https://pollinglocator.sos.louisiana.gov/

Tommorrow History will cont. to be made...

Polling hours 6am-8pm, the website above lets you know were you need to go if for some reason you don't already know.

OBAMA08

Cuba had "change" in 1959. The same type of "change" that Obama is pitching. We don't need his "change".

https://pollinglocator.sos.louisiana.gov/

Tommorrow History will cont. to be made...

Polling hours 6am-8pm, the website above lets you know were you need to go if for some reason you don't already know.

OBAMA08

LEARN THE FACTS NOT THE MEDIA SPILLED PROPAGANDA!!!!!!

CHANGE FOR AMERICA!!!!
https://pollinglocator.sos.louisiana.gov/

Tommorrow History will cont. to be made...

Polling hours 6am-8pm, the website above lets you know were you need to go if for some reason you don't already know.

OBAMA08

hey trigger...you would be surprised out how many emails I have received from guys on this site praising me for taking the heat over Obama. They all say the same things...they are voting Obama but know way in hell they are gonna post it on here...That is sad that they cant freely post because they are afraid of getting bashed. I have over 30 emails from regular posters on this site that are closet obama supporters that are afraid of people like you talking down to them...LAYOFF and let these people have an opinion like yourself.

Only fact I see being spewed by the media is that they think Obama is the Messiah. All news outlets are in the tank for Obama.

Not propaganda, but fact: Obama will tax you and "spead the wealth" to others that don't pay taxes.

Those of you who have made any study of Karl Marx and his little pet political project will recognize his belief in "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

No doubt that our beloved country will be communist in the next year if Obama is elected president.

Political Tramp…. SPREADING THE NEWS TO GET OUT THERE AND VOTE FOR THE CHANGE THIS COUNTRY NEEDS… I am not intimidated by the name calling; I am a very successful, educated American and encourage everyone to express their free voice!

Then post the emails on here. I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU FOR ONE BIT.

Guys, this moron elle ewewee or whatever your stupid *ss name is, is just trying to piss all of you off. The guy is an idiot, and if there are sportsman out there who are closet Obama supporters, then they are idiots also. I hope you enjoy having your Constitutional rights taken away if the idiot you back gets elected. I personally see it as an outrage that anyone in America would vote for this socialist baffoon. The simple fact this guy has a chance at the whole thing shows that America is on the decline because of the existence of people like yourself. I bet the computer you use to post your comments was bought with some sort of government subsidized money. I'd like to see your boy Obama really try to bring on the radical change he speaks of.

abnranger...I have told each and every one of them I will not post there names for the very reason I mentioned...people always have negative things to say about it. Its just goes to show you how people really feel and when that curtain is shut behind them your gonna be shocked at how close louisiana comes to giving it to Obama. It will and should go McCain but the numbers are not gonna be as one sided as some belive. Obama has finally got the attention of real americans that are sick and tired of politics as usual and want a different fresh look in the whitehouse. Here is one email Ill paste some of the contents for you.

" Hey there ELLE...you sure do givem hell on LSM about Obama. I tell you what me and my family on both sides have voted for both Bushes and against Clinton both times. But we have actually turned a 180 this year. We actually took a lot of peoples advice and sat down and actually read the polices and plans of Obama and realize he has true conviction and salt in his plans. He does want to improve our country from the inside and not overseas. The media tears him a new one all the time...esp. fox news. But all they do is bicker about him never ever any facts or truths to back up there rant. As you know I am a regular poster on LSM and there is not a chance in hell Ill ever come out and say I would or will vote Obama with all those yahoo's on there waitin to jump somebodies azz since they have a different view. But if he wins and does well Ill come out and admit it. You can count on my family swinging about 23 votes Obama's way next tuesday....heck man keep it up we like readin' you give it to them idiots."

That is a needle in the hey sack Elle. You know how many I have had saying that you are an idiot, i am sure you do cause you see them posted all the time!! Go post on some Liberal site where you fit in better pecker head

I'm so tired of both parties and so sickened by the choices this year that for the first time I actually thought about not voting at all.
But thanks to all these celebrity big mouths who think we actually give a crap what they think, as well as other Obama fans I have decided to vote. (as well as a host of other reasons)
We'll be in line at 6 am tomorrow morning trying to put McCAIN in office!

I will vote a single issue, though there are many.

The words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and the principle that “all are created equal” inspired the country’s founders to write our everlasting Constitution.

It was a hard and deliberative process that took a dozen years to hammer out. They made it difficult to change with the required two-thirds majorities of the states and the peoples’ representatives.

Then, they added the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments; so there should be no doubt about the intent and no need to be interpreted by judges appointed by the president. It was written in simple, plain English that was understood even by people with little schooling.

Some would-be presidents believe judges who interpret the Constitution should use utmost respect for the founders intent and wisdom. Other would-be presidents think modern times require new interpretations.

Just one amendment (the second) has been nearly always supported by one presidential candidate, while the other candidate has nearly always (if not 100 percent of the time) voted to infringe the right that protects all other rights.

After 220 years the Supreme Court agreed at last that “the right to keep and bear arms” is an individual right.

I will vote for the one who knows that individuals have the right to defend themselves and others and the one who will appoint judges who will preserve that right.

Robert Evanson

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OBAMA TAX PLAN
Barack Obama is being smeared by baseless claims that he would dramatically raise marginal tax rates to Levels not seen since the 1970s, or impose new taxes on everything from your child’s education fund to your water. These tired attacks are patently false and have been repeatedly debunked by independent fact check Organizations. Below are 6 key facts about the Obama tax plan that help set the record straight:

FACT #1: The Obama Plan Provides Generous Tax Cuts for Almost All American Families – and will Not raise any tax rate on families making less than $250,000 per year, period! The Obama plan maintains the existing marginal tax rates for every family making less than $250,000 – and single people making less than $200,000—while offering thousands of dollars in new tax cuts for saving, education, mortgage costs, and Child care, as well as up to $1000 per family to make work pay. Under the Obama plan, the typical family will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. Any and all charges that Obama would raise rates on capital gains, dividends, income, savings and so on for the approximately 98% of American families making less than $250,000 are simply not true.

FACT #2: The Obama Plan Would Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families By Three Times More Than Senator McCain’s Plan. Obama Has Never Voted To Increase Taxes on Moderate Income Families. In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has repeatedly suggested that Obama voted to increase taxes on families making $42,000 per year. Factcheck.org declared this claim “simply false,” and the Washington Post Editorial Board determined that this claim was “unacceptably misleading.” According to the Bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the budget resolution vote that the McCain campaign relies on for this charge “[did] not raise taxes.” In fact, in the context of that budget resolution, both Senators Obama and McCain voted to extend middle class tax benefits. Likewise, the McCain campaign’s claim that Obama has voted for higher taxes 94 times, a charge the New York Times called “false” and factcheck.org called “misleading.” What the McCain Campaign doesn’t tell you is that, according to the Tax Policy Center, middle class families will get at least a three times larger tax cut under the Obama plan than under Senator McCain’s.

FACT #3: Under the Obama Plan, No One Will Pay Higher Tax Rates Than They Paid in The 1990s. Barack Obama believes that any responsible candidate must put forward specific ideas of how they would pay for their proposals to put us back onto the path of fiscal responsibility. That is why he has called for repealing a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000. But he would limit all rates to be at or below what they were in the 1990s. Families making over $250,000 would pay the 1990s marginal income tax rates – of 39.6 and 36 percent – and capital gains and dividend tax rates of 20%. Obama’s 20 % capital gains rate is the lowest rate from the 1990s, and his 20% dividends rate is 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends. The data show that the tax rates in the 1990s did not undermine economic growth or entrepreneurship – our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, Americans’ incomes grew at robust rates. In fact, the stock market grew at 270% in the decade following Ronald Reagan’s increase of the capital gains tax rate to a level one third higher than what Obama proposes. Under the Obama tax plan, literally every household in America will pay the same or lower tax rates than they would have in the 1990s.

FACT #4: Obama Would Lower Taxes For the Vast Majority of Small Businesses. The Suggestion that Obama Would Raise Taxes on 23 Million Small Businesses is patently False. Because the Obama plan preserves existing tax rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, nearly 99 % of small business owners won’t see any tax increase under the Obama plan. Instead, these small firms and business owners are likely to get a tax cut under the Obama plan, which eliminates capital gains taxes for small businesses, provides a new 50% tax credit for healthcare, and helps lower health care costs to make small businesses competitive. The McCain campaign’s tired attack on small business taxes has been thoroughly repudiated: Factcheck.org called it “preposterous”; Politico called it “off-base”; the Atlantic called it a “lie”.

FACT #5: Obama Has Called For a Bipartisan Social Security Solution That Asks the Wealthiest Americans to Contribute Their Fair Share. He Does Not Support Fully Uncapping the Payroll Tax for Social Security at the 12.4 Percent Rate. Barack Obama would like to work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound. Despite the smears of his opponents, Obama does not support uncapping the payroll tax at the full 12.4 percent rate. Instead, Obama and Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by McCain’s close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he “could” support.

FACT #6: Obama Will Provide New Tax Benefits to Help Families Save and Create Wealth. The notion that Obama will raise taxes on families’ assets like their “homes” or “life savings” is absurd. In radio and TV ads, the McCain campaign has alleged that Barack Obama would increase taxes on “your life savings” or the “sale of your home”—bedrock assets for ordinary Americans. But in fact, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the estate tax for 99.7% of estates, offer a new universal mortgage tax credit to help working families achieve homeownership, and will offer a new, fully refundable 50% credit on the first $1,000 of retirement savings done by American families. Factcheck.org called these McCain attacks “simply not true for the vast Majority of viewers who will see [them]” while the Washington Post called them “dishonest.”

According to the Tax Policy Center, only 1.4% of individual filers reporting small business income had income high enough to fall in the top two statutory tax rates. (http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1789&DocTypeID=7).

Obama fought for the strictest gun control in America for years in the Illinois state legislature and the US Senate. But that was back when he only needed the support of Chicago urbanites and South Chicago ghetto dwellers to gain and maintain political power. As soon as he needed votes from people who "cling to guns and religion", he suddenly became a supporter of rights of sportsmen. I've never seen a politician more full of crap than Barack Obama, and I've seen a lot of them.

I along with hundreds of thousands of sportsmen in this country are with you on that LA Ang.! GET READY FOR THE MCCAIN-PALIN TRADITION!! IT'S COMING! As a Christian I can't vote for a man who wants to tax the succuessful hard working to give to the lazy, strip guns from law abiding citizens, is PRO ABORTION (GOD-or in his case Allah, HELP HIM),and is PRO GAY. It is time we get back to voting using christian values and morals. McCain may not be perfect but he will appoint judges to protect the 2nd amendment and PROTECT LIFE. He will make national security his top priority which it should be. For the simple minded out there- you can fix the economy, healthcare, go for alternative fuels, etc. BUT, we are just another 9-11 away from our economy being destroyed and the country being crippled and vulnerable, The other issues won't matter if you don't protect the country!!! Obama thinks (his words) "Iran is a small country they pose no threat" I want somebody as commander-in-cheif that thinks anyone could be a threat and has the TESTICULAR FORTITUDE to deal with them. We know McCain has that fortitude. McCain/Palin 08 get out and vote!!! The future of our country for our kids and grandkids will depend on it. RM

Thwarting terrorist networks requires international partnerships in military, intelligence, law enforcement, financial transactions, border controls, and transportation security.

Keeping America standing together not on seperate sides of the fence is important to our security!!!!!

Hey Lucky-girl, McCain has extensive experience in foreign policy and international relations with foreign leadership. What relationships does Obama have, HMMM--- Rev. Wright, Father Flager, Rezco, Ayers, Farakan- Man that koolaid is some good s@#t!!

America faces a complex and difficult geopolitical landscape. The next president needs to act more creatively and boldly to defend our interests by revalidating diplomacy as a key weapon in our national arsenal and rebuilding our understaffed and underfunded diplomatic corps. Of course he will need to reserve the right to use force against the most vicious and implacable of our foes. More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace.
McCain has done this country great honor by serving and yes he has the scars to prove it, from the long five years he was a POW. McCain has stuck with Bush 90% of the time along with the rest of the Republican lead senate and Congress during 2002-2006 and they ignored diplomacy and let the relationship between the United States and our allies weaken…. McCain reached across the party lines for the past eight years to join in agreement with the Bush Administration. The fact is that Biden has a strong positive background on Foreign Policies and that is why Obama choose him.

WOW and the Change we need shows again!! When the facts prove them wrong revert to fictional lies...

BTW - I work in the OIL INDUSTRY dig deeper and you will see the facts.

"More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace." Lucky Girl


Well dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, and INACTION are what led to 9-11. Our president took action and we will never know how many other 9-11 type attacks have been prevented. Myself, I prefer not to know how many we did prevent, than to sit back do nothing, and know exactly how many we did not prevent.

Katrina was the perfect example of a society dependent upon gov't for survival. Obama will simply inrease this dependence. Doing so will inrease job security for democrats but while many middle class employees get laid off because of rising coorporate taxes. The rich man will always make his dollar, and if it means laying off employees to do so, so be it. If it means moving overseas, so be it.

Remeber about 2 years ago when we voted in a new congress we were looking for " change" we got change alright, higher prices on EVERYTHING, on the verge of another economic meltdown, Everything is pushed onto Bush because he is the president( a SCAPEGOAT). So when you vote tomorrow vote how you like, but dont complain when we have a all democratic liberal government and fuel is 8 bucks a gallon, we'll get change alright in a six letter word fashion ( begins with f)

Our nation began its existence in debt from the Revolutionary War. Jefferson argued to eliminate the debt, and Hamilton argued it was necessary to keep the nation together. The Hamiltonians won, the conservatives of their time, and consequently it has also been argued that this difference between these two founders was the beginning of the liberal/conservative split in our country.

We kept that original debt until the Jackson administration. Jackson did not believe in debt, or banks for that matter, and he made a real effort to eliminate all federal debt. He got it down to $18,000 just before leaving office. As you can see there has not been another serious attempt to reduce the debt significantly since then. It is clear that debt increases from every major war, and it’s equally clear to see that the debt is hardly ever reduced. Even when it is reduced it ain’t by much, or for very long. This obvious fact seems to be overlooked by the folks that tell us they want to reduce your taxes and shrink government – every time they increase the debt it is forever, because this nation does not pay its debt off, ever!



Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.



If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84[5].



Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.



Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

For the first eighteen years after WW II, Truman (1945-53), Eisenhower (1953-61) and Kennedy (1961-63) all worked vigorously to keep spending under control. Of the seven years Truman was in office, the national debt came down in four. In 1946 & 7, with a Republican Congress for his first two years in office he brought down spending. The following year, with a Democratic Congress he reduced what was commonly called the “War Debt” again. Two of the eight years Eisenhower served as President saw debt reduction during the years when Democrats were in charge of Congress, 1956 & 7. Kennedy reduced the debt by over 4% his first year in office, 1961, then it went up slightly his next two years. JFK was dealing with a Democratically controlled House and Senate when he managed to reduce the debt.


Since 1961 the United States national debt has never gone down.

It is interesting to note who controlled Congress versus what party was in the presidency during the seven years that the debt was reduced throughout the terms of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Three times the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency (1948, 1951 & 1961). The other four years all had a mix of control, with Republicans in the White House (1956 & 1957), in charge of Congress (1946 & 1947), but never both. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in total charge of both elected branches of government have they ever reduced spending. They talk about it a lot, but they never deliver.



While the debt did go up every year during Johnson’s time in office (1963-69), he was the last president before Clinton to submit a balanced budget, and Johnson did this during a time of a very hot Cold War. Johnson’s average was a debt increase of 3% for the six years he served. He had a Democratic Congress to work with all his years in office.



Even Nixon (President from 1969 to 1974, when he resigned in disgrace) only had one year when he raised the debt more than 6%, 1971. His average was 5% for the six years he was in office. Between uncontrolled inflation and Ford’s conservative bend the debt increased 17% his first full year in office (1975), and 13% his second (1976). Ford’s plan to impose a policy of price controls failed to bring government overspending and inflation under control. Both these Presidents faced an opposition Congress controlled by Democrats during their time in office.

Starting in 1977 President Carter tried to control government spending even during inflationary times. The national debt increased an average of 9% per year while he was in office, and his policies eventually brought inflation under control with the help of a semi-cooperative Democratic Congress. He was thrown out of office after one term for making and implementing the hard decisions required to cut spending and deal with the energy crisis. (Had we followed his policies all these years we would not be dependant on foreign oil as we are now under Republican leadership.)



As President Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself[7]. Many on the right reflexively blame the Democratically controlled Congress for the “big spending” during his administration, even though Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years of his two terms. Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period. It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting liberal spender and government grower.



The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.



George Bush Sr. meekly followed in Reagan’s shadow after his election in 1988, by increasing the debt on average a mere 11.8% a year during his four years as President. In his last year in office he quite responsibly worked with Democrats to raise taxes to help reduce the massive yearly increases in the national debt. This bipartisan plan got the growth down to under 11% in 1992, but it was too little too late and didn’t make much difference in the overall trend. The Neo-Conservatives controlling the Republican Party rewarded him for putting the nation’s future above his party’s ideology by throwing him out of office even though it had hardly been a year since he was credited with winning the Gulf War.


In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased.



When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8]. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has typically been around $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.



Of course 7% growth is a misleading figure as it does not make clear that by so drastically increasing the total debt, the amount of the annual US budget dedicated to service the debt has grown to almost 10%. Thanks to misguided Neo-Con ideological thinking, over a tenth of our budget does nothing to contribute to the growth or health of the nation. If interest rates go up our country will be in real trouble.



It does not matter if you call it a war or an occupation, supporting Iraq is expensive. It just boggles the imagination of any fiscally responsible person that the Republican Congress and President have repeatedly cut taxes during this overly aggressive and very expensive era for our military. The nation is borrowing money so that we can spend more on our military than all the other nations on Earth combined, and still the Neo-Cons are calling for even more tax cuts and even more military spending.



Mr. Bush is constantly claiming that the economy is great! What he leaves out is that he is buying that simulated good economy with his borrowed dollars; it is a false economy that is starting to crash. Recent bank and insurance company failures are proving that this federal borrowing can not go on forever, but what is the answer we are being given to this problem – borrow more money to cover the bad debt already out there! If a Democrat was suggesting this course of action you can bet a bevy of Republicans would be screaming in unison that Congress is Socializing Wall Street.





Trickle Down Theory Myth
History has shown that the “trickle down theory” does not work. Republican President Hoover tried the “trickle down” theory (his words) to solve economic problems during the last few years of his only term, when the greatest economic depression this country has ever faced began. It is often called the Republican Depression because it was their financial philosophy that led to the collapse of the economy. Tax cuts for the rich did not work and things got worse. (We are seeing the same problem repeat itself encouraged by the deregulation of the financial industry.)



President Roosevelt got into office, raised taxes on the rich, created jobs for the poor and turned things around. Mr. Reagan employed Hoover’s failed trickle down theory again in the ‘80s and again it did not work. The rich got richer, but the poor got poorer and the economy declined. Mr. Bush Sr., who always had a problem with the “vision thing”, continued the failed policy of his immediate predecessor.



Mr. Clinton took a more progressive approach and, as Roosevelt had done, turned the Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. It was an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office. More new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history.



President Bush II slipped into office and once again applied the Neo-Con manta of the old trickle down tax model and immediately created a need to raise the debt level to pay for an unjustified tax cut in 2001. Predictably (and before 9/11) the nation lost jobs and there were fewer new millionaires. Not learning from his past mistakes, Bush pushed through yet more tax cuts in 2003, 2005 and 2006 -- all while expanding the military, the largest single component of the budget. He and his lap dog Republican Congress never learned from their mistakes. As a result, the national debt has increased an average of $1.5 billion per day since the beginning of 2002.



While it is a great jabbing sound bite, the facts show that the “tax and spend” rhetoric Republicans often spew about Democrats is not as bad as it sounds. Taxing before spending actually reflects good government. The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of “borrow and spend”. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today. They prefer to see our children pay for their debt. Neo-Conservative thinking has run up over an 9.5 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and is still increasing at an astounding rate with no end to deficit spending in sight.

So what you're saying is you'd rather see us ignore the terrorists, allow them to do whatever they want, and reduce our debt?

I on the otherhand would rather see a President put the safety of his nation first.

I also do not understand how the liberals plan on reducing the national debt with their agenda. It sure looks like they are going to spend more money.

Oh thats right they are going to accept defeat, retreat from Iraq, and sweettalk the terrorists out of killing thousands of innocent people and "hope" they don't attack America again.

Yeah, really good plan.

Obama is not going to do anything other than what he did in Illinoios raise taxes more and more and continue to spend more and more. The deficit may not grow as much but it's only cause he is taxing harder.

We need to cut taxes and cut spending. Smaller governemtn is the way to go...

I guess you forget Clinton started alll the subprime lending that has got us where we are. He also ignored all the events leading up to 9/11..

U need to quit convulsating long enough to see thru the lies Obama is filling your head with.

U are a typical liberal

Did I actually read correctly? Did this lucky-girl person say that we can fight terrorism with diplomacy? WOW! Let's just drive up to the Al-Qaida embassy and speak with their Ambassador, we can straighten this whole thing out over coffee. These are TERRORISTS - root word being TERROR - diplomacy is not in their vocabulary. Somebody must of put stupid pills in the Obama Kool Aid.

It all sounds good but in the real world it doesn't work that way. same with gangs and stuff u can't give them money through welfare thinking they will se the light and start trying to make it on their own. I grew up around all this and know thye think. Most liberals are just intellectual people who lack the insight to see that what sounds good just doesn't work. Having tea and coffe with terrorists is as effective as handing out welfare checks to people withno desire to better themselves. They all need to feel the pain and suffering that results from their actions.

Remenber the animals instincts are Fight or Flight and in both these cases that is waht you have to use against them cause they are irrational and trying to use that is simply useless!!

lucky girl was the one I was looking for. Any relation to lucky man??? wonder how they are feeling now.

The said part is they probably still support him to ignorant to realize the damage done and still pointing fingers at bush saying it takes more time to fix his problems.