By American standards, in Canada our Liberals are quite conservative and our Conservatives might be considered rather liberal. The difference between the two main parties is clear but it's not a chasm.

Does this forum reflect mainstream America, are you really so far aprt on your aspirations for your country?

Yes we are a very "liberal" country comapared to the States, my point was more about the fact that our "left and right" aren't as polarized as it seems to be in the States.

While it's true that media and the internet have magnified a lot of things, I've heard statements from some people since this last election that I never thought I'd hear. I really thought that people had more common sense.

What I've seen is more parroting of the media, and a lot less original thought. It's very weird, and a little bit scary.

If people were forced to speak without the media "cue cards", I'd guess a lot more would be closer to middle of the road than it appears.

I think that ever since I began to converse with people on the internet and closely follow the news about the politics of the people, I have begun to fear that we have become much more of a polarized country - however I must remember that all of us on the internet, discussing our feelings, are squeaky wheels. We are going to hear from the squeaky wheels on the internet and I think that those same people are heard from when it comes to the media and from talking heads too.

I would think that the majority of voters, though, are probably more detailed oriented and when they go into vote in county and sometimes state issues, they are voting on issues that matter the most and will affect them the most personally - whoever it is that is running and has talked about those issues will be the ones who gets the vote if the person likes what is being said.

Lots of people will vote against their preferred party affiliation when it comes to state elections - but when it comes to voting for the President of our country, rarely do they tend to vote against the party they affiliate themselves with.

That is why you will hear people say that they don't vote a straight ticket - this gives the impression of having a politically open mind but I believe that in reality, when it comes to party affiliation, they vote the party line almost every time when it comes to most especially Presidential elections and but often, state rep (Congress and Senate) elections also - depending upon what it is the state rep runner is planning to do or how fearful of "the other guys" they are at the time and how the balance on the hill is currently in reps.

I do believe there is a verbal civil war going on in America though. The squeaky wheels of our country are at war with each other, verbally, on the internet and that probably bleeds into their lives. JMO

However, I do admit that I might be very wrong. Discussing politics on the internet is a form of many people's entertainment and that can certainly have an individually polarizing effect if one chats about politics in a forum such as this where tempers can flare - people can get dug in on opinions when becoming defensive or disgusted with the conversations and perhaps take hard line positions they would not have taken if they didn't come to sites where the discussions weren't just amongst people either liberal or conservative with no inbetween.

Having the people polarized politically is very good for media business. If we weren't so interested, all viewship would be down, especially for the talking heads. So, I might very well be incorrect in my thoughts that the majority of the country tend to fall into a centerist position with a list one way or the other depending upon the times -

after all, money talks and the media likes us polarized and encourages it every step of the way.

Our conservative party used to be called The Progressive Conservatives. Fiscally conservative (by our standards) but socially liberal. Stuff happened and they were overtaken by The Reform Party, a further to the right bunch and eventually re-named the Conservative Party of Canada. Not only are they fiscally conservative, they are socially conservative.

Which brings me to my point. In the US the elected members don't seem to fear the voting public. It takes so long and costs so much to mount a campaign against an incumbent, folks seem to just give and accept the person, warts and all.

Our system of non-confidence votes, quick and spending capped elections and minority/majority governments seems (again emphasis on seems) to keep our elected members in better check.

Our Liberal Party forgot that and got all scandaled up and have been reduced at the polls to bottom feeders for three elections now. The voting public is giving them a time out, so to speak.

Meanwhile, we don't trust our newer version of the Conservative Party so we have only been giving him minority governments. So our version of Bush has to play nice with the Bloc and the NDP, both pretty far left ideologically.

You all need to make your elected reps a bit afraid of losing their jobs.

I don't know that this forum represents much of anything other than the thinking of those who don't mind typing.

We've been polarized for some time. Since the religious right was consciously recruited by the Republican Party, we may have become even more polarized. Where previously the divide may have been about politics, we now have the culture wars as well. I may be making too much of this, since there have been other strong cultural divides in the last (20th) century, and the religious right is just the current crop of contentiousness.

I think as individuals, we are all pretty much share the same family values. It's in our expectations of community and government that are different.

I think so-called "conservatives" in the US want a very hands-off central government (see Rand Paul), at least as long as "they" are the majority and their ideas and expectations are in the ascendancy; they get the best jobs, make the most money, pay the least taxes, live in the best neighborhoods, are protected from crime, their businesses are allowed to operate unfettered by government regulation and if something bad happens, they aren't blamed, what happens to everyone else is of no concern to them.

So-called "liberals" in the US expect government to be more involved in the lives of it's citizens; protecting vulnerable groups from exploitation and harm (even members of groups that aren't citizens), keeping water and air clean and safe, ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" by getting a good education, a decent job at decent wages, that workplaces are safe, safe housing, all citizens are protected from crime, taxes are fair to everyone.

Sadly, we seem to feel the need to take no prisoners, it's all or nothing and the leaders play dirty, there's no sense of compromise or fair play.

I think it's always been that way in the US, and probably always will be, it's a result of how our country developed, from a relatively small, homogeneous country in 1776, to a huge country with a diverse population in 2010.

There are very few other countries like the US and Canada. I don't know if either country is doing a particularly good job, but with so many really awful choices in government, past and present, I think our countries represent the best there is.

I don't for a minute think that conservatives are the greedy, rapacious monsters you describe or that liberals are bleeding heart tooth fairies yearning to dispense largess to all and sundry.

Do you really believe what you wrote or am I missing the joke?

Momj47, I am a bit shell shocked at your description of liberal and conservative expectations about the role of government. I would be horrified at being connected with either group if they are as you say.

I don't for a minute think that conservatives are the greedy, rapacious monsters you describe or that liberals are bleeding heart tooth fairies yearning to dispense largess to all and sundry.

Do you really believe what you wrote or am I missing the joke?

*

I noticed that--one side described as all bad, the other side all good.

I certainly don't think that way.

Nancy, your assessment was similar:

"We've been polarized for some time. Since the religious right was consciously recruited by the Republican Party, we may have become even more polarized."

I agree; I also agree since the far left is in control of the White House and our legislative branches it's caused even more polarization.

I do not believe for one minute that this forum is a reflection of anything more than people with too much time on their hands.

The elections this November will tell whether the makeup of this forum is reflective of the voters of this country.

I do not believe that it is.
Perhaps liberals just have more time on their hands than conservatives. ;)

The fact that anyone with any political knowledge would consider the Obama Administration as "far left" is a symptom of how degraded our political discourse has become.

re the Christian Right:

The trend began in the late 1970s when the Christian Right registered several million new voters to vote for Ronald Reagan. In 1980, when Reagan won with only 26 percent of the eligible electorate, white evangelical voters accounted for two-thirds of Reagan's ten-point lead over Jimmy Carter. Then in 1984, the Christian Right pulled out all the stops to re-elect Reagan. In 1992, despite Bush's defeat, exit poll data showed that there were only two constituencies consistently loyal to the Republican Party: people with incomes over $200,000 a year, who are few in number, and the Christian Right. On the Road to Political Power and Theocracy

What do you call Van Jones and other appointees of Obama, and Obama's radical left connections and proclamations throughout his life? His agenda? Middle of the road? Maybe from the perspective of another far lefter.

Thank you, Nancy. I was a leftie in college and the real "far left" would be horrified to be even remotely identified with the current federal administration.

THIS is the American far left, fyi for Demifloyd and others who apparently don't have a very firm grasp of the political spectrum in the US: Website of the International Committee of the 4th International

Your perspective is relative, as is mine.

Obama is "far left" to me and much of the country
Not always in his actions, but in his agenda.
Given enough time, he will reveal this I believe.

The capitalist class would never allow anyone not 100% dedicated to capitalism to be nominated as a presidential candidate.

I thought everyone knew this is how our political system works.

As for Obama, I would be interested in hearing what he has done that would be considered by most people to be "far left." His willing compromise on health care reform upset the lefties, his bailing out of banks and wall street was an extension of Geo Bush's neocon position, he just sent troops to patrol the southern border (which righties support), etc. Maybe his willingness to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be considered "far left" by some, but since 70% of Americans support this change, that would mean that a very large majority of Americans are "far left." I don't think the average American would even recognize themselves in that description.

So what has he done that is "far left"?

Kate

I'm not loyal to any party. Tho, I tend not to vote for either of the two most popular party candidates. Might give up voting all together.

*

Oh, October, don't do that.

We are going to have to choose between the lesser of two evils! ;)

The good thing is that each of our votes count the same.

Demi, could you explain where you see this "agenda"? (I'm truly curious, not trying to be snarky.)

An actual far left agenda would be a staged revolution of the working class proletariat to take forcible ownership of the means of production.

I don't read everything, but I haven't seen a word in Obama's declarations that hint of such a thing; instead, he has made concession after concession to Big Money, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Auto, etc etc.

He's a classic Liberal Democrat (let's support the poor, equitize corporate loss, increase monies spent on cultural programs, regulate social institutions normatively according to upper-middle-class values) with a twist of conservative Democrat thrown in (let's aggressively expand our war effort).

But that's very far indeed from being far left.

We could take an informal poll to see how close folks here are to a scientific daily tracking poll:
------------------------------------------------------------
Do you approve, strongly approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job the president is doing?

I strongly disapprove.
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm guessing most leftys here strongly approve and most of us on the right strongly disapprove. Let's count. Let's see how HT posters compare with the Rasmussen poll taken today. Someone might want to add yet another scientific poll for further comparison. I won't post it all right now, but you can see how big a percentage "strongly approve" and "strongly disapprove" in the Rasmussen poll results.

Rasmussen says only 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent Strongly Disapprove. The president is at an all time low for voter approval. I'm guessing those of us who are conservative are closer to the mainstream in our opinions. We appear to be a "minority" here, but when compared with the public view, I think we're more reflective of what people think.

Feel free to weigh in if you're a US voter and want to be counted.

I'm guessing you didn't read or don't remember the numerous criticisms from "leftys" here re President Obama.

The health care changes were insignificant, he shored up big business without taking them over, lowered taxes, escalated the offensive in Afgahinstan, approved additional off shore oil digging, is sending additional fed troops to the border......I'm still waiting to see anything even remotely big "L" liberal from this guy.

Having said that, I believe his thinking is much more liberal than his policies but there is no way he can move his thinking into his agenda given the current political situation.

I'd be very interested, sincerely and not looking for a fight, in hearing what policies could be considered far left. I think that may help us understand the divide.

Every President we have ever had goes in with an agenda and the administration he brings with him to the job is on board with the agenda. The agenda they hold is what won them the election - the agenda is the platform they ran on.

I wake up every morning and finish up last night's thoughts on the agenda for the new day and then start to try implement the very agenda I mentally wrote up in my head.

We vote Presidents in on their agenda - on the last election every voter was voting on the person's self proclaimed agenda.

You will probably be very surprised to find out that most posters on this forum probably, at best, "approve," and if they had a choice, would probably mark "mixed approval/disapproval" or "neutral." I guarantee you that if there are real "lefties" on this forum (and not just those who are left of the rightwingers, since "centrist" would be "left" of the rightwingers)), they "disapprove" of Obama's performance in a number of areas.

Those of us with mixed feelings haven't necessarily given up on Obama, but so far, haven't seen much that even a "liberal" would rejoice in. What we do know is that Obama is still a much better choice than McCain/Palin would have been.

You need to quit pigeonholing those who disagree with you. Liberals and leftists in real life don't much resemble the caricature of them you carry in your head.

Kate

So, no, I don't approve of an awful lot of what he has done. He caved in on health insurance, expanded the Afghanistan war, hasn't repealed DADT, and that's just for starters.

Re the word "agenda". It definitely is a code term, used by far-right-wingers to describe what they think is something evil. In the 1980's, I was in Vermnt when it was campaigning to pass an Equal Rights Amendment in that state and the Phyllis Schafley-types were out saying that it was part of the "feminist agenda", whatever that was.

Now it's the gay agenda we have to fear. Whatever that is.

Kate, I haven't found out anything. I'm the only vote so far. Would love to have your response.

"I'm guessing you didn't read or don't remember the numerous criticisms from "leftys" here re President Obama."

My guesses don't count. But your response does.

Do you approve, strongly approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job the president is doing?

Mylab, you are quite right about the use of "agenda" as a code word. This started with the Fundamentalist, far-Right wing so-called Christians, some decades ago when policies came out that they morally disapproved of. I've heard it from their ilk many times, as in the Pro-Choice folks having a "culture of death" as their "agenda." It's a very loaded and overworked term.

I hope the conservatives here are not just going to vote their approval/disapproval on Obama but also weigh in on the opposition party. Are you telling me you approve of the way the Republicans governed for 8 years and the way they have conducted themselves this year? Not pushing to improve health care reform, taking the side of Wall Street on financial reform, finding fault with everything but offering nothing constructive.

Well said. Amen.

I agree with every single solitary thought Kingturtle just posted.

That said, I would still vote for our President over McCain/Palin again, no question.

Speaking of McCain, how many have lost the respect they may have once held for him? I always thought he was an honorable man but since the shake up in his party and his pathetic scramble to distance himself from his maverick ideals, I have lost all respect for him. He is just another slick politician who will say/do anything to keep his career going.

Please keep in mind that my disapproval of how we were governed by the conservative party during when it last held the power in our country , the conservative party supporters to the bitter end of that power reign and how the conservative party and it's supporters have behaved and conducted themselves since the last election is far, far outweighed by my disapproval of the job our President has done thus far.

The time will come when it's in our best interest for a conservative president to be in power again. The time is not now, it is clear they haven't accepted a thing about the failings and faults of the ideals they hold so dear and the only change they are willing to make is to dig in deeper. Until they begin to accept the fault of this mess we find ourselves in, they need to not "take our country back". (code for hold the reigns of power again)

JMO

"I agree with every single solitary thought Kingturtle just posted.

That said, I would still vote for our President over McCain/Palin again, no question."

I will say that the past 18 months have shown how totally corrupt - financially, morally, ethically, politically - our Congress has become.

I'll add a criticism of how the Honduran coup was accepted in deed, despite the flow of rhetoric that said otherwise. Same old same old.

It's a fairly common occurrence both here and on Canadian forums for arguments to degenerate into name calling - 'facist/fundie neo-con' or 'hypocritical holier-than-thou liberal' - as if doing so somehow justifies or validates their opinion when actual data cannot. Just like on here there are people on Canadian forums who get upset and belligerent when someone dares to refute their opinion or offer an alternate point of view. The only difference I see between the two countries is that the average Canadian is politically farther left than the average American, but that certainly doesn't stop the vitriol flowing from either side.

An interesting point about the word 'agenda'. While in the US it tends to be a negative term used against liberals, here in Canada it's our Conservative prime minister that's accused of having an 'agenda'.

Tyler

I hope you see how wrong your surmise was. Most of the posts are exactly as I described above--lefties disapproving, liberals/centrists having mixed responses, approving of some things, disapproving of others. Your "guesses" were way off.

My vote? I can't. Your black and white "poll" doesn't have an appropriate category. Like I said, "those of us with mixed feelings" (you couldn't guess that "us" includes me also?) need a mixed category.

But I repeat: Better Obama than McCain/Palin.

Kate

Nope. No liberals participated.

Excellent column by a local "outdoors" writer in today's paper. He normally writes about Louisiana fishing and hunting, but today The Wild Side was more about food for thought and how we've let down the generations that came before us.

We need to do much, much better

* By JOE MACALUSO
* Advocate Outdoors writer
* Published: May 30, 2010 - Page: 14C

"When I was a child, in the days when newspapers were produced with chisel and stone, there were few holidays, July 4th, Christmas, New Year’s, Thanksgiving and Labor Day.

Those were my dad’s holidays — and one other, Memorial Day. My dad worked some of those days in late May, but I could tell his heart wasn’t always on the job.

He had men to remember, men who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with him from Normandy into Germany, men who didn’t come home.

We have lost most of the men and women of my parent’s generation, the folks who came through The Great Depression and World War II and came home with the determination to make the United States a better place to live and work.

Most I knew from that Greatest Generation were God-fearing, no-nonsense, hard-working, family men.

And they raised families — us — the Baby Boomers. The earliest among us turn 65 this year; the youngest are hitting 50.

I don’t know why, but during the last few days, I’ve come to believe we’ve failed them, disgraced their memory and dishonored their sacrifices.

We need no more proof than to remember what’s happened to us in south Louisiana during the past five years, especially in light of what’s happened since the oil well blew up April 20.

How many of our fellow Louisianans were left to struggle for months after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? How many times in the days, weeks and months after those storms were our government’s promises made, then not kept?

In these days, when governmental regulations threaten us with fewer and fewer freedoms, does this same government turn a blind eye and deaf ear to some of the greatest swindles in our history?

Now with oil threatening to destroy our hundreds of years relationship with the lands and waters of our state, we see and hear the same inept federal government responses to what looms as the greatest man-made ecological disaster in our nation’s history.

And us Baby Boomers can shoulder a fair amount of the blame for that.

We continue to elect the same kinds of people to the same jobs. They might be from different political parties, but they have proven themselves to be cut from the same cloth, just from different ends of the bolt.

Those we elect appear to continue to use their positions to make appointments from among agenda-driven political alliances, not from a pool of people who could make our country better and stronger.

What us Baby Boomers have allowed to happen is for power and greed to replace what I saw from our parents — that duty, honor, country and a commitment that when something needs to be done, it’s best to do it right and do it honestly.

Today, with Louisiana’s future looking no better than that of a Third World country, it’s time to do better.

We need to do better."

In my opinion, we have not only let down the previous generation, we're totally failing the next generation, and the one after that, and so on... honesty and integrity seem to have taken a back seat... and logic and common sense are floundering... greed for power and wealth have corrupted more than just the governments of the world. The big picture looks rather bleak, if you ask me.

We do need to do much better... but I fear that the handle we needed to get on things should have been grabbed at least a few decades ago. I think a lot of it is past fixing, truth be told.

Nope. No liberals participated.

Excuse me? Those of us who did are some of the most liberal posters on this forum.

I noticed that the righties who are quick to disapprove of Obama have not had anything to say about conservative politicians. Typical.

The thing about 'liberal' and 'conservative' is that they have a meaning outside of political parties that carry those names and the two meanings only vaguely coincide. 'Far left' is virtually meaningless beyond its name calling facility as in an argument people tend to push their opponent to the extreme thereby making themselves (of course) the voice of reason and the 'other' out there in the far away. Beyond the political banter most of us just want to get along which is the problem. "Hey, you only want milk, OK I'll lap up the cream" vs "Homogenized dairy products". But to get some kind of sharing a fight seems necessary, step up the far left. Obama is in the unfortunate position of being aware of how curds and whey separate and of his impossibly alchemical position. The solution is not with him though so he can't be blamed.

It's about those who regard the US Constitution as the Law of the Land and those who think it's an outdated, 'living' document that can be twisted into whatever those with the most agressive voices and actions (think progressives, unions, ACORN) say it should say.

It's about those who believe the Fed govt should control just about every single aspect of our life and those who believe that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If we look at the current administration (both Legislative and Executive branches) in those terms, we would see that it has made the largest power grab in history. It's taken over the healthcare of the country - where in our Constitution do they have the authority to do that?

As for the 'Cap&Tax' garbage, that's meant as a total govt takeover of the economy. Because the Senate won't pass it, BO will use the EPA and destroy the economy, effectively usurping the lawful process as per the Constitution.

His czars are there to ensure the Senate has no say in who gets a voice in his administration.

He's in bed with the Unions and its card check scheme.

Through the FCC he wants to take over the internet so he can wipe out any dissenting voice to his policies. Isn't there something about Freedom of Speech in The Bill of Rights? Ooops, just a minor inconvenience to BO.

With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal govt owns 90% of all the mortgages in America. Why does the fed govt own most of the mortgages in America? (I'm not pinning this on the current admin - the fed govt should not be in the mtge business PERIOD!) Where in the Constitution does the fed govt have the authority to be in the mortgage business?

And now BO's Homeland Security want to seize, through Eminent Domain, an elderly couples farm because they need it to protect US citizens from illegal aliens!! Except that farm borders Canada. My fellow Canadian 'Americans', why isn't your govt doing anything to stop the influx of Canadians who cross the border illegally?[/sarc] All for an unnecessary upgrade at an underused border crossing.

You can read the story by clicking http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100503/NEWS03/5030358/0/business

The basic problem with America today is that politicians have ignored the Constitution and acted on whatever ever whim of the day was.

I, for one, would not mind going back over the last 100 years or so and pitting every Fed govt plan against the Constitution and having the Fed govt defend how they have the authority to do what it is they've been doing - they can't - and then get rid of every single one.

, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

It's totally Constitutional. Isn't that the standard by which you judge everything?

The power grabbers and money huggers, you mean.

"It's about those who regard the US Constitution as the Law of the Land and those who think it's an outdated, 'living' document that can be twisted into whatever those with the most agressive voices and actions"

Thank your pal GW, who called it "only a piece of paper".

"If we look at the current administration (both Legislative and Executive branches) in those terms, we would see that it has made the largest power grab in history. It's taken over the healthcare of the country - where in our Constitution do they have the authority to do that?"

The same place that allowed Social Security to be established.

'With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal govt owns 90% of all the mortgages in America. Why does the fed govt own most of the mortgages in America? (I'm not pinning this on the current admin - the fed govt should not be in the mtge business PERIOD!) Where in the Constitution does the fed govt have the authority to be in the mortgage business?"

Perhaps you would have preferred a full depression?

Oh..that's right...you live in Australia. My bad.

"As for the 'Cap&Tax' garbage, that's meant as a total govt takeover of the economy. Because the Senate won't pass it, BO will use the EPA and destroy the economy, effectively usurping the lawful process as per the Constitution."

I have to admit I'm against cap and tax--I prefer direct taxes on all fossil fuels, with the revenue to be used to fund new nuclear power plants.

"And now BO's Homeland Security want to seize, through Eminent Domain, an elderly couples farm because they need it to protect US citizens from illegal aliens!!"

Right.

The family owns a 220-acre farm, and the government wants under 5 acres of it. The 5 acres are claimed to produce 1000 bales of hay a year, which they need for their dairy cows. However, the family purchased the farm knowing the station was there, and that the government had previously taken the initial space needed by eminent domain.

A long-term lease which would yield enough money to purchase the needed hay might be a better way for the govenment to go but this is certainly not the repressive action you make it sound like.

What concerns me is the way the increased security will lock the rest of us in.

Unfortunately, homeland security (a very Gestappo-like name for an agency) is what you ultra-C's have been carping for.

I do have an idle question for you, though. What are you doing in Australia? Ripping off the locals?

Liberalism vs. conservatism is "about those who regard the US Constitution as the Law of the Land," according to Cait.
So only Americans are liberal or conservative? These words describe only American politics and american voters?
Not all of us regard the American constitution as the law of the land. This is not an insult - it's reality. This forum attracts posters from the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and Israel, among other countries.

Nina, your rant was uncalled for. If you had bothered to read the OP, you would have noted that Chase asked the following:
"Does this forum reflect mainstream America, are you really so far aprt on your aspirations for your country?"

There is no way I can think of that anyone can misconstrue that Chase was asking the Americans the question, until, of course, you decided to add a comment.

Take it up with Chase if you have a problem with his question. Don't rage all over me for answering it how I saw fit.

Woodnymph, you must be joking.

As for eibran
Posted by eibren z6PA (My Page) on Mon, May 31, 10 at 1:14
Thank your pal GW, who called it "only a piece of paper".

Show me the video of that, or at least where Snopes has commented. Don't throw hearsay into the mix.

Both the Patriot Act and Homeland Security are dearly loved by the Dems and BO or else they would have gotten rid of both, so stop talking nonsense.

I actually thought the Desm wouldn't continue with the Patriot Act when it was up for renewal, but they saw their chance to have Big Government hold over the people and didn't want to give up so much power. The Patriot Act and Homeland Security should both be abolished. What say you?

As for Freddie & Fannie, they weren't the cause of the housing meltdown, your buddy Clinton did that with his Big Government scheme when he forced banks to lend to people who couldn't pay back the mtgs.

Read some history - a NYT article from 1999:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
...Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits...
...In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'...

At least someone had enough vision back then to understand this could blow up in our faces - and it came from a lawyer at a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. When will Dems ever learn that even quasi entitlement programs will never work? Social Security is going bust, Medicare is going bust, and if Obamacare ever goes thru you know that will go bust, too, and take everyone down with it.

Dems love Other People's Money (OPM). The only problem with that, as Margaret Thatcher so rightly pointed out, is that you eventually run out of it.

As to your final comment - grow up.

Good smokescreen.

So, you don't want to tell us just what you're up to there.

Well, then...given your philosophy...I believe my guess was correct.

You're right about one thing--Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, both fascistic neo-nazi-type legislation, should be repealed.

And if you think he would have been stupid enough to allow a comment like that to be documented, your view of him is closer to my own than I assumed.

Please note that a couple of libs claimed to have "participated" but in fact did not respond with the response set provided, essential for validity and reliability.

The question was: Do you approve, strongly approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job the president is doing?

The 2 responses were 1 for "strongly disapprove" and 1 for "disapprove." Those views are consistent with what likely voters have been telling Rasmussen. More people disapprove than approve. You can see the May 31st daily presidential tracking poll below. FTA: "Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove." Because it's a daily tracking poll, the numbers change a bit from day to day.

People can still participate in my informal poll. Maybe they'll do it for you, Chase, and we can see more clearly how views here compare with the views of likely voters.

FYI The Rasmussen Report has lots of other interesting information about polls and polling.

There is a phenomenon called the herd (or, sheeple) effect. Stick with what the "majority" says.

Chase, From the beginning, I made it clear that I don't care what poll libs use. I invited them to provide another one of their own choosing, for further comparison.

Maddie, If you have a poll that you think better reflects the thinking of mainstream America, you're free to post it.

By the way, maddie, I appreciate your link about Scott Rasmussen.

FTA: "Both Republican and Democratic candidates for office cite Rasmussen data in their correspondence. Susan Estrich, who managed the Presidential campaign for Michael Dukakis said, "If you really want to know what people in America think, you can't find a smarter guy to ask than Scott Rasmussen."

Rasmussen's polls are notable for their use of automated public opinion polling, involving pre-recorded telephone inquiries. These types of polls have been shown to produce accurate results at low cost.[citation needed] But some have doubted their reliability. In 2004 Slate magazine said they "publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen" polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate."

Thanks again for the link. Sorry you're not participating in the poll.