Sign language: Robert Hurt announces reelection run

Congressman Robert Hurt was in town Monday to kick off his reelection bid for the 5th District. Local Republicans including supervisors Ken Boyd and Rodney Thomas gathered at Albemarle Square shopping center to show support for Hurt's candidacy.

Also in attendance: Some who didn't and who carried signs for Hurt's Dem opponent John Douglass.

That led to a battle of the signs in front of the cameras and podium as Hurt rallied the party faithful and reminded them of his economic message: "It's the spending, stupid."

John Flanagan was one of the Douglass sign carriers, and says he was there "to let Mr. Hurt know there are people who don't like him in Congress."

Declares Flanagan, "I was assaulted here today, pushed and shoved."

"These folks are welcome to come to our campaign events, and they won't be treated as rudely as we were today," says Scottsvillian Dolores Rogers, another Douglass sign carrier.

Some of the Republicans questioned the appropriateness of the Douglass sign carriers at the kick-off.

"The last time Republicans went on Democratic turf– Periello's– they were threatened with arrest for trespassing," says John Miska.

Hurt sign carrier Mary Ann Doucette pooh-poohs the notion that the Democrats were assaulted.

"It was rude of them to keep talking while Representative Hurt was talking," says Doucette, calling Rogers "very discourteous."

As for Hurt, he took the battle of the signs in stride. "I love it," he says. "We're always glad to have people show up... I take seriously all my constituents."

Read more on: Robert Hurt


How quickly we forget the legions of tea party members who followed Tom Perriello to virtually every public appearance and tried to out shout him. Suddenly, it's discourteous to oppose a congressman at his public appearances.

"I take seriously all my constituents" money.

Guess he remembers George Allen's macaca moment.

The discourse between the loonie left and the wingnut right will only stop when democrats shut up the left and conservatives shut up the right.

The simple fact of the matter is that spending is out of control. We as a country overpay fort everything our tax dollars pay for. When we give a person 150 dollars for fod stasmps it costs the taxpayers 208 dolars to deliver that service when you factor in the entire program including analysis and evaluation of needs, GAO auditing, state programs, training and disbursement and banking fees. When we buy toilet paper for the military we spend just as much on procurment as we do on the low quaility paper. we would save more money by buying dirctly from sam club.

We cannot sustain the spending. We can raise taxes al we want but we need to double taxes to actually solve the problem. who can survive with a doubling of thier tax bils? (that includes federal and state and al the infaltion that raising it would cause as people demanded raises to pay thier bils.

We have to stop spending and once we have a grip on that we can then go after more tax revenue, The federal government already gets 20 cemts on every single dollar. Why should they not be able to live on that?

Robert Hurt will smoke this guy. The DNC won't even hand this guy some scraps. Waste of money and time. Plus, Douglass has never campaigned or raised money. He will be a bigger failure than Al Weed.

I was in attendance at today's rally and down toward the front near the podium while the pushing and shoving was going on (I did not have a sign in my hand not did I engage in any of this behavior).

To my eyes, it was clearly the Douglass supporters who were the instigators of the sign pushing and confrontational in their verbal exchanges. They clearly were frustrated that many of the Hurt supporters had gathered down front in advance, many with much larger HURT lawn signs hoisted above their heads than the smaller DOUGLASS signs they lifted (see the photo above at the beginning of this article).

The Douglass supporters inched uncomfortably close on the Hurt supporters, encroaching on what anyone would consider a respectable personal distance from their bodies. They flailed their signs up and down and around, reaching out in all different directions (one woman put her sign directly out to the right of the crowd in front of my face, then hit it into my nose when she pulled it away upon my request.

Let's face it -- why did these handful of people of Liberals (less than a half-dozen, just like the dismal turnout at the recent Joe Szakos Organizing for America "Thank Taxes" rally on April 16, as reported in The Hook) show up to a Robert Hurt campaign kickoff rally?

Did John Flanagan REALLY think is was NECESSARY "to let Mr. Hurt know there are people who don't like him in Congress."? We all know Robert Hurt knows - just as Tom Perriello knew - there are citizens on the opposing spectrum who don't like them because they at odds in political philosophy yet cast their votes as they believe. So let's dismiss Mr. Flanagan's ludicrous role as a self-professed "educator".

Delores Rogers stated; "These folks are welcome to come to our campaign events, and they won't be treated as rudely as we were today."

Ms. Rogers, I personally know most ot the people where who stood where this incident took place. First of all, NO Republicans showed up to John Douglass' campaign kickoff announcement with signs in their hand intending to disrupt or disrespect his event. You were likely there yourself, but if not please check the media coverage. Second, though I'm not a Republican, I have personally attended a couple Democrat-Progressive event as a recognizable Conservative and received unprovoked, nasty remarks. So unless you will personally guarantee my respectful treatment as "Queen of the Welcome Wagon", I don't put a lot of stock in your prediction.

Let's all be honest -- you got what you ultimately came to get which was attention in the local media. Interestingly, little to nothing about this incident was mentioned in reports I saw in tonight's CBS-19 and NBC-29 newscasts, nor in a lengthy article posted on the Daily Progress web site. I saw all of them there and they were close enough to see what happened -- but instead, they actually chose to report in length about many comments Robert Hurt said in the NEARLY 15 MINUTES HE SPOKE AT THE PODIUM.

The article in The Hook quotes TWO LINES from Mr. Hurt's comments (and one of those in recognition of the citizen opposition present!), and instead focuses on making the few Democrats presents the focus of the piece. An odd choice, don't you think?

@John - I think you're whistling past the graveyard bud...this guy has been running against Frank Wolfe up in NoVa for several cycles - he was in two Whitehouses and the Pentagon. He has raised plenty of money, and, unlike Hurt - a trust fund baby who got his money the old-fashioned way (ie, by inheriting it) - Douglass has earned his money and knows how to raise it.

I think you're confusing him with Peyton Williams - a great man as well who also served his country and made his own way on his own merits - who is not quite so polished and experienced in politics. Sadly for you, Peyton isn't getting the nomination.

Is this the same Hurt who made promises and has yet to keep one of them?

Peter paul the "hurt" you are referring to isprobably the "hurt" put on America by the clown in the white house with all that hopey changey stuff.....

What on earth are you ranting about bill marshall? The hurt that this country is in has a lot more to do with the clown in the White House who decided it would be a fun idea to go to war in two parts of the world we had no business being in. We're going to be paying for that mistake in more than one way for the rest of both of our lives.

Bill, you are just going to have to stop beating that drum. Obama didn; bring the market down in 2008, Bush and the conservative deregulation hand out tax breaks to Wall St did. I can agree with you that Obama hasn;t changed much, but it was obvious the GOP liked it just the way it was, which is why all they did was say NO.

Lets let blame lie where it belongs.

Gee Caesonia, perhaps you need to do your homework and see just where all the building blocks of the recession began. Silly Dems like to point fingers and wave wildly but really it took all types to that tango. I am not here to teach you, but to encourage you to get all the information you can, not just internets ravings.

Obama has changed a lot. He has borrowed so much to buoy the economy that our credit rating took the first dive in history and projected 2017 interest payments will exceed Educational spending. What did Obama say? “If I don’t have this done in three years, then this is going to be a one‑term proposition.” Well, no one will convince me that the economy is solved, not with that debt load.

Too bad Nancy Perriello isn't running again. I enjoyed watching him lose, especially after Dear Leader even came to town to lie, I mean campaign, for him. Although if Dear Leader gets reelected, we're Greece in 3 or 4 years regardless.

Deleted by moderator.

I do look at history, jimi, and I don't believe I get to make uo my own facts, whatever my political affiliation. For starters, our national debt did not get downgraded due to what Obama borrowed, or Bush, for that matter. Our debt ratio has been much higher in the past, so that dog won't hunt.

What did cause the downgrade was the inability for Congress to come to terms over the payment of the debt. That grid lock was led by non other than the party of NO, who thinks compromise means doing exactly what want, and not accomodting the other stakeholders.

THAT is what led to the downgrade.

But you are right, Obama should be criticized for not showing better leadership, and called chicken on the GOP, by dishing a little bit of their sauce back at them, by pinching their giant welfare defense state.

Those are the facts Jimi, not what dream world you want to make up as you try and find every excuse to cover the real reason you don't like Obama. He has a D by his name.

After all, only Republicans can collect welfare cheques and make friends with Commie China, isn;t that right?

what idiotic blah blah blah ...

The metaphorical trope that President Obama is like a Korean dictator ('Dear Leader') is amusing, but misdirected. Not Mr Obama but Mr Romney is clearly susceptible to 'Manchurian Candidate' metaphors: he obviously lies readily, based on the evidence of his widely conflictual statements on the same issue; and we know that the LDS promotes secrecy about 'what really goes on in there', and 'what they really believe'.

And, what are the stupid references to Mr Obama's responsibility for economic markets: we just heard today that the equity markets are at 4- year highs. And, while sadly and desperately slow, the job markets are beginning to show recovery. And, of course, Mr Romney is not concerned about job markets: he says 'he likes' to fire people: cut off their income and benefits, close down their workplaces, and cause widespread suffering in entire communities.

So, while many 'Hurt defenders' have commented entirely stupid things, we must agree with them - on the evidence of reason - that The Hook coverage - reporting very little of Mr Hurt's speech - appears, indeed, biased, and self-serving (sensationally selling the story as a confrontation).

Kind regards to each and all.

Hmmm, if it hops like a kangaroo court..... kicks like a kangaroo court..... smells like a kangaroo court..... it must be the Hook's version of a public - kangroo court - of opinion, especially given to some of the commenters from this thread.

When Republicans took control of the House in 2010 they promised that "jobs" would be their number one priority (wink, wink).

Yet, since that time they've produced no jobs bill. And they keep shunting aside the jobs bills that President Obama sends them. Because, they want Obama to "fail," and they don't care about ordinary citizens.

Robert Hurt is no exception. He gets his major campaign cash from corporations (banks, finance, energy), and he has voted in lock-step with the Republican majority. Inn fact, even though Hurt represents a district (the 5th) that is relatively poor, he voted for the Paul Ryan budget that would gut Medicare and Medicaid, give more unfunded tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, and increase the nation's debt.

Robert Hurt's votes in Congress hurt his constituents, and they hurt the nation. Two eminent Congressional scholars just reported that Republicans ARE the problem in Washington. Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (who is at the conservative American Enterprise Institute) wrote this:

""We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party. The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

Robert Hurt is very much part of the problem. Voters in the 5th district would do well for themselves – and the country – by voting him out of office.

Commenters bill marshall and jimi hendrix offer up unsubstantiated opinion, (again) , but not much else.

So let's look at some factual data.

When Reagan took office, the total national debt was less that $1 trillion, and it had taken nearly 200 years to accumulate that. After 12 years of Reagan and Bush1, the national debt had more than quadrupled, the rich were richer, and the poor were poorer. The U.S. had the largest income stratification gap in the developed world, spending on infrastructure dropped sharply, and money and jobs flowed out of the country.

In 1993 Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, without a single (not one) Republican vote. They claimed that it would "ruin" the economy and cost jobs. Instead, the U.S. embarked on the longest sustained period of economic growth in recent history. And Clinton balanced the budget, multiple times. And provided budget surpluses that were to be used to sustain Social Security and Medicare and to pay down debt.

Then came the real imbecile, George W. Bush (I'll guess that bill marshall voted for him...twice). Bush refused to heed dire warnings of terrorist threats (see link below to the PDB of Aug. 6, 2001) to focus on unfunded, supply-side tax cuts.

After 9/11 Bush launched a war against Iraq based on trumped-up "intelligence" and mythical weapons of mass destruction. That unnecessary and badly bungled war has already cost at least a trillion dollars (not to mention thousands of lives, and wounded) in borrowed money.

Here are the very real and serious consequences of Bush's follies:

In 2007 the total budget for Temporary Aid to Needy Families was $4.5 billion. That money came with some serious strings attached. In 2008 Bush and his fellow Republicans – led by Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs chief Hank Paulson – bailed out the bankers with $700 billion in no-strings-attached taxpayer funds.

Conservative "researchers" estimated a total of about $480 billion in welfare spending (including the veterans who qualify for food stamps) in 2008. Even if that number is accurate (and it's doubtful since they refuse to provide data and how they arrived at it), it still pales in comparison to the $700 billion the bankers got. But that's only part of the banker welfare package. We now know that the financial bailout cost around $3 trillion.

Now, all of this was brought on by Republicans. They thought up and put in place the legislation that gave unfunded tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy; they thought up the ideas to repeal Glass-Steagall and exempt derivatives from regulation; and they took the laissez-faire, blind-eye approach to Wall Street that aided and abetted massive fraud an corruption.

The results? The richer are richer and a there's been a sharp increase in poverty. The middle-class got squeezed. Debit piled up. And those who did it have denied all responsibility.

This is why those two Congressional scholars wrote this about Republicans:

"Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster...became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented."

Let's say this another way. Republicans are bad for democracy because they don't really believe in it. They much prefer oligarchy.

Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel called current Republicans "intolerant." A former Congressional staffer says they are more like "an apocalyptic cult" than a party of meaningful ideas.

Make no mistake. Robert Hurt is one of them.

And while the Democratic party is not perfect (by any means) and has its own share of cowards and sell-outs, it does remain committed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, jobs, investment in infrastructure that promotes the general welfare of society, and equal rights for all citizens. The electoral choice really is a no-brainer...for those who use their brains.

It's always amusing to watch the libs refuse to accept reality as they watch the current bumbling occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (at least when he's not out on the links or on vacation somewhere around the world on the taxpayer's dime) display his incompetence for all to see. They always have an excuse for all the continuing miserable statistics (miserable even after massaging and spin by the Dems) and always have a target for their finger pointing, as long as it's not "where the buck stops". You know, just admitting you were hoodwinked back in 2008 and taken in by a smooth talking (as long as there's a teleprompter in front of him) con artist doesn't make you a bad person. But if you vote for him again this November, that does make your mental faculties kind of suspect. Mature adults are capable of learning from their mistakes, but to just stick your head in the sand and ignore the reality of Obama's incompetence is not something to be proud of. Many people have suffered economically these past 3 years because of Obama/Pelosi/Reid and to be willing to continue the calamity is a bit absurd.

Thank-you Serenity Now for chiming in with a counter argument typical of the right since the ascension of Karl Rove and the tea party. You were presented with two, thoughtful, researched postings by Democracy and you responded with conjecture and insults rather than an equally thoughtful reply supporting your point of view.
This thread started as a commentary about civility in politics, to-wit the waving of signs at a republican rally. The post by Serenity Now supports my original point that the right doth protest too much. When it comes to abandoning civility in discourse, the teapublicans continue to lower the bar.

@Pedro: Too bad that your definition of a "thoughtful" equals blaming Bush (and Republicans in general). The "thoughtful" posting you referred to never mentioned that the Dems believed the CIA intelligence that Iraq had WMD (btw I guess WMD doesn't include the chemical weapons Hussein used to murder thousands of Kurds). It never mentioned that Bush tried to do something about the problem of forcing banks to make mortgage loans to poor people who had absolutely no ability to make payments on those loans. That brought on the housing crisis which was largely responsible for the mess we're in. But the Dems (specifically Chris "'I'm a crook like my old man" Dodd and Barney's Frank) carried the day and however many Dem votes they bought from deadbeats were the most expensive (to the country) votes in history. The "thoughful" poster also neglected to point out that when Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden on a platter, his wizard lawyers told him it wouldn't be legal. 3,000+ Americans paid for this wonderful legal advice with their lives on 9/11. You can stick all this "thoughtful" propaganda where the sun doesn't shine, along with the "Hope and Change", "shovel-ready jobs". and miscellaneous hot air produced by the Dems.

correction: first line should read "of thoughtful" instead of "of a thoughtful". I wish postings could be edited after the fact for typos.

Poor serenity. He writes this: "stick your head in the sand and ignore the reality of Obama's incompetence."


Serenity talks about the tragedy of 9/11, George W. Bush ignored repeated and specific warnings about terrorist threats to focus on funded tax cuts that squandered the Clinton-era budget surpluses. See:

The presidential daily brief (PDB) of August 6, 2001 was titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US” and warned that Bin Ladin was “ conduct terrorist attacks in the US,” that he “prepares years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.” The memo noted “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks,” and it warned that a group of “Bin Ladin’s supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”

But the Bush administration did nothing. After the 9/11 tragedy, a government inquiry looked into why it happened. Bush National Security director Condaleezza Rice initially refused to appear before the 9/11 Commission until public pressure forced the Bush administration to relent. When Rice finally appeared, it wasn’t pretty. See:

Then, the Bush administration faked and distorted "intelligence" and launched a war against Iraq, which (1) absolutely no weapons of mass destruction (Rice warned infamously that “ we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."), (2) had no ties to al-Qaeda, and (3) had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Fox viewers, by the way, believed all three lies. Maybe they still do.

Serenity needs to confront reality:

** Republican presidents and policies piled up deficits and debt and broke the economy.

** Clinton balanced budgets and produced surpluses. Bush squandered it all. Obama is cleaning up the mess (like Mark Warner did in Virginia after the disastrous governorship of Jim Gilmore.).

** Bush bailed out the bankers with no-strings-attached borrowed money, and handed the tab to the taxpayers. The Obama stimulus is credited by virtually all mainstream economists with preventing a collapse of the economy and saving or creating about 3 million jobs.

** Obama got through Congress a financial reform bill (not perfect, at all), despite Republican opposition at every turn. In fact Mitt Romney's two main economic "advisors" (if they can be called that) are Glenn Hubbard and Gregory Mankiw. Hubbard designed the unfunded Bush tax cuts that "can be blamed for turning the budget surpluses of the Clinton years into the crippling deficits of the Bush era, thus leaving the United States woefully unprepared to deal with a disastrous recession...Romney is currently proposing to lower taxes even further on the richest Americans!" Mankiw was against banking reform, and wants to end it.

** The economy is improving (though Republicans have done everything they can to keep it from happening), and the stock market just went up significantly with the Dow Jones at its highest point since 2007.

** Most importantly, while the Democratic party is not perfect and has its own share of cowards and sell-outs (think Ben Nelson or Chuck Schumer, for example), it does remain committed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, jobs, investment in infrastructure that promotes the general welfare of society, and equal rights for all citizens. The Republican party is against all of it.

Wow Democracy, I bet you never forget your shopping list, when you leave out for the supermarket.

@democracy: What part of "when Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden on a platter, his wizard lawyers told him it wouldn't be legal. 3,000+ Americans paid for this wonderful legal advice with their lives on 9/11." do you NOT understand?
Perhaps you believe as the wonderful stock-trader-on-inside-information Nancy Pelosi does. When asked when the Dems would stop blaming George Bush for everything, she replied (in a moment of rare honesty, probably because she's too stupid to realize what she was saying) "When things get better." As things continue to spiral downward with exploding debt and credit downgrades because of this failed Food Stamp President (according to Pelosi, he's actually PROUD of that mark of failure), you can continue to chant the mantra of "It's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault". Never accept the reality of Dear Leader's abysmal record of failure....he sure doesn't.

Serenity now, it is true Clinton held off, though he was hardly handed Bin Laden's head on a platter. He had to make the strike; at a risk of killing political allies. But at least he was hunting him and watching him. Bush ignored him, and the result was....3000+ lives. What's more, he ignored him after the 3000+ lives, and went after Iraq.

You can dance and whine and squeal, but Bush dropped the ball,based on a poorly chosen administration, and it took Obama to get Bin Laden.

Its time the right wing takes responsibility for its cock ups. The party that is suppoed to protect us and be so strong - so strong that it always likes to cry victim at the hands of the weaklings - hasn't really kept us very safe at all.

So here is what I see.

High gas prices.
High unemployment
Restrictions on our ability to use natural resources
Local and hidden state taxes going through the roof.
Green energy scams - carbon, wind farms etc.
Government spending/corruption on all levels continuing to rise.
A healthcare plan that.... well is not really a plan
Racial tension starting to rise.
A higher education system that needs serious reform.
A vocal generation that is lazy, self entitled, and are lucky they live in this country.
Corporations running amok with no real penalties for their poor decision making.
Ficticious sayings like "To big to fail".

You guys can cut and paste any article, blog, or study you wish but it doesn't make any difference if a Lib or a Repug is in office because we have lost control of the government that was created for us.

I suppose I will vote for the one who has the whitest teeth or best hair or can make me laugh.


The situation we are in now is a tough one, but the facts of the matter are that people with money are sitting on the sidelines waiting for a better deal.

Basically any business venture is a gamble.. just like when the "house" (obamas lot) deals itself a pair of queens (government interference, manipulation and obamacare) the gamblers sit on their chips until the odds go up.

You can blame it on the gop for blowing the money on jet airplanes or the dems for giving it to the poor but at the end of the day the money has been spent and if we don't stop spending more than investors can see the writing on the wall and wil hold onto teier cash until it all falls down and they can buy it at firesale prices.

You can blame it on whomever you want but who amongst us wouldn't wait for the going out of business sale if we heard the local furniture store was two years behind in the rent and almost out of its loan from china....

stop the spending....

@Rango: Exactly right.

If Romney wins on Nov 6th, look for the Dow to go up at least 300 points on Nov 7th. If the Republicans win control of both houses, make that 400-500 points.
Personally, if Obama wins reelection, I plan on keeping most of my savings in cash, maybe even gold. Dem victory equals this country becoming Greece before Obama's second term is up. Of course, it would all be George Bush's fault.

We as a country have given too much in the way of entilments. We used to give food stamps to supplement families, now we just buy them food. We used to give temporary rental assistance, now we just provide housing. We used to give pell grantsd and back up student loans, now we loan money at subsidized rates while allowing public universities to make campuses palaces and jack up tuition. They get to build outlandish buildings with endowments and then the taxpayers have to pay for maintainance and utilities forever. We spend millions on bridge designs when a bridge is just a bridge. We spend 80 million dollars on a high school... In two years Obamacare will kick in and the bums on the malll will be able to go to doctors for their free vicodin to trade for booze. The Doctors will be happy to see them once a week in their "clinic" so they can bill the taxpayers...

The reason there are no jobs being created is because americans can get it for free and don't want to work hard. There are thousands of carpenters out of work and millions of houses that need work but a guy that is getting 400 a wek from unemployment ain't working for 300 a week fixing roofs siding or paint.

For all the pontificating about taxing the rich and corporations when you do the math the numbers don't even come close. Taxing the rich will not stop congress from borrowing money and the revenue generated will only cover about 10% of the overdrafts.

(and we should stop building jets that don't fly also. the defense department needs to be cut in half too)

People may not be able to find a "job" but they can surely find "work"


Large companies ae sitting on the sidelines because three isn't enough demand because? People don't have as much money as they used to. At least, not the lion's share of the people. Wages have not kept up with inflation and with lower demand fewer products are made. While there is plenty to criticize Obama for, the complaints from the right are just ridiculous. They were only too happy to borrow and spend into a recession as long as they got to spend it on what they wanted. Like multiple wars and massive tax breaks.

Never forget it was Reagan who said "Deficits don't matter," not Obama. You don't get to drive the bus into the ditch, and then harp on the guy trying to get it out, while doing everything possible to prevent the guy from getting it out.

Sorry, buts that just the way it is. When I hear something actually constructive coming our of the GOP, I am happy to listen, but until then, their complaints are all a bunch of projection.

@Democracy - please return to reality and attempt to state a fact. One major thing you seem to have omitted; Under Bush, the Republicans tried to get a Constitutional amendment to require a Balanced Budget. The DEMOCRATIC Congress refused. What, democrats refused to allow and amendment to REQUIRE a balanced budget?!?!? You are obviously a left-wing hater who has drunk way to much kool aid.

peter paul mars- "Is this the same Hurt who made promises and has yet to keep one of them?"

Don't even start- Hurt is one of 435.........

the POTUS is 1 of 1, name a promise he has kept............ dope and chains.............

SkipD - He wound things down in Iraq, and he got Bin Laden?

@ Cviller22: If you read my posts you'll see that they are chock full of facts, with links and citations. But conservatives don't care a whit about facts. And that's precisely why the Congressional scholars I quoted (Mann and Ornstein) said that the current crop of Republicans is "“unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.”

And by the way, if you have not yet realized that the so-called balanced budget amendment is just a charade used by Republicans (who never, ever produced a balanced budget while in office), then you're a likely candidate to purchase that ocean-front property in Nebraska.

@ Rango: It does matter who did all "the spending" and what all "the spending" was actually spent on, as the chart linked below shows clearly:

And, what the Republicans offer up as their economic "plan" is to cut taxes more for corporations and the wealthy and to increase deficits and debt even more.

I notice that the conservative commenters here never cite any source – any factual information – to back up their conjectures. There's a reason for that.

@ SkipD: The president is, indeed, "1 of 1." But perhaps you forgot that laws have to be passed by Congress, and the Republican party has willfully tried to obstruct Obama at every turn, even if the economic health of the country is undermined. Still, the president has achieved much. Try weaning yourself from Fox fake news and right-wing websites and you may actually learn something. I'll help. Linked below is a list of the top 50 accomplishments of the Obama administration ...happy reading.

Democracy, here is a PBS documentary that shows how the implosion happend and how utterly useless Obama was in dealing with it. It does blame big business which it should, however the point is that big business never made any claims to being in business for anything but the money. Obama on the other hand was supposed handle things. He pretty much just gave away the treasury and is robbing the citizens by expanding social programs with borrowed money.

It is easy to pick and choose certain statistics to make a specific point. The numbers however do not lie in the macro. If America does not stop spending and expanding social programs and does not reduce its military spending we will go bankrupt and the austerity measures will be very painful. The difference betwen left and right is simple, the left wants to tax borrow,expand and spend (except on defense) and the right wants grow the economy out of the situation and cut spending on social programs.

The answer is in between, we need to contract social and defense spending, grow the economy by reducing unessasary impediments to business, ADJUST taxes to achieve a fair tax system (which will include higher rates for the wealthy) and reduce the overall size of government in general.

Parks are nice but it is sad to think that if government didn't build a park that another Mcintire wouldn't come along and take up the slack with a donation.

It is also insulting for the American government to take the position that americans would not step up the plate and take care of their own.

skip d, obama has kept one major promise... he promised to do everything in his power to fundamentally change america to his sorry a$$ point of view on how things should be done. He has absolutely positively attempted to screw things up just like he promised.

He is not dishonest, he simply has some pollyanna idea that we can give everyone everything they want and all we need to do is tax the top 1% to do it. So basically, he lacks the math skills of a third grader which coincides with the average third graders belief that life can just be fair and everyone gets a trophy.