Can't have it both ways; if Bush still to blame then obama is just irrelevant

[bodecea]

Whatever Obama has done concerning the economy he has done it alone without any advice or consent from either house of congress. That should tell you a lot.

So YOU accept the fault for the rise in food stamp numbers as his fault? And you accept the 18 trillion dollar debt as his fault? Oh AND the last government shut down as his fault?

Good to hear. You may not be as stupid as your posting suggests.

$18 Trillion dollar debt is Obama's fault? Perhaps you're short of memory these days because $10.6 Trillion of that debt belongs to George Bush.

So your beat argument is Obozo only owns 45% of the debt made in just seven years compare to ALL the presidents before him?

AND you evaded his record number of drone kills. And you evaded the record rise in food stamps. And you "forgot" the TWO credit downgrades? Only TWO in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

No again, ALL presidents weren't as foolish as Reagan who brought us most of the debt or Bush who packed on two wars without so much as proposing savings bonds.

Compared to Obama & Bush...Reagan added so little debt that it's almost laughable that you now claim that he's responsible for most of the debt!

He sure was a popular President with 200 + Marines in Beirut, eh?

 

[bedowin62]

So YOU accept the fault for the rise in food stamp numbers as his fault? And you accept the 18 trillion dollar debt as his fault? Oh AND the last government shut down as his fault?

Good to hear. You may not be as stupid as your posting suggests.

$18 Trillion dollar debt is Obama's fault? Perhaps you're short of memory these days because $10.6 Trillion of that debt belongs to George Bush.

So your beat argument is Obozo only owns 45% of the debt made in just seven years compare to ALL the presidents before him?

AND you evaded his record number of drone kills. And you evaded the record rise in food stamps. And you "forgot" the TWO credit downgrades? Only TWO in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

No again, ALL presidents weren't as foolish as Reagan who brought us most of the debt or Bush who packed on two wars without so much as proposing savings bonds.

Compared to Obama & Bush...Reagan added so little debt that it's almost laughable that you now claim that he's responsible for most of the debt!

He sure was a popular President with 200 + Marines in Beirut, eh?

idiotic deflection away from the topic

havent you noticed you are largely ignored by both sides, that is even your own side?

it's because you're an idiot with nothing of substance to say

 

[bendog]

Just to refresh...memory, Barack Obama came into office saying that he had a plan to fix the economy and would hit the ground running.

Then he proceeded to put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he pursued ObamaCare.

As a result...he's led the worst recovery from a recession since FDR and the Great Depression.

So the blame for the slow recovery has to do with Obamacare? If the recovery was tackled first things would have gone much better? Hmm...events all over the world would appear to call this logic into question

But WHAT exactly was the first thing Obama did when entering office, even before entering office?

Hmm...

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.​

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested.[3]

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

You appear to have fallen into the Rush-Alternative-World-View meme, where on Feb/Mar 2009, Rush gave a speech declaring 'we need to take our country back' -- all before President Obama changed a single thing

It's okay, recent brain studies can account for how you came to your faulty conclusions and stick with them

With all due respect, Dante...Barry continued W's TARP program because that was working! If your biggest success story of the Obama Administration on the economy is that they kept doing what Bush started...that's not much of an endorsement...know what I'm saying?

Who were President Obama's economic advisers when he entered office and what did they suggest and why? I bet they were not all that different in thinking and actions then Bush's were at that time. They were all Wall Street people.

trying to split Bush and Obama apart on the early interventions on the economic recovery is an ideological masturbation game

When Obama entered office it was Larry Summers and Kristina Romer that were heading up his team. They both ran back to tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley as soon as the Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs. Since then there really hasn't been anyone driving plans to stimulate the economy. We had calls for a "redo" of the Obama Stimulus that even Democrats didn't want to vote for...and vague calls for "infrastructure spending". That's it. And as the years went by talk about the economy became less and less of a focus for this Administration.

Well Summers' background is not simply academic, and Romer endured apparent sexism. But you fail to note Volker was in there as well. But I think what you unfairly choose to address is that fact that ANY Obama legislation was not going through congress. So, like All potus's, Obama moved to where he could exert influence.

If you wanted to say the current American govt (besides the Fed_ is incapable of doing ANYTHING about the debt or economic growth, I'd agree.

 

[I amso IR]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

I can work with that theory. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11, Bush is just a non-factor and irrelevant.

I amso IR responds: Irrelevance seems to be in large supply these days, regardless of one's political stance. Along more personal lines, what is with all of the clown icon's on this site? They also seem to be in great supply. No harm intended

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

for oldstyle and others of that ilk, it's all about ideology

Upon entering office Obama had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the job.

and

Fed Backs Obama's Bailout Request


and the right wing libertarian crowd tries to ignore Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, saying he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Here’s a fascinating exchange between Alan Greenspan and Representative Henry A. Waxman from today’s hearing on Capitol Hill (as reported by Michael Grynbaum):

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Over the last 30 years or so years, the world has been deeply influenced by a laissez-faire economic philosophy, which has shifted the world toward an embrace of markets. And markets certainly do many things very well. (Can you name a country that has prospered without relying to a great extent on an open, market-based economy? Or at least moving toward one?)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/​

 

[bedowin62]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

I can work with that theory. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11, Bush is just a non-factor and irrelevant.

I amso IR responds: Irrelevance seems to be in large supply these days, regardless of one's political stance. Along more personal lines, what is with all of the clown icon's on this site? They also seem to be in great supply. No harm intended

lol good point! seems pretty clear a cabal of left-wing losers, most-likely paid to post here; decided to use as their avatars conservative figures in clown-face. Ironically most of the left-wing idiots using these clown-face avatars are clowns themselves; as revealed in their posts.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're so impressed by that rating, Nuhuh! What's unfortunate is that the ranking that a group of historians give doesn't change the fact that Obama has still led the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression and that his signature accomplishment...the Affordable Care Act...is one of the most badly written pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress and simply won't work as constituted. As for the Iranian nuclear deal being a positive for Barry? You have much more faith in the Iranian mullahs than I do. I think they played Obama and Kerry like a fiddle.

Like I said, I can respect your opinion but I respect the opinion of historians more.

What you're really saying is that you have no way to dispute what I've just pointed out...so you're going to concentrate on a "popularity contest" among academics that are predominantly liberals. Quite frankly...given Obama's record with the economy...if I were one of his supporters, then I would probably do the same thing!

I'm just saying I don't agree with your conclusions and it is just another way to look at the problem. Historians don't take into account the "politics" of the situation and arrive at their conclusions without the weight of partisan politics.

Now that is amusing, Nuhuh! You for some reason think that historians are unbiased...a notion which astounds me. As someone who graduated with a degree in History I can tell you that the first thing I was taught as a student of history is when reading an account on anything, was to pay careful attention to WHO was authoring that account and what their biases were towards the subject being discussed might be.
You can read a historic account of World War II in Soviet textbooks that describe an entirely different conflict than a textbook written by a Western historian. You literally wouldn't know it was the same war.

I didn't say that. All knowledge is shaded by where you are situated within a society. Most historians at least the ones who might claim they are unbiased, try to use original sourcing which will reflect on the original biases used to describe that particular history. You can also arrive at your own conclusions by reading opposing literature in an attempt to flesh out truth.

So how "shaded" are the Presidential rankings that you put so much stock in? My training as a historian would lead me to first ask who it was that was doing the rankings and how much did their own political views "shade" where they ranked Presidents.

 

[bodecea]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

I can work with that theory. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11, Bush is just a non-factor and irrelevant.

I amso IR responds: Irrelevance seems to be in large supply these days, regardless of one's political stance. Along more personal lines, what is with all of the clown icon's on this site? They also seem to be in great supply. No harm intended

They are fun. And they continue to be fun.

 

[bodecea]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

I can work with that theory. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11, Bush is just a non-factor and irrelevant.

I amso IR responds: Irrelevance seems to be in large supply these days, regardless of one's political stance. Along more personal lines, what is with all of the clown icon's on this site? They also seem to be in great supply. No harm intended

lol good point! seems pretty clear a cabal of left-wing losers, most-likely paid to post here; decided to use as their avatars conservative figures in clown-face. Ironically most of the left-wing idiots using these clown-face avatars are clowns themselves; as revealed in their posts.

Whoever pays you should ask for their money back.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm quite confident that I put a gun to either of your heads right now and told you to name Barack Obama's Chief Economic Advisers...that neither of you would have the faintest idea who they were. That's not an indictment of you...it simply points out that on the number one issue that Americans are concerned about...this President has been a no-show for years now! He simply doesn't know what to do to grow an economy or create real jobs.

I actually had a client .. a guy named Gene Sperling ... during the mid 1980s in NYC. He worked on Wall Street. I've followed his career.

take a hike with your pseudo-superior knowledge

I know enough about Gene Sperling to know that he's no longer one of the President's Chief Economic Advisers and hasn't been for about a year now...a fact that you seem unaware of. Oh, I'm sorry...was that me showing off my "pseudo-superior knowledge"?

Jesus Christ you're a doltish nitwit

he/she is making a fool of you; actually helping you make a fool of yourself

Dolt. Dante didn't name an economic team, he pointed out that he followed somebody on Obama's team. Oldstilted was trying to act as if playing trivial pursuit (scoring intelligence and awareness with trivia questions) is a metric by which to rate people's knowledge of things.

I know people who could "name the largest river on _____ continent" who could not answer a single follow up question. All they knew were memorized trivia. Trivia absent content and any form of context

now, continue on as usual..........


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Oldstyle]

for oldstyle and others of that ilk, it's all about ideology

Upon entering office Obama had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the job.

and

Fed Backs Obama's Bailout Request


and the right wing libertarian crowd tries to ignore Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, saying he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Here’s a fascinating exchange between Alan Greenspan and Representative Henry A. Waxman from today’s hearing on Capitol Hill (as reported by Michael Grynbaum):

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Over the last 30 years or so years, the world has been deeply influenced by a laissez-faire economic philosophy, which has shifted the world toward an embrace of markets. And markets certainly do many things very well. (Can you name a country that has prospered without relying to a great extent on an open, market-based economy? Or at least moving toward one?)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/​

I didn't ask who was running things at the Fed. What I asked you was who it was that was planning how to stimulate our economy and create jobs with the Obama Administration itself...and what those plans have been for the past four years.

 

[bendog]

for oldstyle and others of that ilk, it's all about ideology

Upon entering office Obama had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the job.

and

Fed Backs Obama's Bailout Request


and the right wing libertarian crowd tries to ignore Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, saying he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Here’s a fascinating exchange between Alan Greenspan and Representative Henry A. Waxman from today’s hearing on Capitol Hill (as reported by Michael Grynbaum):

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Over the last 30 years or so years, the world has been deeply influenced by a laissez-faire economic philosophy, which has shifted the world toward an embrace of markets. And markets certainly do many things very well. (Can you name a country that has prospered without relying to a great extent on an open, market-based economy? Or at least moving toward one?)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/​

I hadn't seen that. Thanks. I believe that blog won a Pulitzer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

I can work with that theory. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11, Bush is just a non-factor and irrelevant.

I amso IR responds: Irrelevance seems to be in large supply these days, regardless of one's political stance. Along more personal lines, what is with all of the clown icon's on this site? They also seem to be in great supply. No harm intended

They are fun. And they continue to be fun.

circle jerk time?

wingnuts always fall back into that when they are looking and feeling bad.

Hey! How's that GOP primary thingie going? Really intelligent and informative frustrations and angers being vented, huh? Way to go...

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm quite confident that I put a gun to either of your heads right now and told you to name Barack Obama's Chief Economic Advisers...that neither of you would have the faintest idea who they were. That's not an indictment of you...it simply points out that on the number one issue that Americans are concerned about...this President has been a no-show for years now! He simply doesn't know what to do to grow an economy or create real jobs.

I actually had a client .. a guy named Gene Sperling ... during the mid 1980s in NYC. He worked on Wall Street. I've followed his career.

take a hike with your pseudo-superior knowledge

I know enough about Gene Sperling to know that he's no longer one of the President's Chief Economic Advisers and hasn't been for about a year now...a fact that you seem unaware of. Oh, I'm sorry...was that me showing off my "pseudo-superior knowledge"?

Jesus Christ you're a doltish nitwit

he/she is making a fool of you; actually helping you make a fool of yourself

Dolt. Dante didn't name an economic team, he pointed out that he followed somebody on Obama's team. Oldstilted was trying to act as if playing trivial pursuit (scoring intelligence and awareness with trivia questions) is a metric by which to rate people's knowledge of things.

I know people who could "name the largest river on _____ continent" who could not answer a single follow up question. All they knew were memorized trivia. Trivia absent content and any form of context

now, continue on as usual..........


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I've asked you folks on the Left over and over again to tell me what plans the Obama Administration have pushed to grow the economy and create jobs these last four years and all I get in return is the sound of crickets...and evasions like yours.

Now did you want to actually try and answer that question?

 

[I amso IR]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

I can work with that theory. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11, Bush is just a non-factor and irrelevant.

I amso IR responds: Irrelevance seems to be in large supply these days, regardless of one's political stance. Along more personal lines, what is with all of the clown icon's on this site? They also seem to be in great supply. No harm intended

lol good point! seems pretty clear a cabal of left-wing losers, most-likely paid to post here; decided to use as their avatars conservative figures in clown-face. Ironically most of the left-wing idiots using these clown-face avatars are clowns themselves; as revealed in their posts.

I amso IR responds; I searched and re-searched my gray matter for the term Avatar. The only thing standing out in my mental dictionary was "icon". Ain't being elderly, (senile) wonderful?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

lol good point! seems pretty clear a cabal of left-wing losers, most-likely paid to post here
\
...

right wing noise machine makes
ideological nut cases out of people

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I didn't ask who was running things at the Fed. What I asked you was who it was that was planning how to stimulate our economy and create jobs with the Obama Administration itself...and what those plans have been for the past four years.

really?

Wow! Your honor, I demand to know why I'm on trial and what the charges are

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

for oldstyle and others of that ilk, it's all about ideology

Upon entering office Obama had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the job.

and

Fed Backs Obama's Bailout Request


and the right wing libertarian crowd tries to ignore Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, saying he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Here’s a fascinating exchange between Alan Greenspan and Representative Henry A. Waxman from today’s hearing on Capitol Hill (as reported by Michael Grynbaum):

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Over the last 30 years or so years, the world has been deeply influenced by a laissez-faire economic philosophy, which has shifted the world toward an embrace of markets. And markets certainly do many things very well. (Can you name a country that has prospered without relying to a great extent on an open, market-based economy? Or at least moving toward one?)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/​

I hadn't seen that. Thanks. I believe that blog won a Pulitzer.

really? Well, it appears you cannot think on your own. Your brain is tuck in a revolving loop


Greenspan’s Mea Culpa
By David Leonhardt October 23, 2008 1:15 pm

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've asked you folks on the Left over and over again to tell me what plans the Obama Administration have pushed to grow the economy and create jobs these last four years and all I get in return is the sound of crickets...and evasions like yours.

Now did you want to actually try and answer that question?

It's a matter of public record

 

[bendog]

for oldstyle and others of that ilk, it's all about ideology

Upon entering office Obama had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the job.

and

Fed Backs Obama's Bailout Request


and the right wing libertarian crowd tries to ignore Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, saying he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Here’s a fascinating exchange between Alan Greenspan and Representative Henry A. Waxman from today’s hearing on Capitol Hill (as reported by Michael Grynbaum):

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Over the last 30 years or so years, the world has been deeply influenced by a laissez-faire economic philosophy, which has shifted the world toward an embrace of markets. And markets certainly do many things very well. (Can you name a country that has prospered without relying to a great extent on an open, market-based economy? Or at least moving toward one?)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/​

I hadn't seen that. Thanks. I believe that blog won a Pulitzer.

really? Well, it appears you cannot think on your own. Your brain is tuck in a revolving loop


Greenspan’s Mea Culpa
By David Leonhardt October 23, 2008 1:15 pm

LOL!