tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-886470415541838174.post2797172799340112140..comments2012-01-28T12:33:57.629-08:00Comments on Cliff Potts: Obama's State of the Union Address (Part 8)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-886470415541838174.post-21706163206772380632010-02-10T06:48:45.751-08:002010-02-10T06:48:45.751-08:00With a few exceptions, the president cannot spend ...With a few exceptions, the president cannot spend a dime without Congress. You state that the Republicans have held Congress from "roughly 1995 to approximately 2007". Out of the last how many years though? The same 41 year period you mention? So, about 1/4 of the time? I find that significant.<br /><br />Regarding your second article on job growth. At one point it discusses the reality of results lagging the implementation of policy. I find it interesting that when the author correctly notes that when lagging is appropriately accounted for it puts credit and blame where they are both due so for that reason "it makes sense" to look at it from a different perspective. How convenient. <br /><br />For the record, I personally do not subscribe to the ideas that none of the Republicans had a hand in either the deficit or the debt. I believe that both sides have contributed. Generally, the Republicans to a lesser degree than the Democrats but contributed nonetheless. However, when attempting to analyze root causes. Those policies that have been significant or laid a foundation then your statement is more or less correct.<br /><br />I am curious about your continued reference to "King George the Usurper". Is this a reference to the 2000 election when Algore and certain Florida officials attempted to thwart the election process by cheating and manipulating? Or are you refering to something else entirely?<br />I'm just wondering because any objective analysis of those events and the subsequent SC ruling will reveal that, based on the rules of law at the time, the correct results were obtained.Jamesnoreply@blogger.com