Dick Durbin, most liberal U.S. senator

The Republic Party doesn't like Senator Durbin but as usual they're all talk/no action and can't find anyone to run who can beat him.

After Obama is elected President we're going to move Rahm into his Senate seat.

My Beloved Home State Of Illinois Is A BLUE STATE

Big shock. Was he also voted most likely to forget what he, himself, said on the Senate floor?

And we all know how bad it is to be liberal. I mean did we really need civil rights, voting rights, social security, medicaid and balanced budgets??

Makes me like him even more. I'm damn proud to say that Sen. Durbin is my senator.

We certainly need people like Paul and George Clooney, who inaccurately take credit for them. Ask Everett McKinley Dirksen how many Republicans, who would NEVER call themselves liberal, voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1964 while famed liberal Robert C. Byrd was filibustering it.

We Republicans will stick to taking credit for things we actually did. You know, things like standing up to J.P. Morgan and creating Anti-Trust law. Things like actually freeing the slaves and fighting a war to keep this country together because it was the right thing to do. If that's not enough for you, a Republican also created the Environmental Protection Agency and another one created the National Parks Service. Try not to get to full of yourself, there, Paul Clooney.

Nazi,Gulag and Pol Pot.This is what this low-life thinks of our soldiers fighting for our freedom.
Dick Durbin ranked the most liberal? How about adding the most anti-American too,kept in power by the Chicago democratic machine and labor unions.
What a sad state,Illinois has become.

Paulo
P.S.Hey JohnE.,how's Iraq,anything to report from Al Anbar Province?

Out of the group of current Marxist in the Senate, that's quite an accomplishment from Eddie Haskel.

Why Jeff, I remember a man that went by the name Bill who would always bring up Robert Byrd. He would also write long winded rants defending John McCain, would always have something to say about Pennsylvania politics, and he proclaimed politics was a contact sport before he ran away when he thought the Swamp was getting too rough. You are only fooling yourself Jeff/Bill.

Paul, like the rest of the D&D Loony Lefters, you wouldn't know a balanced budget if it hit you in the face. Please inform me when a libber balanced the budget. Now, you might be referring to the 1990s, but that was the GOP Contract with America that did that. A couple of searches would show that Clintoon said a balanced budget within 10 years was bad and the he propoosed a balanced budget to occur well after he left office.

Are the budgets in Illinois balanced? Crooked County?

Oh, and Dick Durbin should be the next leader of Cuba. Castro's policies are more to his style and liking. What an embarrassment Illinois has become.

I like him already. Do you know where I could sign up for his e-letter Jethro? Does Ellie Mae?

P.S. You don't need to be this Bill character to know that Robert Byrd filibustered the voting rights act. You need to be paying attention. It also helps to have a pulse, be breathing and not be a part of the media machine that covers up for him.

Jeff/Bill,
Give it up we know you're the same person. Robert Byrd is a former Klansmen just like Sen. John McCain is a former crooked politician. If Robert Byrd is still racist than Sen John McCain is still corrupt.

Most liberal-no suprise. Don't forget most disingenous. Embarrassed politically to admit I'm from Illinois.

John D,

I still haven't stop laughing about your budget claims, between Reagan's tripling of the deficit in the 80's and those thrifty Bushes, the treasury has never been in better shape.

"Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies".

"Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five":

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

Oh, and by the way, are you that guy that claimed his workers were all "lazy communist"?
What?, did all the illegals you were paying minimum wage, threaten to unionize?

Also, still waiting for proof that you're this wildly successful writer, publisher, and entrepreneur. We already know that you are unquestionably superior, "in every way" to any liberal, past or present. Why?, because you told us so, and no one could ever accuse you of being humble.

John D,

That last quote was from Think Progress, the figures are public record. Think Progress is admittedly "progressive", and no one can accuse you of being that either. But, the figures don't lie (like you do). I'll post the text again in its entirety:

Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.

Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006.

The fact that Bush now considers a $296 billion deficit an occasion to celebrate shows how far we’ve fallen.

I may move to Ill-annoy just so I can vote for Dick.

Absolute BS Jethro, McCain didn't accept illegal campaign contributions as recently as 2001 the way that Byrd used a racial epithet on national television in that year. Some things are just unforgivable and I'd put belonging to an organization like the Klan in that category.

dt,

What are those dollar deficit amounts in terms of percentage of GDP? Do that calculation and compare to other years and you will get the true size of the deficit.

Jethro
"Robert Byrd is a former Klansmen just like Sen. John McCain is a former crooked politician. If Robert Byrd is still racist than Sen John McCain is still corrupt."

Does that mean that Congressman Jefferson is just a clerk in the frozen foods?

Terry,

What you requested from realclearpolitics.com:

Remember when conservatism meant fiscal responsibility? When you add it all up (Bush’s spending), you get the simple, devastating fact that Bush, in a mere five years, has added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. The interest on that debt will soon add up to the cost of two Katrinas a year……

This may, in fact, be Bush’s real domestic legacy. All a Democratic successor has to do is raise taxes to pay for his splurge, and we will have had the biggest expansion of government power, size and responsibility since the 1930s. What would Reagan say?

Well, let’s take a look at the Reagan legacy on federal spending and deficits. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP. (The economy was also a basket case, which is when you would expect budget deficits to be at their worse.) In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

Bush entered office with an economy that was booming: in 2000 government outlays ran at 18.4% of GDP with a budget surplus of 2.4%. But the stock market implosion, 9/11 and the war quickly changed the budget dynamics and the surplus switched to a deficit of 3.5% in 2003 and 3.6% in 2004. In 2005, the budget deficit came in at 2.6%, with government outlays running at 20.1% of GDP.

Jeff,
I guess that proves McCain hasn't been caught using illegal campaign contributions just as Robert Byrd hasn't been observed attending a Klan meeting

DT, speaking of lies, the stock market imploded in 2000 (during that roaring economy you just referred to). In fact it was March of 2000 that the Dow and Nasdaq began their freefall, which then happened again following 9/11.

Also, again, the budgets were balanced and into surplus territory because of the GOP Congress. Clinton kept fighting balanced budgets until he had to give up the fight.

But maybe this link (Catherine will be so excited!!!) will refresh your memory. And while this talks of the NASDAQ at over 4,000 in Septmeber 2000, at the beginning of MArch 2000, the NASDAQ hit 5,000. By the end of 2000, the NASDAQ fell below 3,000.

http://www.marketvolume.com/info/stock_market_trading/stock_market_crashes.asp

John D,

Did the malfeasance of Bush's friend Ken Lay, and the rest of the corporate crooks that 'cooked their books' have anything to do with people loosing confidence in the stock market?, of course not, it was Clinton's fault. And the Republican congress , and the Contract ON America, let's see, they were responsible for all the success of the economy in the 90's. Yet when Bush is in office, makes reckless tax cuts while waging an unnecessary war, that diligent republican congress is nowhere to be found, right? But, of course, it's still Clinton's fault because, well because, Rush Limpbaugh says it is. I guess republicans can't own up to any of their mistakes. How pathetic.

Oh dt, what about Clinton's buddy Global Crossings and its implosion in late 1990s and early 2000s?
Bush's "recklass" tax cuts helped the economy AND took the lowest wage earners off the federal income tax rolls.
There were many reasons for the stock market crash of 2000: high-tech and internet stocks were ridiculously high for companies not making profits and a slowing economy in 2000.
The stock market crash of 2002 can be traced back to Sept. 11, 2001, which is when the second stock market crash occuured. Despite a bad week last week, the stock market has been going up and up since 2002.

I know the truth hurts, but deal with it.

"makes reckless tax cuts"

That's pretty simplistic, isn't it? Easy to throw those words around without really backing it up. You know that hero of modern liberals, JFK, cut taxes too.

John D,

If the economic success of the 90's can really be attributed to the GOP Congress, how come the same Congresspeople were not able to recreate the success with a Republican president at the helm?

"You know that hero of modern liberals, JFK, cut taxes too."

JFK didn't cut taxes at the same time he was making an open ended committment to two separate wars, involving hundreds of thousands of troops.

That's reckless.

no name,

Yeah, reckless. Bush is the only president in history that thought it prudent to give tax cuts to the wealthy (or anyone else), and engage in an enormously expensive war, simultaneously. Whether you agree in the war or not, this policy , and the continued fallacy of supply-side (horse and oats) economics, is insane.

Jethro, surely you realize that he used the N word on national television in 2001, don't you?

dt,

In other words, the deficits are not that large when compared to the size of the economy. Lesson learned.

Guess where Ken Lay slept a few times in the 90's? The Lincoln Bedroom and Bill and HIll's Bed and Breakfast, we call the White House.

Guess which company got great gov't grants in the 90's - Enron.

Deficit spending during wartime is not bad since a war is a closed end expenditure as opposed to Social Security which projects out forever.

It has been shown that cutting taxes brings in increased revenues, therefore, all other things being equal, this would lower the deficit. The problem is the spending on other gov't programs.

Bryan,

60 plus straight months of economic growth - sure seems the economy is going pretty well.

Yeah, Terry

Bush's deficits are not as large as Reagan's, relative to the GDP, what's your point?

"60 months of economic growth-sure seems the economy is going pretty well"....Yeah Terry, it's going great for Bush's base, the "have-mores". Meanwhile the number of people slipping below the poverty level in this country is rising dramatically under Bush. A huge portion of the populace can't afford health insurance. Personal savings in this country are in the negative. Things are going just swimmingly.

"Deficit spending during wartime is not bad since a war is closed end expenditure as opposed to Social Security, which projects out forever"

Last time I checked, Social security benefited hundreds of millions of Americans. How many Americans does the Iraq War benefit, with the exception of those involved with the military-industrial-complex?. Of course, the wealthy in this country don't need that safety net, do they?. Specially when Bush's policies are increasing the gap between the halves, and have-nots, by leaps and bounds.

Oh, and who says Bush's wars are ever going to end? Is Iran next on the agenda? And even if they do end, the cost of providing for the seriously wounded will go on for decades at enormous cost (estimated in the trillions).Our kids will be paying for Bush's fiasco for decades, it's all borrowed money, Terry.

"Horse and Sparrow" economics is a lie. See, the horse doesn't "pass-through" enough oats for the sparrow, as is claimed. Even Reagan saw through the folly of his "Voo-Doo" economics, and raised taxes in order to stop the hemorrhaging. And, with Bush, "all other things" are never equal, which is why his economic policies are a disaster.

Ken Lay slept in the Lincoln Room, Enron got government grants, so. Lay, Koslowski and the rest hadn't been exposed for their shamless market malfeasance and their "shell games" that cost investors billions. In fact, they were lionized in Fortune magazine and other bus. rags as innovative and brilliant, bla, bla, bla. So it's Clinton's fault that they were crooks?, give me a break.

"Guess where Ken Lay slept a few times in the 90's? The Lincoln Bedroom and Bill and HIll's Bed and Breakfast, we call the White House."

Nope. Not true. A lie.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/col/spinsanity/2002/02/21/lincoln/index.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407270010

dt,

My point is the American economy can grow out of any deficits that it creates. These deficits are small.

You should read an article called the "Middle Class not so bad off?" by The Third Way - a left of center group. It shows how the myth that the middle class is not struggling to get by as so many on the left claim. The median income of working age families was around $70K per year.

The war against terror benefits the freedom of all Americans - all 300 million of us.

Never said it was Clinton's fault that EnRon was crooks. President Clinton was taken in by Enron as was most of America.

As far as " Our kids will be paying for Bush's fiasco for decades, it's all borrowed money," What do you think Social Security is. It's all borrowed money - the younger generation paying the benefits of the older generation.

Other than raising Social Security Taxes (his biggest economic mistake), which taxes did he raise?

Tony,

My source is the Washingtom times, which is to the right as far as those sources are to the left.

Let's say its not true that Ken Lay never slept in the Lincoln Bedroom, the fact is Enron reaped millions of dollars of benefits from the Clinton Administration - especially for the Dabhol project.

EnRon donated nearly $2 million to the dems in the 90's

$1 Billion dollars in loans

In May 1996, Clinton touted Lay as being a good "corporate citizen" at a White House event because of Enron's alleged enlightened personnell policies, including profit-sharing of Enron stock and generous health and pension benefits. As the Times noted, Enron employees now are suing because those benefits proved as worthless as the bankrupt company's stock. Nobody complains about those benefits when the stock is going up.

Hazel O'Leary, Clinton's energy secretary, led a number of missions to India, and Frank Wisner, Clinton's ambassador to India, was ordered to keep the Dabhol project afloat. After Wisner left government in 1997, he joined the board of directors of a company then controlled by Enron.