IT'S OFFICIAL: New Rochelle City Council Kills Echo Bay Development Deal

Time to read
21 minutes
Read so far

IT'S OFFICIAL: New Rochelle City Council Kills Echo Bay Development Deal

November 26, 2013 - 23:59

In a bi-partisan vote, 1-6, the New Rochelle City Council rejected a proposed Land Disposition Agreement, effectively terminating a proposed development of the City Yard property at Echo Bay by Forest City Residential, Inc.

Only the Mayor voted in favor of the LDA.

There are 24 Comments

Thanks for the video.

I appreciated and enjoyed every speech.

I am grateful that Forest City has been rejected. Now it is time to consider new, beneficial, innovative, revenue-generating possibilities.

Personally, I believe our government's proper place in development is that of improving infrastructure, rather than acting as an agent for private corporate interests.

If a private development is truly viable, it doesn't need tax reductions or other government investments, other than supportive infrastructure. If private development needs corporate welfare, it clearly is a flawed development.

New Rochelle needs to find new sources of revenue, but its downtown commercial problem has always been limited access, due to its distance from Westchester's parkways, insufficient parking for those people who do take the time to come downtown from elsewhere, and the ease of getting parking tickets for those who attempt to shop here.

New Rochelle's downtown commerce has been depressed for decades due to these problems. And yet our government ignores these basic issues, and repeatedly attempts encouraging private development that invariably disappoints or fails to revive our downtown commerce.

Our government should focus on first creating the environment that would encourage people to drive to downtown New Rochelle from the North End, and from Westchester.

If that improvement in infrastructure was accomplished, private development would have all the encouragement it requires, without needing tax reductions or other government financing.

Aside from that, our government should openly discuss our main untapped resource, Davids Island. I believe that is the new shoreline park that should be developed, rather than a third park next to the sewage treatment plant. How can New Rochelle retain all of Davids Island as a park, and yet draw additional revenue from it, beyond its costs?

This victory is bittersweet, however. As indicated by Bramson, through Louis Aragon, the city still plans on pushing forward with residential development, and utilizing tax breaks and "public/private partnership" deals to achieve this goal. The concept is based on Agenda 21 and is reiterated in GreeNR with the help of ICLEI. As stated in GreeNR, Bramson's goal is to densely pack another 2500 residential units into downtown NR. Unfortunately, what both NR and this country need to get back on track economically is industry. Industry is what creates jobs and drives the need for housing. Housing that is constructed by developers without the need for taxpayer funded incentives.

Instead of implementing Agenda 21, the city should be pressuring Congress to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and ending these unfair trade agreements this country has with other nations like China. We should not be supporting policies that allow goods to be sold in the U.S. that are manufactured in sweatshops by child labor. NR needs to end it's alliance with ICLEI and break away from this ridiculous notion of Agenda 21 which is nothing more than a plan to turn the middle class into low paid service workers for the wealthy elite who wish to control the planet.

Defeating Echo Bay was the start of the war that ends corporatism and focuses us on regaining our republic. Much more needs to be done and we need to push NR officials to end our alliance with ICLEI and focus more on regaining tax producing industries and retail establishments that support the sale of American made goods.

NY State is one of the worst environments for attracting any business let alone manufacturing industry. When you tax, mandate and pension corporations to death forever you reap the lack of jobs. Skilled jobs are coming back to the USA as quality dictates and as automation rules. However they are never Coming back to NY State under the present political climate.
In fact the bad news for our Southern NY Area is a real estate collapse is not far off as the wages to be had in NYC stagnate while the taxes, pensions and benefits do not cease in the Public Sector.
Local Governments are Junkies they can not kick the habit. Sooner or later Upstate and Downstate may in fact be one in terms of stagnation.
We have much bigger problems that the ICLEI and the Agenda 21 issues we have a State that cannot layoff the tax and mandate pedal which drives business out.
When those who are keeping it afloat figure out they are not able to keep pace the house of cards may just come down. Even Detroit is in better shape today.

I agree with every word Ken, and I have been saying this for years. You cannot keep driving down wages at the private sector and increasing government salaries, taxes, housing costs and energy costs and expect the economy to flourish. Jobs that pay a living wage need to be brought back to America or the country will collapse--and it is well on its way.

You are also right about NYS. That is why businesses fled in droves to areas like Pennsylvania. Corporatism rules. We are not a nation controlled by the people, but a populous controlled by government, big banking, and the corporations.

If governments would spend more time giving tax breaks and incentives to companies that create good paying jobs, and stop regulating and taxing them to death, we might have a chance of getting back on track. I still say however, that it is all tied to Agenda 21 in one way or another.

Despite the advantages of capitalism, it has been unable to provide anything even remotely close to full employment, since the mid 1920's. Prior to that, 90% of all Americans lived on farms.

As a result, it has been necessary to expand our civil service in the federal, state and local governments, or our economy would have collapsed many decades ago and not recovered.

Obviously, it was FDR's expansion of our national government that pulled the USA out of the Great Depression, and created so many jobs in the 1930-40's. It was Ike's JFK's and LBJ's expansion of the national government in the 1950-60's that created so many jobs in the 1950-60's, and that we still benefit from.

None of our economic problems relate to the UN or Agenda 21. If anything, those suggested-but-unrequired UN objects have benefitted our economy. Don't forget, the UN has always been an extension of USA policy, which is exactly why the UN is headquarted in the USA.

I and most everyone else, have no idea what you are referring to, about droves of NY jobs rushing to PA. Can you give specific examples of that occurring? What Major Corporations and PA cities are involved?

NY remains the major economic magnet in the USA.

What "obviously" got us out of the Depression was a little thing called World War II! All the WPA make works programs that the government usually creates could NEVER have accomplished it.

You are mistaken. The Great Depression was over by 1940, but the USA didn't enter WWII until 1941-12-07, about two years later.

However, the main point you miss, is that the USA ended the Depression by spending much more money than tax revenue brought in.

And we won WWII by spending much more money than tax revenue brought in.

And we won the space race by spending much more money than tax revenue brought in.

And we won the 'cold war' by spending much more money than tax revenue brought in.

Without deficit spending, the USA would never have left the Hoover's Great Depression nor GW Bush's Great Recession, nor won WWII.

Since 2008, the USA has been suffering from Deflation, something that is deadly to any economy. Balancing the USA budget at this time, would create greater Deflation and massive unemployment. What is needed to improve the USA economy is 3-4% annual Inflation and more government spending.

More government spending ? On what more " shovel ready " projects ? We have no more NASA , wasted money on bogus crony capitalism green project failures to pay off campaign donors . We are about 15 trillion in debt and you want the government to spend more , on what health care? Sounds like a plan! The government IS the problem!

17 trillion in debt--but who's counting anymore?

Robert Cox's picture

US GDP 10 60


If you look at the GDP chart you can see that the recovery began, by some measures in 1933 so it is certainly a truism that "The Great Depression was over by 1940" if you look at indicators like GDP. It was over by 1939 and 1938 and 1937, etc. If you look at lagging indicators like unemployment then the recovery did not occur until the early 1940s.

It is not, however, wrong to say there is a connection between “the end” of the Great Depression and WWII. The problem is that you are drastically oversimplifying all aspects of what constitutes the Great Depression and what was doing on in the US economy between the stock market crash of 1929 and the start of WWII. While I am sure you can find some economists who disagree, it is generally the view that the the Great Depression ended with the beginning of World War II — not the US entry into the war but the beginning of the war which can be said to have begun in 1937 to 1939. The US economy was positively impacted as Europe armed itself and more so with the fall of France and what morphed into Lend-Lease.

To that extent, Andy is correct in disputing your statements in this regard.

You go on to make points about deficit spending where you are a bit closer to being correct but still off.

It is not right to say “the USA ended the Depression by spending much more money than tax revenue brought in”. Emphasis on “ended”.

It is true that the US was deficit spending but your framing of this statement as “the USA ended” and the points that follow present a fact (deficit spending) with a strategy to bring about an economic recovery.

The US did not “end” the Depression through deficit spending any more than you might deflect a punch to your nose or hit the deck if you hear a shot fired. The US engaged in deficit spending as a national security strategy to combat the Axis powers. That this helped the economy was a side benefit. Unless you are suggesting that FDR supplied Britain and Russia with weapons and supplies, and entered the war, as a rather bloody “Stimulus Plan”.

Likewise it is true that the US continued deficit spending throughout WWII but wrong to say that the US won the war BECAUSE we were “spending much more money than tax revenue brought in”.

This is a common fallacy but correlation does not imply causation.

By your logic, any country can win a war by spending more money than they take in from taxes.

Obviously, that is absurd, right?

The Germans and Japanese also engaged in deficit spending in WWII. They lost the war.

You go even further afield when you extrapolate from this one fallacy into a series of fallacies, each one less precise, about deficit spending…

“we won the space race”

“we won the 'cold war’”

It reminds of a criticism of astro-turf when it was first introduced in baseball. Players complained that the effect of the surface was to cause balls hit off the infield to come off the turf faster, that they were speeding up because of the astro-turf. While it was true that the balls were coming at them faster when it hit off the turf, it was not because they were actually speeding up after making contact with the turf but that they were not slowing down like when they were hit onto grass because Astro-turf causes less friction than grass.

Another error implicit in your remarks is that government spending exists in a vacuum, that the alternative to government spending is no spending.

You do not account for the reality that any dollar spent by the government is money that would otherwise have remained in private hands.

You compound that by counting up all of the economic activity resulting from the government spending of that money, compare that to your alternative (zero spending) and conclude that but for government spending no activity would have occurred.

There is a well-known economic analogy about a broken-window (not the “Rudy Giuliani” version).

A kid walks though a neighborhood and throws a rock through the window of Andy’s house. Less enlightened people like Andy see that as a bad thing. But in your wisdom, you see it is a good thing. As a result of the rock thrown through the window, Andy hires a glazier to replace the window. The glazier buys the window from a hardware store. The window company sells the window. The window factory workers make the window. And so on. In your world, the kid is creating economic activity. In fact, in your world, the government should hire kids to throw rocks through windows thus employing people directly and generating economic activity on down the line.

This is because you are are looking at what is SEEN.

What you are not looking at is what is NOT SEEN.

What is not seen is that Andy did not buy a pair of shoes because he spent that money on getting a new window installed.

Andy is no better off as a result of getting a new window as he already had a window. And the shoe store loses a sale, which means the cobble does not make the shoe, which means the tanner does not make the leather for the cobbler to make the show and so forth.

By your logic, the US economy would be better off if we firebombed all our cities. Imagine all the economic activity required to rebuild!

None of which is to say that it is never right to engage in deficit spending only that you are confused in your application of the various statements you have made, some true and some not, and thus reach incorrect conclusions and apply them indiscriminately.


The Great Depression ended in the USA by the late 1930's, not so much because of Europe or Japan starting WWII years before the USA declared war.

Rather, the Great Depression ended because our federal government seeded our economy by spending a lot of borrowed money to build infrastructure, and because federal government expanded its civil service, and paid people SS to retire to have money to spend, and paid unemployment insurance so unemployed people would have money to spend, and by providing school loans and better child labor laws to take people off the job market, providing jobs for others.

The government was able to accomplish that via borrowing and printing money. As that government-provided money entered the private economy, our businesses prospered and hired more people, and the Depression ended. I'm not referring to the speculative stock market, but to the real economy employing labor.

Prior to WWI, 90% of all Americans lived on farms. During WWI and the 1920's, our economy changed to one of greater industry and services, and much of small private farms.

In the 1920's, as Europe began to recover from WWI, Europe became less dependent on the USA for industrial output and farmed products. By the mid-1920's, our farmers had too many expensive mortgages on too many farms, resulting in too many abandoned farms, causing a real estate glut, resulting in financial institutions crashing the stock market by late 1929. That crash expanded to our industrial and service economy, resulting in massive layoffs throughout the USA, similar to 2008's effects.

Beginning in 1930 under President Hoover, our federal, state and municipal governments, receiving less revenue, began laying off employees, which only expanded the Great Depression, similar to 2008's effects.

Similarly, at the end of WWII, the USA had one of the few intact economies in the world. From 1945 through the early 1970's, the USA prospered not only via deficit spending, but because we were providing a lot of food and industrial products for the rest of the world.

By the early 1970's, Europe and Japan had recovered enough to industrially compete with the USA, resulting in a repressed USA economy, from apprx 1974-1982, but the USA economy has not been as vibrant since, especially regarding clothing, automotives and electronics.

Of course there have been other factors negatively affecting our economy since the early 1970's, such as Oil Cartels, and a very much over-sized military-industrial complex. But basically, our economy thrived from 1914-1929 because of WWI, and thrived from 1940-1974 because of WWII.

Since 1929, USA capitalism and private enterprise have been unable to provide anything near full employment, so the government will have to continue to fill that void. When the government lays off people, there are insufficent private jobs to pick up that slack, resulting not only in expanding unemployment but also in depressed wages, due to supply and demand of labor.

So when the government cuts its civil service budget, it ends up spending even more money on welfare, social security, etc. And when the government cuts its spending on infrastucture, that directly depresses the private economy, and also ends up spending even more money on welfare, social security, etc.

Reduced government spending results in less money being spent on private businesses, which result in less government revenue, which results inless government spending. A very bad downward economic spirals, caused by well-meaning, poorly thought-out good intentions, paving the way to hell.

All of that is basic economics, that we all were taught in school and college, and has again been proven as true by the problems of our current economy.

The bottom line is, that during bad economic times our national government needs to expand our economy, by expanding its civil service and spending more, and by borrowing and/or simply creating more currency.

And during good economic times, national government should increase taxes and pay off our national debt, and to avoid creating economic bubbles. GW Bush, having inherited a good economy did exactly the opposite of what he should have, and lowered taxes instead of increasing them, which caused a real estate bubble, that crashed in 2007-2008, resulting in financial disaster and Great Recession of 2008, and of our current on-going economic woes.

Of course I am referring to necessary deficit spending of our national economy and federal government, not our local government. Our federal government controls our international relations and currency, is master of its fate, and cannot go bankrupt. The USA dollar is the most desired and respected currency in the world.

But States and municipalities cannot create currency and can go bankrupt. But they do damage our economy when they reduce spending. So it is necessary for our federal govenment to assist the financing of States and municipalities in various ways, including the building of infrastructure, and by the federal government providing social services that local governments cannot afford.

Regarding your analogy of a kid breaking a window, resulting in money being spent on our economy, there is much truth to your sarcasm. If people didn't commit crimes, we'd need less police, resulting in greater unemployment of potential police officers and of less judges. But people do commit crimes.

Currently, if the USA suddenly stopped acting as the world's policeman, we'd have a much smaller military and be spending much less on military hardware, so massive unemployment would result.

Much of the USA economy is based on our abusively over-sized Military-Industrial Complex, that President / 5-Star General Eisenhower knowingly warned us about. We need to greatly reduce military spending. But if the USA suddenly massively cut military spending we'd create an economic Depression that would last for years. We do have to find a way to greatly cut military spending, as that is the main cause of our federal government's deficit. And its about time we start.

Robert Cox's picture


You wrote:

"All of that is basic economics, that we all were taught in school and college, and has again been proven as true by the problems of our current economy."

What you are describing as “basic economics” that “we all were taught” is, in fact, one particular economic theory. Specifically, the theories of John Maynard Keynes in his book "General Theory of Employment Interest and Money” and known as Keynesian Economics.

This is a theory that holds that governments should spend money they do not have to achieve full employment. It was widely adopted by OECD countries from WWII until the 1970s.

Thanks to the work of economists like Frederich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Keynesian Economics was largely rejected by OECD countries by the late 1970’s leading to the Thatcher-Reagan economic boom and setting the stage for decades of economic growth and global prosperity.

I will grant that with the market meltdown in 2007-2008, there has been revived (misguided in my view) interest in Keynesian Economics but the issue at hand was about World War II and the Great Recession.

You have put a lot of effort into not addressing my comment squarely and just admit that World War II is widely recognized by economists as that driving factor in “ending” the Great Recession.

As a Keynesian true believer, your definition of ENDING a recession (or depression) is based on achieving full employment not GDP growth, right?

Most every economist I can think of agrees that was achieved as a result of World War II not economic policies undertaken by FDR.

NY State has one of the most viable economies in the USA. NY has been center of the USA economy since the founding of our republic.

NY State has lower unemployment, and more job opportunities than most of the States in the USA. That is why educated people from throughout the USA, indeed from the entire world, come to NY to advance their careers and make their fortunes. Of course, that does create a lot of competition for the many well-paying jobs in NY State.

In comparison, it is those states of low taxation and poor public education in the Deep South, that are examples of how not run a State.

The real estate market in lower NY State, was less damaged by GW Bush's national bursting of the real estate bubble, and lower NY has largely recovered from it. New Rochelle's real estate, in particular, avoided most of the real estate value problems suffered by much of the USA.

There is no reason to perceive a current real estate bubble, especially in New Rochelle which itself never actually had a bubble, due NR's proximity to the vibrant economy of NYC, and due to NR's excellent public schools.

Clinton created the real estate bubble.


NYS as of October 2013 had an unemployment rate of 7.7%., which ranks NYS 36th out of 50. As someone who takes risk in terms of investing in business, I can assure NYS is one of the worst places to start a business. High taxes and high regulation starve start-ups and established concerns of the necessary capital to achieve success. Additionally a burdensome dependance on union based employment makes NYS the most expensive place to do business in the United States.

The things that are not problems or meaningful issues, are Agenda 21, ICLEI and the UN. You might as well be ranting about Space Alien Probes or the Mayan Calendar. Why not focus on the many real issues that exist in New Rochelle and the USA, rather than complain about such unfounded, paranoiac, visions of non-reality?

The other issues John Imburgia refers to in this post, might be important, but diminished by grouping them with valid UN-related attempts to deal with global warming.

What the USA needs to get on track, is for our Congress to be more functional and less partisan. The Senate's recent reduction in filibusters is a good start. When Congress is unable to legislate, that stifles our economy. That’s a way to regain control of our republic.

It’s important that our federal government seed our national economy by major investments in infrastructure. Consider how much the USA benefitted by building our interstate highway system in the 1950-60’s, or by space research during that same time.

Declaring a war that ends corporatism, sounds a bit communist.

I do have problems with the way capitalism overly-controls our democracy, but I wouldn’t want to see the end of capitalism. Perhaps you mean, ending corporate welfare? Or ending the ability of corporations to donate money to politicians or political causes?

You clearly have no clue as to what Agenda 21 is. And that's the way the Bramson's of the world like it.

What the USA needs is a president who is less partisan and more accepting to listening to the other party. Also let me get this straight, you think that it was a good idea that the Democrat controlled Senate exercised the nuclear option and did away with needing 60 votes to break a filibuster allowing the majority to run roughshod over the minority party? What about a few years back when then Senator Obama and Biden and even Harry Reid were up an arms about the same exact thing? Be careful because what goes around comes around , and 2014 will be here before you know it, and then you will eat those words.

Barack Obama is about as non-partisan president as we have had since Eisenhower.

The USA's problem with partisan politics can fully be blamed on the Republican Tea Party advocates in the US Senate and House of Representatives, but that is obvious to most Americans.

The extremely partisan Tea Party is not only greatly damaging the USA, but also destroying the national Republican Party, by turning it into a the regional political party of the former Confederate States of America, which of course is a shame.

Your statement about the Tea Party would be obvious only to people who think like you. Partisan is Reid and Schumer , Pelosi and Maxine Waters. Since when is wanting lower taxes and less government extreme? Tell that to all the extremists in Westchester County ( which by the way has a 2 to 1 democratic voter registration advantage) that just sent tax and spend liberal democrat Bramson packing! Nobody buying labels that you and people like you put on average citizens anymore. And if you or Obama were around and able to vote back in the 1950's no doubt that would have been 2 more votes for Stevenson.

By any standard, President Obama has been far less partisan than Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, GH Bush, Clinton and especially the extremely partisan GW Bush.

Obama has bent over backwards to be non-partisan, and has repeatedly tried to be cooperative with the Republicans in Congress, only to be slapped down by the always non-cooperative ultra-extremist partisan Tea Partiers in Congress, to the dismay of most Democratic and independent voters, and of many Republican voters.

Since you ask, wanting less government has always been extreme depending on what aspect of government is to be lessened, and how it's achieved.

When reducing government spending damages our economy, our education system, public services or our judicial system, that has always been extreme.

When the means of reducing government is to refuse voting on financial legislation so as to deliberately shut down our government, or by Senators filibustering all of the President's nominated appointments, that has always been extreme.

Your description of liberals, as 'tax and spend', is an illogical description.

Taxing to spend is what Republicans used to advocate, back when they were actually fiscally conservative, which the congressional Republicans no longer are.

Republicans now advocate lowering taxes, so as to increase 'bonding and spending'. This is done to benefit wealthy people and financial institutions, who then invest in those bonds of government debt, using their tax savings while increasing our national debt. I'd like to see the national debt reduced, but that means increasing taxes on those people who make the most money.

Democrats are fiscally conservative when they do tax to spend, rather than issuing bonds. Issuing bonds may be a necessity, but ultimately they have to be paid for with increased taxes and fees or by inflation devaluing the debts.

Only by your standard is he both non-partisan or bending over backwards. The last time I checked those ultra-extremist Tea Party Republicans were elected by there constituents , so shouldn't their votes count? Only in yours and Obama's world they shouldn't. Case in point is Obama Care. Not one republican voted for it , and key democrats had to be bought off in order to force it through. It was sold on a LIE ( if you like your plan you can keep your plan ,if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor , PERIOD!) but both you and the "Regime" know what's better for us. Want to see left wing , socialist government planing and spending at its best just look across the pond at Europe. That's what Obama's plan is for America. I couldn't help but notice of all the presidents you named the one that Obama most reminds us of you didn't mention. He has succeeded in making us long for the days of Jimmy Carter and I never thought that could happen!

Actually, most Americans perceive President Obama to be more non-partisan than most presidents, and very compromising.

One has to be extremely partisan and rigid to see Barack Obama as being partisan and rigid.

Tea Party Republicans votes do count. The problem is when Tea Party Republicans filibuster to prevent the majority of Senators from voting. Doesn't the majority of Senators count?

You simply believe in a Minority rule, and you would deny the choices of a majority of Americans.

You demonstrate your ignorance of the facts and of the Constitution, as obviously there were Republicans voting for Obamacare. For any legislation to become law, it must pass both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives has a majority of Republicans, and the House of Representatives passed Obamacare by a majority of Representatives, which could not have occurred without some Republicans voting for ObamaCare.

The following 87 Republican Congressmen voted to fund Obamacare, including House Speaker John Boehner (OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (CA) and Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA).

The full list of 87 Republican Congressmen who voted to fund Obamacare were: Bachus, Barletta, Benishek, Bilirakis, Boehner, Boustany, Brooks (IN), Buchanan, Calvert, Camp, Cantor, Capito, Coble, Coffman, Cole, Cook, Cotton, Cramer, Crawford, Crenshaw, Daines, Davis, Rodney, Dent, Diaz-Balart, Fitzpatrick, Fortenberry, Frelinghuysen, Gardner, Gerlach, Gibson, Griffin (AR), Grimm, Guthrie, Hanna, Harper, Hastings (WA), Heck (NV), Herrera Beutler, Issa, Jenkins, Joyce, Kelly (PA), King (NY), Kinzinger (IL), Kline, Lance, Latham, LoBiondo, McCarthy (CA), McHenry, McKeon, McKinley, McMorris Rodgers, Meehan, Miller, Murphy (PA), Nunes, Paulsen, Pittenger, Reichert, Ribble, Rigell, Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Runyan, Schock, Shimkus, Shuster, Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (NJ), Stivers, Terry, Thompson (PA), Tiberi, Tipton, Upton, Valadao, Webster (FL), Whitfield, Wittman, Wolf, Womack, Young (AK), Young (IN).

The 27 Senate Republicans, over half the Senate Republicans including Minority Leader McConnell, who voted to fund Obamacare were: Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Barrasso (WY), Blunt (MO), Boozman (AR), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Chiesa (NJ), Coats (IN), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Fischer (NE), Flake (AZ), Graham (SC), Hatch (UT), Hoeven (ND), Isakson (GA), Johanns (NE), Kirk (IL), McCain (AZ), McConnell (KY), Moran (R.KA), Murkowski (R.AK), Portman (OH), Thune (SD), Wicker (MS).

All major countries, including the USA have socialist components. I challenge you to name a major European, North American or Asian country (excluding Communist China) that doesn't have elements of Socialism mixed with Capitalism.

However, Obamacare is clearly not socialist, as the actual insurance is not provided by our government, but rather by private corporations. I wish Obamacare was socialist, and more like what is available in Canada, the UK and much of Europe, and which was advoicated by Republicans for the USA, as recently as the 1970's by Nixon.

You are right that I consider Presidents Carter and Ford to be much less partisan than all the Presidents that followed them, other than Obama who is as non-partisan as any President has been since Eisenhower (who both parties wanted to run as their Presidential candidate in 1952).

I consider Eisenhower, Ford, Carter and Obama to all be decent men, willing to compromise and putting their country above petty partisan politics. Unfortunately, decent Presidents such as them, tend to be less powerful than partisans such as Reagan, Clinton or GW Bush.

Actually most people view Obama as an incompetent liar surely you have seen the polls. But I will give you this it certainly seems to be a bi-partisan opinion so maybe you are right. One would have to be extremely blind not to see that.
If laws aren't being voted on in the senate one can only blame that bastion of fairness Harry Reid for that. Last time I checked your pals control that disfunctional branch of the government.
Obama care not being socialist enough for you comes as no surprise to me . All one has to do is read your comments to come to that conclusion. Anybody in Canada who wants quality healthcare in a timely manor comes to this country. I have family in England and trust me they don't use the government system for any kind of serious procedure. They say anybody who can buys private insurance because the other choice is not an option. Nothing like shared misery a very socialist tenet.
My problem with Carter and Obama isn't whether they are decent but rather if they were competent. The answer is a resounding NO! The only good thing about the Carter presidency was that it ushered in 8 years of Ronald Reagan. Hopefully after 8 years of this disastorous regime ,we will be as lucky. It can only get better cause we have hit rock bottom.