I hear a lot of talk about how much worse off people are now, with a Republican in office. I'm having a hard time understanding this, as we seem to be no worse than before, and, in fact probably doing better. My only gripe I can think of is how much housing has gone up, but, is that the fault of the Democrats or Republicans???

How do you gauge if you are better off or worse??? Just trying to understand. I understand this could get heated. I won't take it personally, so let the "stuff" fling where it may

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Looking at it from the perspective of me and my family, the cost of utilities and gas have doubled and food prices have also gone up. Tuition costs have come close to doubling. Income hasn't kept up with these costs so I would have to say we are worse off.

More importantly in my mind is our national debt, foreign policy issues and "our" acceptance of what to me is an administration that is perfectly willing to break laws and trash the Constitution all in the name of "national security". I'm curious to know what the reaction will be when President Obama or President Clinton signs a law but adds a "signing statement" saying he/she disagrees with the law and will proceed as if the law doesn't exist if it suits his/her purposes. BTW, I know signing statements were used in previous administrations but no where near the number of times that they have been used in the last 7 years.

It isn't all about the pocketbook.

For most Americans, real income has declined .4% per year. The inflation rate excludes energy costs which have been rising rapidly.

Little by little over the years the regulations put in place after the Great Depression have been removed. Although the mortgage mess is concentrated in a few areas for the moment, you can count on it coming to an area near you. The bulk of the option arms will reset in March and August of this year. This is when housing prices will really start to drop.

I agree that our national reputation has been very badly tarnished.

Ana, you're wrong on the signing statements. Other presidents have used signing statements as way of explanation or the history of the bill. No president before Bush ever used a signing statement to state that the law does not apply to him. There are an extraordinary number of signing statements in this administration because this president believes that he is above the law.

Moreover, I believe that invading an Arab country with no terrorists, no ties to 9/11 and posing no threat to us was the act of a bully. It only served to destabilize the region and foster sympathy for those who perceive us to be the "Great Satan."

I heard, but can't confirm, that he has signed 1100 signing statements, in a refusal to follow the law he has just put into effect. Why this man was never impeached is a constant puzzlement to me.

Financially I am better off now than years ago. But I do not think it was because of who was the President. Mainly we started a fire-wood business in our spare time and worked our way to staying almost debt-free.
Financially the country is in worst shape.

I do think that under this current government we as a country are worst off. Not just things the President has done but also Congress. The passing of the Patriot Act is attacking more of all liberties.


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

One of the things I don't see mentioned, is all of the families and friends of the brave military people and private citizens who have died or been injured in the war. We still have Osama bin Laden running around free, too.
That should have been our priority not starting a war in Iraq.

__________________
You cannot do a kindness too soon, for you will never know how soon it will be too late. Ralph Waldo Emerson

I was doing some reading on this and found this: (Boston Globe btw)

In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”


I also read that Clinton signed MORE than GWB, but the ones GW signed were more controversial and are therefore getting the attention.

__________________
"A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked." ~ Bernard Meltzer

Great article. Thanks for posting the source.

It was written April 30, 2006. Clinton was not even in the same game as Bush II. Reagan started the practice, as it turns out upon the recommendation of Meese who had someone named Samuel Alito write a strategy memo in an effort, (obviously very successful), to weaken congress and strengthen the executive branch. As of the date of the article,
Bush I signed 232, over 4 years,
Clinton signed 140, over 8 years,
Bush II signed 750, over 6 years.
Given the rate he is signing my 1100 might not be too far off.

This is why Bush never uses the veto. He just declares he is above the law and that's that.

I don't think that a power grab of this ilk was unimagined by our founders. I am as bothered by Congress sitting on their hands as I am by the illegal power grab.

After he attached his signing statement to the bill outlawing torture, I wrote to one of my senators (the other is a complete boob), Lindsay Graham (who is gay, BTW). Basically, I asked him what he thought the purpose of Congress was if every law they passed could be overturned by the stroke of a pen. He actually admitted that he worried about that too.

To me, I think that each of our elected officials should consider his or her loyalties to lie with the country above their party. That is not what has happened under this administration.