Dishonest. You take a 2 year picture vs an 8 year picture. Take the first 2 years of Bush, 01 to 03, to be a bit more honest. The other piece of your B.S. is that this IS a different time with different variables affecting the market.

And where is the personal Democrat responsibilty brigade? Still utterly refusing to take responsibility for thier part in causing the financial mess. The Community Reinvestment Act had something to do with it. All part of the repealing the Glass-Steagal Act by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (Republicans ) in 1999 and signed by CLINTON (Democrat ). So gungungot, go look up some history before you start spoutint garbage.

Check out IRAs with big insurance companies like North American or Midland. They offer indexed annuities that are NOT tied directly to the market like a 401K is. Goes up when the market goes up but NO negative if the market goes down and resets to the new low. And certain IRAs offer guaranteed income for life just like Social Security (only safer considering how tenuous SS is).

BS. Bush tried to warn Congress twice and they ignored him and Democrats in particular blocked any regulation changes. You want to see what really started the issues look up the Glass–Steagall Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act. This law repealed the part of the Glass–Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. It was in place to keep the banks from getting greedy. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act let them have free reign and put the CRA into place. Notice it was signed by Clinton.

There is one problem with your argument. Why is it the argument assumes a finite size of the pie? The wealth pie is not a constant. Maybe the rich do have 80% of the pie today but the size of the pie changes from year to year. if the pie doubles in size because everyone does well then the rich will have a reduced percentage. You can go out and earn ALL the riches you want and it does NOT take away from anyone else. It just grows the pie. You want to hate the rich? Why? Because they have something you don't? Then go out and make something. do something to gain wealth, grow the pie. Again, the pie is NOT a fixed size.

How do these people cash a paycheck or deal with even the most basic other item requiring some form of ID? How about pawning something at the pawn shop? Getting booze at the liquor store? All these actions typically require some form of ID. So, why is it something as sacrosanct as voting should not carry the same burden of proof that cashing a check does?

The responses the left receives from the right is merely a reflection of what the left has been dishing out for years and years. Seems the laft can dish it out but can't stand it when someone pushes back.

You say "These Tea-Baggers care about taxpayer's money being redistributed to themselves. Tea-Baggers wrap themselves up in the flag and use our Lord's suffering to protect the perk, pork and privilege that they feel they are entitled to. It is a disgrace! " I say, what a load of BS. You take your dislike of the TP and wrap it with drivel about them wanting to get the money for themselves???? You are truly clueless Otto.

Some good points in your post. The only thing I would argue about is that you say "the typical deep seated knee-jerk right wing disdain for anything eco-friendly". Right wingers do not disdain anything that is eco-friendly. What they disdain is how it got to be there to begin with, what got shoved down their throats to get it there, how much was taken out of their pockets and wasted to get it there when it could have happened at a fraction of the cost and with less waste. They also disdain that the Left lies about the Right and makes them out to be eco-UNfriendly when that is NOT the case. You also say, referring to electric cars "They have shorter range, so cars won't wear out as fast and need replacing" .A shorter range just means...

lilly, Wow, what can I say? Your ranting is sooooo far off base. Basic human decency? You mean the kind that the inmates showed when they committed the crimes that got them there in the first place? Tents in 110 degree heat? You mean just like our soldiers in Iraq had to deal with? Spoiled food? Where are you getting your talking points? Directly from MoveOn.org I suspect. Perhaps you should delve a bit into these charges from other sources BEFORE you make up your mind if they are real or not.