Friday, August 13, 2010

The Democrats Have Controled The Economy For 4 Years Now:OPEN Thread

By Michael O'Brien: It's been four years since President George W. Bush could be held responsible for the nation's economy, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Monday evening.

DeMint dismissed a key part of Democrats' midterm messaging — warning voters against a return to Bush-era policies — reasoning that Democrats have been controlling U.S. economic policies during the past four years in which they've controlled Congress.

"The president [Obama] keeps saying he inherited this, but the fact is that it's been four years since President Bush had anything to do with economic policy," DeMint said during an appearance on WVOC radio in South Carolina.

The South Carolina conservative sought to rebut an argument advanced by Democrats from President Obama on down in recent months: Returning Republicans to power in Congress would mean a return to some of the policies voters found less popular during the Bush administration.

"The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class, that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do we keep moving our country forward?" Obama said Monday at a Democratic fundraiser, part of a sustained effort to hammer away at Bush.

DeMint said, though, that some of the bills voters find most distasteful had been advanced during the past four years, after Democrats won back control of the House and Senate from Republicans in the 2006 elections.

"The Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress for four years now. Congress writes economic policy; they spend the money," he said. "So it was the Democrat Congress that wrote the TARP bailout, they did the stimulus, they did the 'Cash for Clunkers.' They have done the healthcare, the financial bill. This is an unchecked Democratic agenda."


  1. While we were watching Kagan’s confirmation last week, an amendent sponsored by Senator Ronald ”Blago-pal” Burris (D-Ill.) and spawned by the Senate Armed Services Committee’s 15-12 vote in late May, will allow abortion procedures in clinics or hospitals on military installations worldwide. The amendment to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Senate along a partyline vote, with the exception of Ben “Cornhusker Kickback” Nelson.

    The Washington Times accurately calls it a “ruse” to “accomplish radical social change – to mainstream abortion, to press the government into providing it on a widespread scale so that it becomes respectable and ordinary”:

    In late May, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an 11th-hour amendment by Democratic Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois to overturn the long-standing restrictions on abortion in military hospitals during the committee‘s work on the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act and after protracted debate on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The Burris amendment passed on a party-line vote with one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voting no. While Elena Kagan‘s confirmation hearings directed attention away from the Defense authorization bill, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has called for this issue to be dealt with as soon as possible after the Senate returns from August recess.

    Under current law, Department of Defense resources may be used for emergency abortions to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape or incest, restrictions first added to the U.S. Code in 1984 and 1996.

    Elective abortions, on the other hand, have been disallowed in military hospitals for decades, with the exception of a brief period when President Clinton reversed the policy in January 1993, only to have Congress vote to restore it in 1995. Under current law, military women are free to leave the base and make their own private arrangements for an elective abortion.

    Mr. Burris‘ amendment would overturn current law so that elective abortions are performed in U.S. military clinics and hospitals by military personnel, putting the armed forces in competition with Planned Parenthood as the nation’s largest abortion provider.

  2. MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's nuclear agency said Friday that it will load fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant next week, moving ahead with launching the facility despite Iran's stubborn defiance of international demand to halt uranium enrichment.

    Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said that uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning the startup process.

    "From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation," he told The Associated Press.

    The United States has called for Russia to delay the startup until Iran proves that it's not developing nuclear weapons. Russian officials said that the latest U.N. sanctions against Iran won't affect the Bushehr project.

    Russia signed a $1 billion contract in 1995 for building the Bushehr plant, but it has dragged its feet on completing the project for years.

    Moscow has cited technical reasons for the delays, but analysts say Moscow has used the project to press Iran to ease its defiance over its nuclear program.

    Novikov said that Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko will travel to Bushehr in southern Iran for the Aug. 21 ceremony, which will also be attended by the Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

    Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in March that the Bushehr plant would begin operating this summer. Some Iranian lawmakers have accused Russia of delaying the project under the Western pressure.

    Moscow has said that the Bushehr project have been closely supervised by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russian officials said that Iran had signed a pledge to ship all the spent uranium fuel from Bushehr back to Russia for reprocessing, excluding a possibility that any of it could used to make nuclear weapons.

    Russia has insisted that the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and fulfill its obligations under international nuclear nonproliferation agreements.

    The U.N. Security Council slapped a fourth set of sanctions on Iran in June over its nuclear program. The move followed Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process which can be used for the production of fuel for power plants as well as material for nuclear warheads if enriched to a higher level.

    Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy, but the United States and others believe Tehran's real goal is to produce atomic weapons.

    Russia has walked a fine line on Iran for years. It is one of the six powers leading international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop an atomic bomb. It has backed U.N. sanctions, but strongly criticized the U.S. and the European Union for following up with separate, even stronger sanctions.

  3. To All Conservatives13 August, 2010 10:31

    This morning I received a disgusting email from Trevor FitzGibbon of signed by Erica Payne ( founder and president of some entity called The Agenda Project. According to Politico’s Ben Smith, this is a so-called “progressive group with roots in New York’s fundraising scene.”

    The sophomoric email asked me to suspend civility:

    Set aside your good manners, your tolerance, your measured
    understanding of policy differences, and your earnest do-gooder ideas
    for a [sic.] just a moment to join me in telling the Tea Party what you really
    think of them.

    The email proudly announces that the “F*ck Tea Movement” was launched at Netroots, a.k.a. Nutroots, and was a “major presence” at the College Dems’ annual convention. Enough from these defenders of civil discourse. You get the picture.

    As most RedStaters understand, the Tea Party is a popular grass roots movement of Americans so offended by the efforts Obama and his leftwing supporters to lurch the country far to the left that they have taken to politics. They are as mad as hell and aren’t going to take it any more. Because of this the Tea Party movement is perceived as a threat to those pushing Obama’s extremist agenda.

    As they did when threatened by the elevation of Governor Sarah Palin to the national stage, Democrats have resorted to demonization to attempt to discredit the Tea Party movement and remove the threat.

    The Democrats failed efforts to disparage the movement have included:

    Incorrect and unsubstantiated assertions that the Tea Party movement was Tea Party movement was the astroturf creation of corporate groups.
    Attempts to infiltrate the Tea Party movement.
    Attempts to paint the Tea Party Movement as racist.
    Attempt to convince voters to equate the Tea Party Movement with the GOP.
    Having miserably failed in all these efforts the Liberal/Progressive Democrats now try another despicable campaign — this desperate “f*ck” the Tea Party Movement campaign.

    Tell Erica Payne what you think of her campaign to “f*ck” the Tea Party movement. But please, try to keep it civil

  4. Hmmm, Tell all Cons, looked up this Agenda Project, here is a bit from the website.

    "An effective government can spark new industries, cure disease, explore galaxies, inspire peace, spread freedom and lay the foundation for global prosperity.
    An incompetent government can start wars, distort markets, devastate the environment, destroy freedom, and stifle human potential. Whether corrupt, inept, or merely confused, our government leaders are failing at the job we have given them – to direct and manage those responsibilities best administered collectively."

    Now, when is it the Governments job to "direct and manage": Human Potential, Markets, Global prosperity, birth industry, cure disease, etc?

    It not. So here we have socialism in the making.

  5. wow, To All.

    its a a bit stupid of you to call this progressive org sophomoric and then refer to NetRoots as nutroots. Talk about childish.

    Mark, it can and has been, but not in your dogmatic world. Read the Soocial
    Contract. Funny how cons operate. they want the benefits of the contract without the obligations of the contract. Lack of personal responsibility i say.

  6. And liberals want the benefits of the contract but refuse to pay for it. Lack of personal responsibility I say. It's funny how Joe missed that.

  7. I didn't miss anything, you mistakenly belive that its the libs not the cons who won't pay for it, when its the other way around.

    The cons won't live up to the contracts obligations, which is payment among other things.

  8. Joe why is it that the libs keep saying "tax the rich"? The libs want but they want the rich fat cats to pay for it. Then problem is the rich fat cats just trickel down the added expence. Joe were you for the unions paying for obamacare with the "cadillac tax" like the rest of the nation? I think I've proven Anons point.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.