I viewed the Democratic Debate for two nights. I need help trying to understand a couple of issues that some of you may be able to help me with.

When the moderator asked the panel if we should have open borders, the majority of the debaters by a show of hands indicated “yes.” When asked if illegal immigrants should have free medical care, debaters, by a show of hands, was 100 percent in favor.

The majority of the debaters also want free college education for everyone. When asked where the money to pay for these programs would come from, the majority said from the 1 percent of the wealthy.

Folks, if the government took every dime from the 1 percenters it wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket of the funds necessary to support open borders for illegal immigrants, their welfare, their free medical care, and I haven’t even got to the free college education for all.

These people need to get their collective heads out of the sky and get both feet on the ground.

History has shown before, and will show again, any “free” stuff will always be paid for by the middle-class. Socialism only woks for the politburo, of which they would be, not for the peasants which we would be.

Ken Johnson

Algoa

Locations

(60) comments

Steve Fouga

Then I take it you'll vote for the Republican candidate. If the Republican Party would nominate someone honest, competent, and forthright, maybe I would too. I'm just afraid they're going to nominate Trump instead. [cool]

Don Schlessinger

No Steve I think he will vote for the conservative candidate, as will I.

Steve Fouga

Please give a few examples of the difference.

Keith Gray

Right back atcha Steve... Hillary... wow, and what the democrats are sporting for 2020 look worse.

Charles Douglas

I agree with you Mr. Johnson, what you say makes all the sense in the world. It amazes me how people can't figure out if you open borders for everybody, everybody will come. We have people sleeping on the streets now, how are we going to take care of everybody who desires to cross the border? They are so blind they can't even see what no borders did to Germany.

David Smith

Thete is no such thing as FREE..

Michelle Aycoth

The Democrats are giving away the presidential election and are no in touch enough with reality to realize it. Andrew Aycoth

Bailey Jones

There's no such thing as free - every progressive knows this. All of these programs are taxes in one form or another. Americans currently pay trillions for healthcare - a substantial portion of that goes to insurance company profits. Medicare for All simply replaces those premiums with a tax. It's more efficient because the insurance companies aren't skimming their profits off the top. It also allows for negotiating prices for medicines and medical equipment to lower costs - as every other country does. And since it's a universal plan, every doctor and hospital is "in network". College tuition is a no brainer. The educations paid for by the GI bill returned a 10X ROI in taxes. Do the math - a college degree earns an extra 1 million$ on average over the working life of a graduate. At a nominal 15% tax rate, that's an extra $150K back to the government, plenty to pay for the initial tuition. "Free" college is the only government program I know of that literally pays for itself. As a bonus you get the economic boon that goes along with a more educated work force. (You can easily draw a line between the GI Bill and the rise of Silicon Valley, for instance.) This is why most developed nations subsidize college for their citizens. As far as providing healthcare to Trump's favorite boogeymen - that's a moral choice. Some Americans believe in taking Matthew 25:31-46 literally, some believe that only Americans deserve that kind of compassion. As far as open borders - no one asked that question in the debates and no one raised their hand in support of it. What the candidates did agree on is changing the classification for the act of illegal entry from a criminal offense to a civil one. Immigration is a mess worldwide and requires more wisdom and nuance than either party is capable of at the moment. And since no one is addressing the root causes (civil war, crime and violence, corruption, climate change) it's only going to get worse.

Don Schlessinger

Bailey I hope Bernie recognizes you in a speech sometime as a perfect example of a Socialist. "Americans currently pay trillions for healthcare - a substantial portion of that goes to insurance company profits." That's called capitalism, which is what made America a great place. "Medicare for All simply replaces those premiums with a tax." That's called Socialism, you might consider moving to Venezuela.

Bailey Jones

Capitalism is great for almost everything. But it's merely an economic model, and just one of many. Capitalism only works for both parties when both parties can walk away from the deal. Capitalism requires that both buyer and seller be operating free from duress. That's not the case with healthcare. Our "capitalist" healthcare system is simply corporate coercion - a sale made upon the threat of death.

Carlos Ponce

Try the Concierge Health Care system, Bailey.

Bailey Jones

Concierge? Does it cover heart surgery, chemo & radiation, long term Alzheimer's care, drugs, bone marrow transplants, dialysis, home medical equipment, lab tests, etc? Because if it does that sounds awesome. (I'm extremely fortunate to not need any of this stuff, but I like to plan ahead.)

Carlos Ponce

Concierge covers all the basics which is what most people want and need. Costs: $10 a month for kids, $50 a month for most adults for unlimited visits, no co-pays, office procedures included with service, up to 95% savings on medications, labs imaging, etc.. Cost reductions by the concierge system going wholesale. Employers decrease their insurance premiums cut by 30 to 60%. A catastrophic Insurance policy for heart attack, cancer, bad accident, etc. but a greatly reduced cost for those policies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANSF43Rd7bQ

Bailey Jones

And let me be clear - I would have no objection to a capitalist system of healthcare if it worked. Healthcare, like food and water, is fundamental to life. Why is it that I can go to any grocery store in town and choose from thousands of available options? (And if I happen to be out of work i can rely on food stamps or WIC to supply food for myself and my family.) The reason is that capitalism, the great provider of goods and services, has worked its magic - food is cheap, available, high quality. Food suppliers operate in a highly competitive free market (with government support and assistance to be sure). So, maybe you can tell me why that's not the case for healthcare. Is it that healthcare companies operate as coercive monopolies? Or is it that healthcare - like the military, or space flight - requires a level of technology and expense that is beyond the reach of the average middle class worker? Crying "socialist" offers no solution to our problem.

Mike Meador

Demoncrat.....

Steve Fouga

Please explain how calling silly names makes you feel better. I'm curious why you do it.

Don Schlessinger

Nothing silly about Socialism! Bernie is proud of the name Socialist!!

James Lippert

So is Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Russia, China, etc. NOT!

Steve Fouga

No, "Socialist" isn't silly. But "Demoncrat" is. [cool]

Carlos Ponce

Demons rejoice every time an innocent life is taken.... So do some state Democrat legislatures (New York) who approve of killing a newborn. But you're right they're not sill... they're.........[sad]

Steve Fouga

When a person uses a silly name to help make their case, it's pretty clear their case is weak. That's why I'm curious why anyone does it, rather than just remaining silent. I didn't really expect anyone to actually answer my question, by the way.

Carlos Ponce

"When a person uses a silly name to help make their case, it's pretty clear their case is weak." Says Steve Fouga. Not really, Steve, not really. Remember they called the chancellor of WWII Germany "Teppichfresser" - Carpet chewer. I believe their case was rather strong.

Jim Forsythe

He was called "Teppichfresser" , because he was . He had the habit of eating carpet. This is from the 1940's and I had hope we have matured past that type of behavior, but we have not. We have a President, the person that represents the USA, that calls people names that are silly and juvenile. When one does not hold others to a standard of appropriate language, they are approving of this type of behavior.----------------------- "I think [Hitler] is on the edge of a nervous breakdown. And now I understand the meaning of an expression the party hacks were using when we sat around drinking in the Dressen last night. They kept talking about the “Teppichfresser”‘, the “carpet-eater”. At first I didn’t get it, and then someone explained it in a whisper. They said, Hitler has been having some of his nervous crises lately and that in recent days they’ve taken a strange form. Whenever he goes on a rampage about Benes or the Czechs he flings himself to the floor and chews the edges of the carpet hence the Teppichfresser."

Emile Pope

Simply a pack of right-wing garbage with no supporting evidence. Who paid for the trump tax cuts? His tariff?

Carlos Ponce

The main thing that kept Obama's economy afloat was his continuation of the Bush tax cuts. The economy is doing better under the Trump tax cuts and deregulation. Indicators are the increase in GDP, employment figures, take home pay. The Dow Jones rose to 26,966.00, an 11.55% increase in one year.

Gary Miller

Emile! People with more money in their paycheck and those getting jobs were paid by the tax cuts. The tax cut paid them. I'm sorry you are unhappy about your cost of living going down. I'm happy that the cost of living is going down for nearly all Citizens and disgusted with the few, like you, who aren't pleased.

Jim Forsythe

Obama's inherited a economy that was headed downward. The economy Trump inherited was headed up.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- How did the Presidents do after the same number of months as Trump has been in office with the Dow -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dow Jones Obama 51.8%,Trump 35.8% ,Bush -15.2%, Clinton 42.2%. At the end of each Presidents term. Obama 148.3% Clinton 228.9% Bush -26.5% Trump TBD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unemployment rate: Feb.2009 the U6 rate was 15.6% on Feb, 2017 and it was 9.1% For May 2019 the U-6 unemployment rate was 6.7% ,the trend that started in 2009 continues. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Between the third quarters of 2009 and 2010, GDP growth was 3.4 percent. From the first quarters of 2014 and of 2015, it was 3.3 percent. This also includes a 2.9 percent increase in the third quarter of 2016. The average growth rate during Obama’s two terms was 2 percent, . That was on par with George H.W. Bush’s term and faster than George W. Bush’s average.

Carlos Ponce

"Obama's inherited a economy that was headed downward." Why do you think Obama CONTINUED the Bush tax cuts, Jim? It was because of the positive results from Bush tax cuts. The setback in 2007-08 was due to the subprime mortgage crisis - a problem Bush tried to get Congress to fix but the Democrats (chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank especially) said did not exist.

Jim Forsythe

President Obama served for two terms, from January 2008 - 2010 Democrats were the majority party, from January 2011– January 2017 Democrats were the minority party. June 2001 , the first of the tax cuts were passed. Many years before Obama. If they helped Obama than they should have helped Bush. During Bushes time, U6 rated started to go to the way up. If the Dow is your measure of success, than for each's 8 years, Obama 148.3% , Bush -26.5% ------------------------------------------------------ Why did the subprime mortgage crisis happen . All of the following had a part in it. Warnings were give as early as 2003. The subprime mortgages stated in 2006 and Obama took office in 2009. Hard to make a case that Obama caused this mess. It started getting better in 2009.------------------------------------------- Early warning signs in 2003 to the collapse of the housing market in late 2006. February 21, 2003. That's when Warren Buffett wrote to his shareholders, “In our view, however, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.” June 2004-June 2006: Fed Raised Interest Rates By June 2004, housing prices were skyrocketing. Disastrously, this raised monthly payments for those who had interest-only and other subprime loans based on the fed funds rate . Many homeowners who couldn't afford conventional mortgages took interest-only loans as they provided lower monthly payments. When home prices fells, many found their homes were no longer worth what they paid for them August 25-27, 2005: IMF Economist Warns the World's Central Bankers Many big banks were holding derivatives to boost their own profit margins. They were warned, "The inter-bank market could freeze up, and one could well have a full-blown financial crisis," December 22, 2005: Yield Curve Inverts September 25, 2006: Home Prices Fall for the First Time in 11 Years Prices fell because the unsold inventory was 3.9 million, 38 percent higher than the prior year. November 2006: New Home Permits Fall 28 Percent Interest-only loans made a lot of subprime mortgages possible. Mortgage-backed securities repackaged subprime mortgages into investments How the Subprime Crisis Created the 2007 Banking Crisis As home prices fell, bankers lost trust in each other. They were afraid to lend to each other because if they could receive mortgage-backed securities as collateral. Once home prices started falling, they couldn't price the value of these assets. But if banks don't lend to each other, the whole financial system starts to collapse. All this happened before 2009.

Carlos Ponce

"If they helped Obama than they should have helped Bush. During Bushes time," It did. Unemployment averaged 4.6% for 2006 and 2007 then climbed after the sub-prime mortgage problems.

Jim Forsythe

You wanted to use rates as a measure of how a President performs. I give the rates, and you gave excuses as why Bush was lacking. U6 Unemployment Rate when Bush came to office. 7.4%---------------------------- U6 Unemployment Rate when Bush left office,15.2%.------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bushes time was up in 2009,not 2007. One can not pick out a few years and say, use these years only. A President has a term that they elected for and are responsible for all the years. 'The buck stops here' still applies.

Carlos Ponce

"U6 Unemployment Rate when Bush left office,15.2%" THE Bureau of Labor Statistics records 14.2 U6 for President GW Bush's last month in office. https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet Which is not indicative of his tenure which shows an increase in U6 starting late in his administration due to the Barney Frank caused sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Jim Forsythe

15.2 % was for Feb. 2009. The rate went from 7.4% to 14.2% under Bush. Doubling the rate in 8 years is indicative of a President that did not heed the warning signs in 2003 .--------------------------------------------------------------------- You are saying that Barney Frank did all that by himself? That Bush did not have the power of the pen. When you are in charge, you take responsibly for what happens. Frank was in the House minority for most of the Bush Administration, when the mortgage bubble expanded. in 2006, five out of six of sub-prime mortgages were issued by private lenders. Fannie and Freddie played a role in the beginning of the mortgage craze. 2003 was when new mortgages reached an all-time high. But in the years immediately preceding the bust, it was private Banks's mortgages that surged.

Carlos Ponce

"15.2 % was for Feb. 2009." So you are attributing the month AFTER GW Bush left office to his administration....... Really, Jim? If you look at the State of the Union addresses given by GW Bush you will find where he addressed the problems and wanted Congress to do its job and fix it which they did not do until the economy took a dive. "When President Bush tried to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae it was none other than Barney Frank who declared that Fannie Mae was 'fundamentally sound' and accused the Bush administration of fear mongering." "As ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank blocked tightened oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying in 2003, “These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis", and, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing." https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html Chairman Barney Frank appointed his boyfriend Herb Moses to head Fannie Mae. At Fannie Mae, Herb Moses relaxed the standards on Fannie Mae loans contributing to the sub-prime mortgage mess.

Jim Forsythe

You stated that Bush wanted Congress to do its job and fix it which they did not do until the economy took a dive, and you blame one man for the problem. He did say Congress should fix it. Bush was in charge and knew about the problem and did not fix it, making him a large part of the problem. The Speaker of the House knew about it, and did not stop it. You are trying to say these two just stood by and did nothing because Barney Frank was so powerful that these two men could not stop him.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bush was in charge and could not stop one House member. John Hastert could not keep him from high jacking the whole House. What you are saying is, Frank was more powerful than the President and the Speaker of the House. When you are in charge, you take responsibly for what happens. If the President had been paying attention, he would have seen it coming, but you say he knew which means he did not do his duty . Early warning signs in 2003 were given. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- August 25-27, 2005: IMF Economist Warns the World's Central Bankers Many big banks were holding derivatives to boost their own profit margins

Carlos Ponce

Have you ever heard the expression, "For want of a nail the war was lost"? The actions of Democrat Congressman Barney Frank led to the recession of 2007 - 2008, the rise in unemployment, etc. Timeline- April 2001, President GW Bush raised red flags that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a "potential problem". He warned that they could "cause strong repercussions in financial markets". In 2003 the White House warned that the problems with Fannie and Freddie formed a systemic risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector. Fall 2003 the Bush administration pushed hard for Congress to form a new agency to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. September 10, 2003 Treasury Secretary Snow testified, "We need a strong world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSEs [Government Sponsored Enterprises] and the safety and soundness of their financial activities." Secretary Snow received push back from ranking member then Chairman of the House financial services Committee Democrat Barney Frank who said, " Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis". Frank insisted the government should do more to get low-income families into homes and believed too many people had a 'sky is falling' mentality. "The more people in my judgement exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness the more people turns you up the possibility of serious financial losses to the tribute which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios and even if there were a problem the federal gun doesn't bail them out but the more pressure there is there then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." So the legislation was blocked. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan (Feb 17, 2005) added his voice when Fannie leaders admitted to major accounting screw-ups: "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgement passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." And on April 6, 2005 Greenspan testified before Congress, " If we fail to sum GSE regulation we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis." Democrat Schumer defended Fannie and Freddie, " I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world..... if you look at the last 20 or whatever years, they've done a very, very good job." Senator John McCain pushed for regulation of Fannie and Freddie on May 25, 2006: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the market...the GSEs need to e reformed without delay," The Bill made it out of the Banking committee with all Democrats voting against it. It was not brought up on the Senate Floor since the votes were not there. (Republicans had a 55-44-1 majority and lacked the 60 votes needed to pass the bill.)

Charles Douglas

Was that Obama, Biden, and Kerry who conspired to get B.B. Netanyahu out of office during their second term. Used taxpayers money to do so TOO! That was a no-no, and could be why Obama Biden, and Kerry's legacies are systematically being erased from history now. He should have set in a place where the word was being taught and he would have known not to mess with Israel. That GD CHURCH probably did not cover that because of time needed to excoriate America.

Carlos Ponce

The evidence is there, Jim. The fault lies with Democrats.

Jim Forsythe

Is it the same with you for Obama and Trump, that they are not responsible for what happens under there watch? This says it all "The evidence is there, Jim.The fault lies with Democrats". It has to be him, them because they are Democrat, no other reason , just party..

Carlos Ponce

The evidence is there, Jim. Democrats are to blame.

Jim Forsythe

The evidence is there,all are to blame. President ,and anyone in Congress were all to blame. They did not stop it, even being warned in 2003. The President is in charge and as such he is responsible. The Senate and the House have leaders, that could have stopped it, so they are responsible. You keep saying they could do nothing for all that time,because of votes. If so, during this time no bills should have passed, but they did pass bills.

Carlos Ponce

"They did not stop it" FACT: President GW Bush explained the problem in April 2003. FACT: In hearings and in State of the Union Messages the warning was repeated. FACT: The Democrats fought against such measures under the thought that housing should be available to all. Being able to repay the sub-prime mortgages was inconsequential. Loans were high risk and were even made to illegal aliens. FACT: Measures passed the Committees but never met the 60 vote limit in the Senate. FACT: With economic failure that wet worldwide, Democrats finally gave in to reigning in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. New Problem but now with student loans: Second verse same as the first. College costs were going up but skyrocketed after Obama made college loans a Government only venue. Still, Maxine Waters wanted to blame corporate lending entities even though they haven't made a college loan for almost a decade.

Jim Forsythe

To try and say Bush had no fault is lacking. GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the crisis.-------------------------- In 2005, the Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a GSE reform bill (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act) which "would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership". However, the Bush administration opposed the bill and it died in the Senate. Of the bill and its reception by the Bush White House, Ohio Republican Mike Oxley (the bill's author) said: "The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis.-------------------------------------------------------- Shadow banking system was part of the problem.-----------------------------------------------President Bush and his economic experts did not adequately address fundamental changes in the banking sector which had taken place over the two decades prior to the crisis. The essentially unregulated shadow banking system (e.g., investment banks, mortgage companies, money market mutual funds, etc.) had grown to rival the traditional, regulated depository banking system but without equivalent safeguards. The shadow banking system was the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. "As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that they were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible—and they should have responded by extending regulations and the financial safety net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank." President Bush stated in September 2008: "Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws." The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks, which proceeded to take on increasingly risky bets and leverage after a key 2004 decision

Carlos Ponce

"However, the Bush administration opposed the [GSE reform bill] bill ..." Why? The Bill in question was HR1461-Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. There were two bills in consideration, however. S.190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005 sponsored by Chuck Hagel, Libby Dole, John Sunnunu and John McCain. This bill had Bush's support. It passed 11-9 in committee but lacked the 60 votes in the full Senate. HR1461 was sponsored by Democrat Oxley. Had S.190 made it to Bush's desk he would have signed it. Why S. 190 but not HR 1461? HR 1461 would have made things WORSE. "The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation." "The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk." https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1461sap-h.pdf

Jim Forsythe

When history is reviewed in years to come, and the question of who was in charge during the leadup to the crises in the 2000's and years following, the name Bush will be on top of the list. Why, because the President is in charge and is responsible for what goes on. Just as today, Trump's name will be on what happen during his time. Leadership means leading, and taking responsibly for what happens. Not being able to negotiate, is a lack of leadership.------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Shadow banking system was part of the problem.-----------------------------------------------President Bush and his economic experts did not adequately address fundamental changes in the banking sector which had taken place over the two decades prior to the crisis

Carlos Ponce

History has reviewed it, Jim, a decade after the event. Democrats were responsible. The evidence is there.

Jim Forsythe

For most of Bushes term Republicans were in the majority, but you insists the they hold no reasonability. When one only uses part of the facts, they only have part of history. A President is responsible for what happens If you disagree, than Obama should not be held responsible for what ever you think he did wrong. Myself, I will hold all President responsible for what they did and did not do.

Carlos Ponce

"For most of Bushes term Republicans were in the majority..." Never a 60 vote majority in the Senate to pass ANY bill strictly with Republican votes. Started out with a 50 - 50 split in 2001.

Jim Forsythe

"For most of Bushes term Republicans were in the majority..." Never a 60 vote majority in the Senate to pass ANY bill strictly with Republican votes." Bills do not require only one party voting for it to pass. The reason it was set up this way, requiring more than a 50% vote, is so both parties would have to work together . Compromising .------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not being able to work with the other party shows a lack of leadership. Bush had many things he could have used. The House and Senate leaders had many things they could have done about it. Did Bush get on tv and lay it out like JFK did with the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did he tell the other leaders fix it, or I would take steps to fix it.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------All had a hand in letting it to happen, when they had warning.

Carlos Ponce

"Compromising" is a two way street, Jim. Suffice it to say LEARN HISTORY. Democrats regarded George W. Bush as an illegitimate President. He did no win the popular vote. Democrats say he stole the election from Al Gore. (Hmmmm... all this sounds familiar.) Democrat Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives. (Déjà vu!) Senator Chuck Schumer on any GW Bush Supreme Court nomination: " I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Roberts and Alito on the [Supreme] Court." There was little "cooperation" offered by the Democrats during GW Bush's tenure.

Jim Forsythe

Bush and Trump did not win the poplar vote but carried the EC. Each person has a personal felling if they agree with the outcome. No matter what, the outcome is what we have. "Compromising" Starts at the top. Filling impeachment articles is now common place. Until Compromising stop bring a dirty word, impeachment talk will be with us.-------------------------------------------- Andrew Johnson became the target of impeachment proceedings in 1868 over his choice to dismiss Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Congress argued that Stanton’s dismissal violated the Tenure of Office Act. Bill Clinton. The House of Representatives filed impeachment articles against Clinton in 1998. Representatives alleged that the president misled a grand jury about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky A number of attempts to remove President John Tyler from office failed. On January 10, 1843, Rep. John Minor Botts, of Virginia introduced a resolution that charged "John Tyler, Vice President acting as President" with nine counts of impeachable offenses, including corruption and official misconduct.----------------------- Nixon faced near-certain impeachment — and conviction — in 1974 over the Watergate scandal--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Reagan. On March 6, 1987 Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced articles of impeachment against President Reagan regarding the Iran Contra affair.-------------------- A resolution to impeach Herbert Hoover was introduced in 1932----------------------- During most of 1860, the "Covode Committee" held hearings on whether to impeach President James Buchanan---------------- impeachment attempt focused on the amount of time Grant had been absent from his presidential duties.------------------------ On January 16, 1991, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez introduced H. Res. 34, to impeach President George H. W. Bush for starting the Gulf War.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In March 2012, Representative Walter B. Jones introduced H. Con. Res. 107, calling for Congress to hold the sentiment that certain actions of President Barack Obama be considered as impeachable offenses, including the CIA's drone program in Afghanistan and Pakistan---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In April 1951, President Harry S. Truman fired General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. Congressional Republicans responded with numerous calls for Truman's head. Several presidents faced threats of impeachment that never amounted to a trial. That list includes Grover Cleveland, Herbert Hoover, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Each of them had articles of impeachment filed against them in the House of Representatives.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posted, "Not being able to work with the other party shows a lack of leadership." And what we see between Pelosi and AOC illustrates that lack of leadership.

Jim Forsythe

Leadership includes letting a House member have the spotlight until it is time to reel them in.-------------------------------------------------- Nancy Pelosi is doing a good job of making sure important issues are being addressed. Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a important issue because she does not have the power to do what Nancy Pelosi can make happen. As speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she has let Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezo have her time in the press and now is slowly slowing her down. Just as she did with Trump and the budget, she will take care of it. You may not agree with Nancy Pelosi style of leadership, but it works for the Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a national constituency of Americans who believe that government and the economy are rigged against working families. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't have much experience but she has plenty of energy and she can channel the enthusiasm of the millennials who are the rising force in national politics. She was voted in to represent the people in her district, and not Carlos or Jim.

Carlos Ponce

"Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a important issue because she does not have the power to do what Nancy Pelosi can make happen." In addition to her constituency, AOC has a loyal following of young Alt-Leftist via Twitter. And she also has her followers among the Liberal Media who give her a large platform to convey her message.

Jim Forsythe

Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez , serves as the U.S. Representative for New York's 14th congressional district. You know her name and what she stands for. How many other first year members of congress can you name, and what they stand for? She gets herself in the news and a lot of people can recognize her. You may not agree with her, but you know who she is. The people of 14th congressional district will decide if she should stay in DC . Is it wrong to have a loyal following of young people? Is it wrong for her to give interviews to the press? She forces no one to run stories about her. She has more skill than most with communicating, using new ways of reaching people. All this you just posted about Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez, has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi leadership skills.

Carlos Ponce

"How many other first year members of congress can you name, and what they stand for?" A few. There's the anti-Semite Congresswoman Omar. On the plus side there is Congressman Crenshaw.

Jim Forsythe

Of of 111 new members of congress you named 3. You may be able to name more, but most can not name all 111. The 3 you have named are active and in the news. You may not agree with the two women's message, but you know who they are. When one says Congressman Crenshaw, not that many know him outside of Texas. Even in Texas, if his picture is not with his name, few would know who he is and few can tell you what he stands for. If you ask a person to name all the House members they can , Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez would be on a lot of peoples list. In politics, name recognition is very important, and we will know if the people of Congresswoman Omar and Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez districts like the messages that they are getting from them, in the next election they face..

Carlos Ponce

"When one says Congressman Crenshaw, not that many know him outside of Texas." He's popular outside Texas. A veteran easily identified by his eye patch and political views.

Jim Forsythe

Like I said, "if his picture is not with his name, few would know who he is" Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez , no picture required . She has you and others talking about her, Congressman Crenshaw not so much. To make sure people knew who you where talking about, you added " identified by his eye patch". I have not seen Congressman Crenshaw on tv very much lately, Aleandria Ocasio-Cortez, almost daily.

Jim Forsythe

You are trying to blame the problems all on one man. Many people had a hand in it and it was the Presidents problem to fix. By your post ,Bush knew what was happening, but was unequip to handle it. ---------=------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is it the same with you for Obama and Trump, that they are not responsible for what happens under there watch?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Reserve Expands Credit In the recession of 2001, the Federal Reserve System, under Chairman Alan Greenspan, began aggressively expanding the U.S. money supply. Year-over-year growth in the M2 monetary aggregate rose briefly above 10 percent, and remained above 8 percent entering the second half of 2003. The expansion was accompanied by the Fed repeatedly lowering its target for the federal funds (interbank short-term) interest rate. The federal funds rate began 2001 at 6.25 percent and ended the year at 1.75 percent. It was reduced further in 2002 and 2003, and reached a low in mid-2003 of 1 percent, where it stayed for a year. The real Fed funds rate was negative—meaning that nominal rates were lower than the contemporary rate of inflation— for two and a half years. In purchasing-power terms, during that period a borrower was not paying but rather gaining in proportion to what he borrowed. Economist Steve Hanke has summarized the result: "This set off the mother of all liquidity cycles and yet another massive demand bubble." The demand bubble thus created went heavily into real estate. From mid-2003 to mid-2007, while the dollar volume of final sales of goods and services was growing at 5 percent to 7 percent, real estate loans at commercial banks were growing at 10–17 percent The Fed's policy of lowering short-term interest rates not only fueled growth in the dollar volume of mortgage lending, but had unintended consequences for the type of mortgages written. By pushing very-short-term interest rates down so dramatically between 2001 and 2004, the Fed lowered short-term rates relative to 30-year rates. Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), typically based on a one-year interest rate

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.