eight years. When else might he have accomplished this? Why is someone's incessant whining about what's wrong so appealing to people? Are people feeling that sorry for themselves? Again, why compare a pres candidate to a VP candidate is ridiculous, unless you're admitting that McSame is on death's edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(he's number two on the list for all time, he's only been in the US Senate for two years)... What? He was elected in the 2004 cycle so he will have 4 years as a US senator this January. Also, He has been an Illinois senator since 97, so your no experience argument is weak....wait, void. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He's been building his campaign on "anti-love" of country. He claims this country isn't as good as it once was. When was it better? Point out statements in context of anti-US. This country isn't as good as it once was, can you argue that? It was better: - The 2nd term of the Clinton admin - During the Eisenhower years - WWII and subsequent >>>>>>>>>>>>>He got rich these past eight years. When else might he have accomplished this? See the 3 above. Also, the dollar has lost HUGE ground since King George, so we've all become poorer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Why is someone's incessant whining about what's wrong so appealing to people? Are people feeling that sorry for themselves? When 1 of 6 people have no health coverage and at least 1/2 of all others have greatly deficient health coverage that is worthy of whining. The majority of the people in the US aren't happy with things, so if you're not, "whining" then you're the exception. BTW, do you have a clue as to what you speak? You thought Obama was elected last mid-term rather than last general presidential election. As well, you were unaware that Obama had been in the State senate since 97. Perhaps do some reading on little facts and events and turn off FOX and Newsmax a little morre.

Guess what, no one knows anything about Sen. Obama either. Two books, and 140 days in the Senate....no laws written, a congressional district that has more casualties than US forces in Iraq...yet everyone is overlooking this guy because he can read a teleprompter. The press, and people for that matter have not given Sen. Obama the vetting in two years that Gov. Palin has received in two weeks. Here's a list of his accomplishments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Compare that to hers......why do we compare a pres candidate to that of a vp candidate?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And what proof has Obama ever given that he won't be a total disaster? Since proof is actually a utupian word, we'll use, "evidence." Obama has evidenced he has had success with all of his ventures with inter-city areas and housing and as a senator. He didn't vote for the war and that has become a successful position. OTOH, GWB evidenced he was a disaster from years ago and that didn't stop you from voting for him. He's upheld that value as a disater, so what does didater or not have to do with anything as far as you're concerned?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton wasn't ready. He did a fne job as POTUS. Bush, Sr. was "ready" and he lasted one term. I don't see how Clinton wasn't ready. He was a Governor for quite a while wasn't he? Bush 1 was a good president, would have been a great pres had he not coattailed fascist Ronnie, spent his entire term cleaning up for Reagan's mess and had to raise taxes to bailout, his fatal blow. As for ready, I agree that that term is usuallu used as areplacement for other substance. But let's be real, the Dems got sucked into that term via the R's claiming Obama wasn't ready, something they need to stop using. The Dems should focus more on Palin being so far out there that she isn't like most American humans, that would be a fair assessment independant of Obama.

Anyone who likes Palin as VP is either a zealot or dumb? How do you come to that conclusion? Anything objective, as lawrocket said? The gallup polls have been back and forth across even for weeks. Do you honestly believe half the country is completely out to lunch? What makes her less ready than Obama? I think the rediness isssue is not worthwhile on either candidate. I think the important issue is that of whether that candidate's positions reflect that of most Americans. Obama's do, Palin's do not.

I think she's not ready due to her position on issues being so far away from that of most Americans. So perhaps the option would be that she would never be ready.

Desperate times desperate measures. If McSame picked a predictable VP, he wouls have stayed predictably behind teh race and would have lost, as predicted. I don't blame him for picking someone as repulsive as her, he had to do something radical, but as most radical measures, his won't work in the longrun either. If he could have picked her in the last week before the election it would have been better for him. The best thing he could now do is shuttle her away somewhere and keep her from the media.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry you went through hard times. I dont jump to the 'blame yourself' group, but I also don't blame the President that you were unemployed. Tough times happen. Is it to the President's credit you eventually found a better job? Of course not. You did whatever you could to survive until better came along. Policy changes are the doing of the president. When these changes directly affect society, they are the fault / doing of the president. For example, the Ergonomics Bill that Clinton/OSAH originated and Bush killed was the doing of the respective parties. If a person is unable to get care for their injuries that would fall under these categories, it is directly the fault of Bush. Other things are indirect in regard to the president.

I agree that SOME regulation is needed. I tend to favor "less." Regulations I favor ensure honesty by the companies. I.e., "we are taking a big risk here. It might not work. The possible payoffs are huge, and so are the possible risks." Only with honesty can come truly accurate investment and risk calculation. History has shown us that we are so crooked, at least a portion of us, that thigs go awry when we deregulate. I'm not sure what risks we are taking with pro-regulation, esp at this point. anti-regulation has gotten us to where we are, so the argument against regulation is one the corps make and is pretty much moot at this point.

Let's see. In my 35 yrs. of working in the USA the only time I was out of work for an extended period of time was under RR and the Bushes. take that to thre bank. If your bank doesn't fail soon. Ever occur to you to blame yourself? You know what motherfuker. 1981. I was making 19 bucks an hr. Const. work shut down. I went back to work for fuckin 4 bucks an hr. to feed my kids after 1 yr. on unemployment. Suck my dick. Thanks Ronnie So you went from being an overpaid union employee to working at what was evidently a fair wage for the area - after a year. Pardon my tears, dude. How do you feel about corporate CEOs making $(tens of millions) while running their corps. into bankruptcy? Is that fair? Depends on their contract, now doesn't it? So CEO contracts count, but union contracts don't. OK. Don't put words in my mouth, professor. No, no, same words; yours. You think union contracts are gross, but CEO contracts are justified if contracts are followed. Unions = collective bargaining contracts, meaning they all bargain at the same time vs a CEO bargaining 1 at a time.

Let's see. In my 35 yrs. of working in the USA the only time I was out of work for an extended period of time was under RR and the Bushes. take that to thre bank. If your bank doesn't fail soon. Ever occur to you to blame yourself? When you have recurring outcomes with like philosophies, time to take note. When you have opposing outcomes with opposing policies, time to take note. We have 28 years of evidence, how much more do you want before you figure it out; 4?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(1) Morally. CHECK See Guantanamo, Iraq war, torture, etc. See the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, slavery and the very taking of this country for more, long-term moral flubs, it's not just the last 6 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(2) Militarily. CHECK. Loosing ground in Afghanistan. Can't even win after all these years in Iraq; and that was supposed to be an easy one. That's because the military indust complex doesn't want to win, winning means the ATM is closed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>.(3) Financially. CHECK. See the last severals days on Wall Street. Anglosaxon-style capitalism has proven itself unworkable. Yea, Taiwan works due to honor, has no one realized thay honor is bought and sold here?

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/12/99-grammar/ Very funny website. Even if you don't like this one check out some of the other things "white people like". Naw, I don't think it's a white thing, inferring whites are anal, just a anal thing. I see people who do it in posting boards as trying to gain some intellectual advantage by pointing it out, which is a false assumption. Some of the most brilliant people have poor grammar/penmanship skills; some of the best bullshitters have perfect grammar. As well, there is a difference between not knowing and just being lazy, and posting boards aren't term papers/legal docs.

Right, the issue isn't regulation vs deregulation, the issue is to what degree of regulation do we implement? I like more regulation than not, but not major / total regulation. That is the problem with Cpitalism; the elites control / manipulate the market.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My boys have never been in the Presidency. Right, just that you support the actions of the Republicans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But bad Stuff happens under most presidencies. Just that taking the last 4 presidents, virtually all good came of the 1 Dem pres, vs horrible with the other 3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush II - the housing crash and slumping economy Is that the best you can do? The list is so long, not to limit it to a war based upon lies costing us >4k lives, 800 billion and a debt increase of 4.5 trillion dollars.... come on counselo, let's not slow-play his achievements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton - the stock market crash, with the 2 non-consecutive quarters of negative economic growth that heralded his exit; Gee, what did it, "crash" down to and from what? Inherited 3500 DJI, left 9800...what a crashing http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush I - "It's the economy, stupid" Largest tax increase ever at that point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reagan - the S&L crisis, housing tanked. Iran-Contra, pardoning Symington, trippling teh debt....let's not be shy, counselor.

Just ironically most of the bad stuff happens under your boys. Cry me a river...the dot.com bubble was the best smoke/mirror play yet... These events with banking are simply the wrong play with money they thought wouldn't stop flowing. Frankly, how these guys didn't prepare is astonishing. Shoe me the indicators of the Dot.com bubble burst. How did it affect otehr apects of teh economy, the DJI, the unemp rate, all aspects; what was the harm in indicator numbers? Also, how was Clinton supposed to regulated it? We kno Bush should have directed the Chairman of the Reserve to not keep rates so low so long, buthe didn't want to preside over a recession, so now Obama get sto inherit one.