The Democrats' "New Direction" = backwards.

Either that, or "downhill".

Downhill, backwards!
:P

Hey B4B,

Off topic, but it looks like the posting problems are fixed. Thanks.

Low unemployment is awful How will the Democrats find enough people they can pay to man their ralley's?

The Pelosi, New Direction will be "out the door",
if she is connected to this Foley fiasco (as per talk on Lucianne.com...seems she had employed someone's Mom who is writing a screenplay about Pages, named Katsoros. Would be funny to see this
whole revelation, blow back onto the Dems-especially Pelosi. She is just vile, and would lie about anything, anytime for her career. I'd like to know WHY, she refuses to be questioned by the FBI...how can that be? There is a reporter from my homestate Pa.-Charise-that is going to blow this thing out on Wed. supposedly. We ALL need to get behind this, and keep the thing on a roll...I suspect this is all another "Rathergate",
ready to spring into the election, but....it may just be, that the DemonCrats, have opened a really
big can of worms here. Seems like this Foley thing is a hoax if I'm reading Lucianne posts correctly. It may be nothing more than emails sent, and we need to push for a total investigation, and HOPE THAT THE REPUBLICANS DON'T
DO THE USUAL WIMPY THING, AND FOLD UP, WHEN THESE VILE DEMONCRATS START THROWING THEIR WEIGHT AROUND. TIME TO STAND UP GOP, AND FIGHT LIKE REAL
POLITICOS. SPEAK UP AND BE HEARD, AND FORGET THAT CRAP HASTERT ABOUT RESIGNING...HANG TOUGH.

And of course, our "unbiased" media reports all positive news, right?

On my own little blog, I have issued a challenge to the left. We all know the media is biased, but they feel Bush gets a pass, or so they claim.

To settle the issue I have challenged any liberal to supply pro-Bush articles from the mainstream media since he first took office in 2000.

I am patiently waiting to see if any post anything. Only one day so far, but no takers as of yet.

Media Bias – A Challenge To The Left

This facade of prosperity in the moment is built on a foundation of staggering debt and dangerous domestic and foreign liabilities and vulnerability.

Anyone who believes what is is what will be shows him or herself woefully ignorant of history and fatally destined to repeat past mistakes.

To the extent people overall are doing better right, good. It's when you look beyond the touted numbers that the downside and dangers start to become evident.

I realize, though, that fact-based, balanced and even critical view of economic news is not your mission. No, your mission is to do to Pelosi and all Democrats exactly what you accuse her and all Democrats of doing in reaction to momentarily encouraging economic news.

"staggering debt?' 2 % of GDP is the smallest the debt has been in decades. Grow up, we make more - so the larger raw debt amount is offset by our larger economy.

Not only is the debt the smallest it has been in decades, due to the tax cuts, revenues comming into the Fed govt. is the highest it has been in decades. Now if we can get our representatives to quit spending like drunken sailors, we would probably run a real surplus and not the fake one that we had during the Clinton years. If Pelosi and her followers have their way, taxes will be higher, unemployment will rise due to the raising of the Minimum wage (It always correlates that way), and we will see a whole bunch of people who could make their own way in this world sucking on the govt teet.

Kahn: "staggering debt?' 2 % of GDP..."

According to the CIA web site, the national debt is 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.) In 2001 it was about 57% of GDP, the lowest it had been since the early 80's.

My mistake the defecit is 2% blah blah blah.

It could be eliminated tomorrow. Nearly half of Congres is Democrat - if each one would eliminate a few programs from THEIR districts we clear this up over night.

Ricorun,

In the future, please refrain from using "facts", "truth" or other such nonsense on this blog. It is against the comment policy and you will be banned. Only fear, irrationality and hatefulness will be tolerated here.

S.W., you simply have to quit parroting Airhead "facts" without bothering to find out if they are true, and what they mean.

What is national debt? Do you know? Just what ARE our "..staggering debt and dangerous domestic and foreign liabilities and vulnerability..."?

Are you one of those who believes that if we somehow default on any of our debt (which is for the most part interest owed on bonds) that whoever owns those bonds can just come in and claim the country? I keep hearing this silly semi-hemi-demi "fact" that we are soooooo internationally vulnerable because so many foreign countries hold our debt. But what does that mean?

Right now, many buy US bonds because we are noted as a strong and economically vibrant country which has, can, and will pay its interest on those bonds. What do you think would happen if we were, for some reason, not be able to do so?

If you, SW, decided to buy San Diego bonds because of their high rating, and then San Diego suffered an earthquake and a tsunami in the same year and could not pay all of the interest they owed you, what could you do? Go to the zoo and pick out a panda? Stake out a stretch of Mission Beach?

No, SW, you would just be out on your investment. And the next time you might buy bonds in Boston. (This before the Big Dig scandal, of course.)

So while a default would be a problem, it would not end up with foreign nations owning the United States. We'd have to rebuild our status as a secure investment, but as there are so few other places for people to buy national bonds that would not be a problem. We would have to tighten our belts, but we would not collapse.

And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to indicate that this would ever happen.

You Chicken Littles are just looking at figures, being instructed what you are supposed to "believe" they mean, and then being sent out like good little soldiers to lecture us on things you just don't understand.

And BTW, at the same time you are shrieking to the heavens about the need for a much higher minimum wage, ignorant of or oblivious to the negative impact THIS would have on the economy, debt, deficit, and inflation.

3 more years, thanks for making your point.

Just as the Dems could eliminate a huge amount of the national debt by simply cutting their extravagant pork, you and your fellow travelers could eliminate the fear, irrationality, hatred, and lack of fact you deplore on this site by merely going away and not posting here any more.

You all are so fact-phobic, your knee-jerk reactions tend to veer wildly into the hysterical Airhead attack mode, fact-free but evidently oh so satisfying to those of you who live on emotion and feed on hatred. So I suggest you hang out with your own.

"Did you hear about the neorad who quit coming to B4B and started to hang out at the Daily Kos?"

"He rasied the IQ of both sites."

Rico wrote, "According to the CIA web site, the national debt is 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.) In 2001 it was about 57% of GDP, the lowest it had been since the early 80's."

And don't forget, that's much higher than the 34% during the Carter Administration when we had double digit inflation!

First factor the rest of the economy, then look at the Debt/GDP. It cannot be viewed in a vacuum.