Well said Bill...I appreciate the comments you have added. It is from the heart and well spoken. A great call to stay on purpose...thanks. There are good people of both party's...and we need to call them forth. I think an earlier article I have posted here is a good fit; An Agenda for Real Change: http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=597

In the National Review article you provided Murdock states in his opening paragraph that it was waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) 183 times in March 2003 that “PREVENTED a bloody attack” on the Library Tower in LA “that could have murdered thousands.”
Bush stated in a commencement speech to the US Coast Guard in May 2007:
“…in 2002 was a plot by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to repeat the destruction of 9/11 by sending operatives to hijack an airplane and fly into the tallest building on the West Coast.”
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/r...
A Bush White House Fact sheet released at the same time states:
“In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast. During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay two months ago, KSM stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles.”
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/r...
It looks like information gleaned from KSM from waterboarding in 2003 ONLY confirmed a plot the government already uncovered and broke up in 2002 but it did NOT PREVENT if from happening.

From the research I’ve been able to do so far defining the impact taxes cuts have on the economy is determined how they have been applied.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/311088...
Regardless of which party is deficit spending, there is an abundance of academic studies that indicate government deficit spending does not have a positive impact on the economy:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/bg...
Every dollar the Fed injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy itself. No new spending power is created. Money just trades hands from one group to another. If the government borrows from domestic investors those investors have less to invest or spend in the domestic economy. If they borrow from foreigners, the balance of payments is adjusted by equally reducing net exports leaving GDP unchanged. The alternative is the Fed could print all the money it needs. But that creates inflation (e.g. Zimbabwe) and debases the value of the dollar.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/bg...

No argument there - the government does not know what to do with…I’d add they do know how to spend far more then it takes in…that’s for sure…__I’d be interested in seeing the reports you have on the revenue history during the Reagan years. __According to a US Treasury Dept report the various Reagan’s tax bills combined had a mixed impact on revenue with the overall impact being negative…recapped here …I have found a variety of pro and con reports accessible here too: __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics__http://...

And more "expert" statements:
July 21, 2008 Paulson: "Our banking system is a safe and a sound one."
Sept 16, 2008 Paulson: The American people can remain confident in the "soundness and resilience in the American financial system."
Sept 17, 2008 Paulson: "Don't Worry, the Banking System Is Sound"
By Sept 22 as the Bush $700 billion bailout is pending before Congress Paulson warns: “We’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/0...
In 2007 Bush says: "The world economy is strong and I happen to believe one of the main reasons why is because we remain strong." http://www.cnbc.com/id/19994900/
And again in 2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSW...

Neither party is in any position to point fingers of blame and play the high and mighty. Over the last 30 plus years each have contributed to the crisis we now face. The sooner we ALL get that the better. Neither party offers any real solutions. Corporate lobbying and funding stalks the power trail from one side of the aisle to the other. Pulled from the NY Times article Harry provided, this says all we need to know on how messed up things are and we hear this all the time: ''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Rep Baker. We cannot rely on anything any of these yahoos say:
''These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Rep B Frank (statement made in 2003).

Bill good write up…thanks!
The jump in foreclosures in April is partially a result of financial firms having placed a moratorium on processing further foreclosures for the first quarter 2009…which expired at the end of March

The two biggest deficit spending presidents in recent history have been Reagan and GWBush. Borrowing to fund deficit spending is simply future taxes. Either way, we pay for it now, or pay for it later. Someday the debt will have to be paid or defaulted on. Since we owe foreigners, "they will demand returns that will take an increasing proportion of future tax revenues.” http://sprott.com/pdf/marketsataglance/03_2009.pd...
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp221/ (see page 9 Figure A)
Wall Street is proving to be very self-reliant...is this the sort of self reliance you are referring to?

Harry:
"I said water boarding saves lives. Water boarding is not torture. The Japanese and German version of water boarding was brutal and sadistic."
What facts do you have to support your claim water boarding saves lives?
Are you speaking from personal experience that it is not torture and how today's version compares to the Japanese and German version?

Excellent observations Oekoman...thanks!