All of these trillions of dollars of debt can only be paid back in one of two ways: 1. higher taxes on everyone 2. print more money The most insidious is #2. This is the way that liberals have always paid down their overspending in the past and they will do it again. It's the worst, because the burden of printing too much money always falls on the poor; it's called inflation. The more money that you print; the more worthless each dollar becomes. The poor don't have any investments that can keep up with inflation. When their dollars are worth half as much, they have to eat half as much. That always begins the new round of justifications for more government programs to "fix" the problem, as the liberals expand their power by buying votes with other people's money... ......How That Hope and Change Working For You?......JO'Co
re: Evil George Bush 1. He left behind two wars. Obama expanded both wars and is preparing two more in Iran and North Korea. 2. He left behind a national debt of $240 billion. Now the debt is $1.4 trillion; more than all previous presidents combined. 3. The first six years of GWB was the greatest six year period of job creation in American history. Then the Democrats took over the Congress and drove the economy into recession. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack as they forced banks to lend money to people for real estate loans that they could never afford to pay back. When the balloon of bad loans burst, the real estate market collapsed; which caused the banks to fail; which caused the insurance companies to fail, which caused the entire system to fail. Now the new finance rules have been written by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd to punish everyone in the investment community except Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, which they still control. 4. GWB had a hurricane, but couldn't get the governor of Louisiana or the mayor of New Orleans to cooperate until people started dying. Obama had an oil spill and went on vacation three times in three months while his #1 campaign contributor...British Petroleum...was given free reign to do as they pleased; while all the other drillers in the Gulf (most of whom gave money to Republicans) were shut down. 5. GWB had Gitmo and military trials. Obama has Gitmo and military trials. Yeh...things sure are different now... 10% unemployment forever...
"expanded both wars" That would surprise me re: Iraq. What data substantiates that? Limbaugh.....Beck? Catching you up a little: I am not posting this to trumpet what Obama has done lately but rather to once again point out a little reality about our present state of economic affairs and why this Financial Reform act is going to be enacted. I have pulled this excerpt from a mainstream online news article: "head off a repeat of the near-collapse of the U.S. financial system shortly before he took office." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38258047/ns/business-stocks_and_economy http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/what-gop-gets-wrong-on-the-meltdown/1107986 Quote From the article: "There are three reasons that Republicans in Congress won't support financial reform: They want to deny President Barack Obama any legislative victories, they fundamentally object to regulations that protect borrowers and investors from being preyed upon, and they want to encourage rich campaign contributions from Wall Street. Any other story is full of holes."
I would not argue with the first premise. The rest is utter nonsense. And Wall St. will support whomever they sense will win or holds the power. And I think you forgot that Obama bought Wall St. early on with your money in the bailouts.
"I have pulled this excerpt from a mainstream online news article:" MSNBC is the least credible and the least mainstream TV network of all-time. Pravda had more credibility. Keith Olbermann? You can't be serious. He used to be a sportscaster here and got run out of town for incompetence years ago. Their TV ratings hover around 100k viewers on a daily basis, which is a smaller audience than most of the radio stations here in SoCal. The whole thing is so far off the left side of the chart that it looks and sounds like an infomercial... St. Petersburg Times? Where's St. Petersburg? re: surge expanded Obama ran against GWB's 2007 surge and promised to bring the troops home "within six months." Here we are two years later and Obama kept the Bush surge going and started his own surge in Afghanistan. re: Limbaugh; Beck I don't watch them for the same reason that I don't watch Olbermann or Maddow. I don't watch propaganda or infomercials. re: Financial Reform Act You mean the 39,000 page anti-business law that was named after Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? You mean the job-killing monster that attempts to turn our whole country into one, big, United States of Chicago where everybody has to pay off government appointees before they have permission to do anything? If "Wall Street" and "rich guys" are the enemy, then how did British Petroleum get to be Obama's biggest corporate sponsor? Where did Obama get the money to outspend McCain 11-1? Obama wants a new Wall Street which he controls so that elections from coast-to-coast become as meaningless as they were in his old ward in Chicago, where he and Rahm Emanuel and Rod Blagojevich controlled the vote for over a decade. Obama's vision for our country is becoming very clear now. It isn't socialism, fascism or any other kind of "ism." He isn't that smart. His vision of "hope and change" is something familiar that we've seen many times before. Its as old as Aaron Burr and Tammany Hall. Its Boss Tweed and Tom Pendergast. Its Huey Long and "Every Man a King." It's something for nothing and every problem solved using other people's money. Its something as old as the country itself. Call it whatever you want; but don't call it democracy.
In an article entitled "Obama Top Recipient of BP Contributions in 2008" posted in that "leftwing" news organization called CNN.....I extracted this little bit of info: "White House spokesman Ben LaBolt added that Obama wasn't tied to big oil companies. "This claim lacks one thing: credibility," LaBolt said in a statement. "President Obama didn't accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign. He raised $750 million from nearly 4 million Americans. And since he became President, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives." BP employees gave more than $3 million in campaign contributions during the past decade and almost $110,000 in 2010. Fifty-seven percent of BP's contributions went to Republicans, while 43 percent went to Democrats. The article also states that the $71,000 in 2008 Obama's campaign received came from BP employees.....not the company itself. Listen....I am not an Obama defender.....I just like to see the truth posted here and especially when it comes to the legacy of George Bush as it relates to where we are today economically. It is asinine to ascertain that everything went wrong because of a DEM Congress the last two years of W's regime....asinine and foolish. If we all believe that everything W's administration did was right.....was what we need to return to.....then we are doomed because of our failure to recognize the truth. The GOP desperately wants to avoid that truth in order to win the next round of elections and that is unacceptable and ultimately dangerous.
JO'Co makes a point about Limbaugh and Beck. Obama and his administration are clearly terrified of these two. He invokes their names almost daily which is unprecented in presidential politics in my memory. He actually blames them for failings in his own administration. Now imagine that. He is facing two wars, one ( AFG ) that he is clueless how to pursue, a horrendous economy, domestic problems. immigration issues where he has sided with a foreign nation against one of our own states and a national debt that he has run up to levels that cannot even be comprehended by leading economists. And yet he remains fixated and obviously bullied by two political commentators. Why do you think that is?
What is the point of all these new government "czars" if it is not to force the American people to do the bidding of the federal bureaucrats? How many czars are there now? I've lost count. One lib/dem who changed his tune about federal government control is George McGovern. His epiphany came after his political career was over when he ran a hotel and was astounded to discover how the most difficult part of running a small business was navigating the maze of government rules, regulations and taxes. http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/05/saving-capitalism-the-george-mcgovern-way-amend-the-qualifications-clauses.html Obama and his ilk are about to pass a $3.4 trillion budget, complete with even more rules, taxes and punishments. In one year, they plan to spend more money than Bush did in 8 years. Maybe there should be a rule that nobody can serve in Congress until they've run a hotel...
I believe there are between 33-35 "czars" at present who only answer directly to the president, not to any other branch of government. Whether you are an Obama supporter or not, that alone should keep you awake at night. I think the previous high for czars was 2-3. The most apalling thing is that almost none of them have any real expertise in the areas they hold dominion over.
You continue to be a one-trick pony. I saw an interesting editorial on the war and the Obama Administration's mismanagement of the war and the WikiLeaks yesterday... Obama Mismanagement
One of Obama's big, big campaign promises is that he'd stop outsourcing and punish those companies that export jobs. So now after a year and a half of taking over GM, student loans, health care etc. just what has he done to stop the export of jobs? Answer: Mr. "No earmarks and Transparancy" had done not a fuckin thing. The best part of course is that in December when the Bush tax cuts expire, those Americans who do pay Federal Withholding taxes (the 53.1% of Americans so blessed) will pay higher taxes regardless of whether or not they make more than $250,000.
"He also said, "the hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq." By the end of August, more than 90,000 U.S. troops will have come home since Obama took office." From this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38518416/ns/politics?GT1=43001 Jo'Co pronounced Obama has "expanded" the Iraq war. How so?
He continued the Bush surge when he took over, but I can't seriously believe that you want to give him credit for getting us out of Iraq. His time table for withdrawal is now running a full year behind Bush's. Shall we give Nixon the credit for withdrawing our troops from Vietnam? Or should he have done better than that? If I'm following your thinking correctly here, Irish fans will still be blaming Charlie Weis for not winning two years from now if Kelly fails, but we will credit Kelly for running a more effective program. Are you kidding?
On Nixon....hell no. On the surge....you think Obama could step in and immediately reverse what was going on? It's only been 18 months and the reduction is picking up steam. However.....if timed for election results it would be as reprehensible as was Nixon's timing.