Fast and Furious is about the Republican strategy to investigate their opposition and make up scandals

Fast and Furious was started by the Bush administration and ended by the Obama administration

There's really no way you and I will every know if there was anything wrong there

It's like all the scandals they made up about Clinton - Hillary murdered her law partner, Bill had sex with multiple women (well, maybe that was true but the Republicans investigating also were having "affairs"), I forget everything now

Yes - Just a republican strategy to discredit your team. A perfect explanation anytime you are placed in the uncomfortable position of being held accountable.

Yes- George Bush's fault we should have known.

"There's really no way you and I will every know if there was anything wrong there" -Yes you are right again. I am sure their claiming executive privilege was due to having nothing to hide.

The other nonsense doesn't warrant response.

I am sure if the devil was a democrat you would rah rah your way all the way to ...

Somebody has been spoon fed a bunch of propaganda.

Fast and Furious was started in the Bush administration. Maybe Holden should have stopped it sooner. The Republicans keep asking for more information forever, impossible to "satisfy" them. Better to claim "executive priviledge" and end it.

Creating "scandals" like this will make you and I argue with each other while they are picking our pockets.

I don't like a bunch of things about the Democrats. They advocate ethanol from corn which is just welfare to farmers - requires as much petroleum to produce as they get out of the ethanol. They advocate "clean coal" which makes no technical sense. They have no details to make oil and gas development safe. We have a surplus of natural gas that could be used for transportation but they aren't do anything. They keep renewing the farm bill which is just welfare to farmers. They aren't doing anything to limit antibiotic use in animals which is leading to antibiotic resistant bacteria. They aren't re-opening the rare earth mine in the U.S. so China has a monopoly that they are exploiting. They should get out of Iraq and Afganistan quicker. They keep passing "free trade" bills which will export more jobs and they're not even talking about how to create jobs here to replace the millions we've outsourced. The Democrats pander to middle income people by reducing taxes on them where the Repubublicans pander to the super rich by reducing taxes on them. The Democrats are doing very little about reducing health care costs - like the way pharmaceutical companies make money is to repeat expensive studies until they get one to be statistically effective and then make huge profits off a "blockbuster drug" which is barely if at all effective. They aren't even talking about eliminating all the corporate loopholes that enable them to pay little taxes. They don't talk about eliminating the huge nuclear subsidies such as the Price Anderson act that limits liability and the disposal of waste - eith of those two would kill nuclear tomorrow. I could go on...

The Republicans are far worse and there's more chance that the Democrats will move in a better direction in the future.

Maybe it would be better to have the Republicans win and screw everything up so bad that people would finally "get it".

Jerry-
I agree there are a good number of issues that need to be addressed. The parties will always be pandering to their constituents and sources of campaign funds. I, too, share a long term concern of the rich getting richer and the rest of us eventually becoming peasants. Which will not work out well for either group I suspect. But in the short run, we can count on the rich wanting to get richer. But that can't happen if the economy goes to pot. So they have plenty of interest in making the economy go and people having money to spend. So yes, I believe in trickle down economics. I'd much rather have a little bit of something over all of nothing.

The whole issue about the taxes the rich pay is just a red herring. The wealthy will always find ways to protect their money. We all know that. It's a waste of time.

Edited by DavidAdair on 11/09/2012 07:48:06 MST.

The Congressional Research Service did a statistical analysis of whether low tax rates on highest 0.1% of population helped the economy. September 2012. at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf

They correlated tax rates on upper 0.1% with economic growth (GDP), productivity, savings rates, and investment rates. (why didn't they also look at unemployment?). The tax rates on upper 0.1% are dominated by the capital gains tax rate.

They concluded there was no statistically significant effect. But they did affect the percent of total income to super-rich.

"The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie... Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities."

The congress ordered this study, but are ignoring the results, continuing to call for more tax cuts for "the job creators" (euphamism for high income people).

I noticed that half way through Clinton's term he reduced capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, so Democrats aren't much better. And Obama reduced capital gains rate to 0% for middle income people - totally just pandering to his constituency.

Same thing happened leading up to 1930. "The Gilded Age" and so forth. Then, in the 1930s things normalized, but it took more than one term of a president. FDR's first term he made some fixes, then undid some of them, then the economy got even worse...

Eventually, the biggest negative deficit and stimulous program ever - WWII - got us out of that stagnant period.

I have hope we'll get out of our problems today which I think are not nearly as bad because we have social security, unemployment, they didn't get rid of all bank regulations,...

Yeah, good idea, I'll go hiking. My blogging about it doesn't fix anything : )

David,

"It is good that a fan supports their team no matter how lousy they may be. Loyalty is admirable in sporting events, but this election isn't about baseball it is about the direction this country is headed and it is headed in a very dangerous direction. "

I don't think either party is capable or concerned about solving all the problems. They are only concerned about power, getting re-elected and supporting the big donors. Follow the money. Both parties are guilty to the same degree. It's funny to watch both sides try to support their party and say they have the answers. Unfortunately the American people are stuck without good options to get us out of this mess.

Brad

What's with Governor Christy gushing over Obama? Does he think it's hopeless for Romeny? Maybe he wants Obama to win so he (Christy) can run in 2016?

I thought all Republicans said that the government is incapable of doing anything but Christy seems to be contradicting this.

"Maybe he wants Obama to win so he (Christy) can run in 2016?"

Maybe.

and he wants federal money. Obamaas showed he is willing to play politics when it comes to relief money.

"I thought all Republicans said that the government is incapable of doing anything but Christy seems to be contradicting this."

I don't think anybody ever said this.

"I thought all Republicans said that the government is incapable of doing anything but Christy seems to be contradicting this."

Absolutely not. The government is responsible for developing our military and they are the finest men and women I know. I have several employees with military background and they are some of my best. High integrity, very loyal, hard working, dependable, etc.

The same can be said for many of our law enforcement, fire, rescue, teachers, etc.

I can't comment on the Christy thing because I didn't see it.

Brad

I don't mean to be ambushing you Brad and Michael, but it's interesting that you think there's a role for government that I assume would include FEMA

Yet all the republican president candidates competed for bad mouthing FEMA. Romney said it should be turned over to states or better yet privatized.

Bush had a FEMA leader that had no emergency management experience and the response to Katrina and New Orleans was botched. I always thought it was that he wanted to prove how incompetent the government is so it could be eliminated.

It seems like the Republican leaders are inconsistent with most voters.

Just an interesting paradox.

This is just snarky, sorry - yeah team!

I like how Ryan "broke into" a salvation army kitchen when they were closed, and faked washing dishes (that were actually clean) - and then bragged about how great he was volunteering

And Romney was collecting supplies for hurricane relief for the Red Cross, but there's no way to transport the supplies - what they have requested is money

They're just into photo-ops - no substance

The NJ governor's comments really make for interesting politics. Just a week or so before the election you have a prominent Republican figure praising the Dem president for his hard work and efficiency in running the government in a crisis situation. And Christie is a pretty compelling speaker too. This really seems to blow a hole in all the rhetoric about the Obama administration making bad choices, especially when coming from the other side and especially in light of the fact that its a hurricane. Regardless of who you support, its pretty interesting politics. We'll see if anyone is paying attention.

"I don't mean to be ambushing you Brad and Michael, but it's interesting that you think there's a role for government that I assume would include FEMA"


Given that disasters are not limited to one state I find it hard to believe we could do without some national coordination/direction. Is FEMA this answer? I can't answer that question. Is privatizing the answer? Probably not. Does some type of joint effort make better sense? Yes. I think about military, law enforcement and contractors model works good for national security.

Again you try to label me? Republican. I'm an independent guy that tends to trend conservative on many issues. However in don't embrace either party or have any faith in either party.

Why is our plan for responding to natural disasters even a political issue?


brad

"Does some type of joint effort make better sense? Yes. I think about military, law enforcement and contractors model works good for national security. "

Disaster relief is a joint effort, really. My organization, a DoD agency, works hand in hand with FEMA to ensure the right supplies are where they're needed in the numbers they're needed. We get the supplies, of course, from our industrial base (mainly food and fuel, but we're also looking at what we have for generators and such through our reutilization activity). Of course the National Guard and Reserves are used broadly, as well as some active duty servicemembers when necessary. So while FEMA is the coordinating agency, there are many helping hands - DoD, the services, our industrial base, contractors and law enforcement - doing amazing work during these times of need due to disaster.

Christie clearly showed he's the bigger man.

"Christie clearly showed he's the bigger man."

Ha, ha, ha,... that's mean

He gave a prominant speech at Republican convention where he didn't talk much about Romney, mostly just talked about himself

Sorry Brad, didn't mean to call you a Republican : )

If half of the details emerging about Libya are true then It's way more than some made up scandal. But you'll never believe your boy could be such a criminal.

I am very sorry for those that lost their lives and property due to this storm.

It is also striking that the vast majority of folks simply lost power.

Every winter since i moved to the mountains in 2001, we have lost power.

Most recently was last year here in Ben lomond when we lost power for 5 days.

Nothing much was said in the national media and we all went to work and came home to our dark houses at night.
We lit candles and ate from the food supplies and drank the water we had stored as ice in our freezers. (For earthquake)
When the trees came down and crushed our neibors house in the storm ,we shared our space with them.

Life goes on.

Don't really understand why there should be anything special about it or political.
It has nothing to do with that.
We did not ask if they were republicans or democrats before we let them into our houses and gave them a bed on our floor.

There is a lesson here in this disaster.

What details are emerging?

Sort of like Trump saying there are a bunch of disturbing details emerging about Obama's birth certificate?

I think it comes down to the video that was made that offends Muslims.

The purpose of the video was to cause Muslim violence to prove that Muslims are violent.

Obama could respond in either of two ways:

1 - "You Muslims are violent people and this proves it"

2 - "In our country, freedom of speech says people can make such videos but I am offended also"

If he chose #1, it would tend to lead to escalating violence

If he chose #2, it would tend to lead to a more peaceful world

Obama chose #2

That's what has a lot of people upset about Libya

And of course the other thing is that Obama has a strong foreign affairs record - ended one war, a second war ending, a third war (Libya) was quickly and successfully executed with no U.S. casualties, Osama killed, when Obama does foreign trips people respond like he's a rock star,...

Romney took one trip to England and offended them, did fund raisers in Britain and Isreal

Libya is Romney's attempt to discredit Obama and take this advantage away from him