Barry hates America

[Hotrod]

**** even the Canadians get it. Thoughts???

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784

In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots like Winston Churchill – along with America’s heroic help and sacrifice – saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of “I’ve been to the mountaintop” Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an unprecedented level of social justice.

The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.

We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.

The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.

Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.

I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented

Until now
Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of the free world is the first U.S. president to proclaim to anyone within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country, and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies – for America! – to Americans and foreigners alike.

As Ed Lasky writes: “We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned that criticism of his wife was `off-limits’. But criticism of America – well, that is fine.”

We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning yahoos who “cling” to those silly things, and that in Europe he consistently gave voice to America’s supposed “sins.” But all that pales in comparison to the clear contempt – looks more like hatred to me – that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:


In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.
In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!
In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.
In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.
In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.
In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation.
And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.
Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.

Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama “had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama’s moral equivalence, they realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive – understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover for moral laxity and ‘can’t we all get along?’

Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…not a word came from Britain about colonialism…nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”

In addition, Hanson continues, “We hear nothing about our Gettysburg, or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid. The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed. Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush’s efforts at extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients — but again, this is never referenced.”

Blogger James Lewis says that Obama’s “obsessive need to put down his own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao’s purges.”

And Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell adds, “Obama `gets’ the America-haters.”

Abandoning allies, Embracing enemies
“If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse, forgotten,” write Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. “But if you have a track record as an ally or friend, you won’t get the right time of day.”

Follow the link for the rest of this masterpiece

[Rigs11]

ahh yes..whenever the right has issues they come out with the hate card. Don't like the iraq war? you hate the troops! Have issues with Palin's intelligence or ethics? The left hates Palin! Why did the terrorists attack us? They hate our freedom!

[footstepsfrom#27]

Follow the link for the rest of this masterpiece
I did...and was equally unimpressed by what amounts to another right wing blog attack. I tend to be interested more in things that present an evidenciary tone rather than one marked with the nuances of inflamatory language. Sarcasm, exageration, and blatant motivational transparency usually turn me off whether it's coming from the left or the right if we're talking about something purporting itself as a news source rather than pure opinion.

The fact is...we have made mistakes. Leadership IMO...aknowleges when mistakes are made and chooses to act in a different way. It's not surprising when people who see the world as us vs. them or black vs. white interpret that as they see fit.

[Rohirrim]

Let's impeach the bastard and put Palin in there. She'll know what to do. We need somebody more mavericky.

[Bob]

ahh yes..whenever the right has issues they come out with the hate card. Don't like the iraq war? you hate the troops! Have issues with Palin's intelligence or ethics? The left hates Palin! Why did the terrorists attack us? They hate our freedom!

If they didnt want to shape our country ito something radicly different, they would not be amplifing Bush's poor lead. If not not hate, then certainly he and congress are attempting to crush certain parts of the economy, and take that money to use for various projects, and create more serfs in the process. The proof is in their actions (firing CEO's, Cap and horde, ever more bailouts) If Bush had done any of these things, you rightly so would have freaked -- but now, that he's your guy-- growing dictatorship is ok? How about Czars, which increased power that work outside the scope of accountability to Congress, what about the ballance of powers? Is it ok now, but only bad if an R gets elected -- they will likely abuse that power as well, and the more you let someone shread the Consitution, the harder it will be to put those powers back into that lock box. The current adminsitration claims the government is the only thing big enough to fix our problems (Bush did too with TARP) but they do nothing to fix the problems caused by over-spending -- not only do they spend more they take power each time (as they claim to do doing it "for our own good.")

[Rigs11]

If they didnt want to shape our country ito something radicly different, they would not be amplifing Bush's poor lead. If not not hate, then certainly he and congress are attempting to crush certain parts of the economy, and take that money to use for various projects, and create more serfs in the process. The proof is in their actions (firing CEO's, Cap and horde, ever more bailouts) If Bush had done any of these things, you rightly so would have freaked -- but now, that he's your guy-- growing dictatorship is ok? How about Czars, which increased power that work outside the scope of accountability to Congress, what about the ballance of powers? Is it ok now, but only bad if an R gets elected -- they will likely abuse that power as well, and the more you let someone shread the Consitution, the harder it will be to put those powers back into that lock box. The current adminsitration claims the government is the only thing big enough to fix our problems (Bush did too with TARP) but they do nothing to fix the problems caused by over-spending -- not only do they spend more they take power each time (as they claim to do doing it "for our own good.")
why don't you go post this dribble in the other hundred of threads by the suddenly fiscal conservatives around here?Your heroes reagan and bush grew the government substantially.Was it ok then? We are in a facked up situation right now that requires government interaction. If the banks had collapsed where would we be right now?Seriously you guys have no plan at all, constant criticism is all you have.

[Fedaykin]

When your friends and loved loves tell you you are doing something wrong, is that a hateful action?

When you teach your children how to do their homework and stop hitting other kids, do you do it out of love or hate?

[Hotrod]

Let's impeach the bastard and put Palin in there. She'll know what to do. We need somebody more mavericky.

LOL I ****ing love that word

I cant lie when I read this I had no choice but to post it here. I just knew it would be a smashing sucess LMMFAO

[rastaman]

If they didnt want to shape our country ito something radicly different, they would not be amplifing Bush's poor lead. If not not hate, then certainly he and congress are attempting to crush certain parts of the economy, and take that money to use for various projects, and create more serfs in the process. The proof is in their actions (firing CEO's, Cap and horde, ever more bailouts) If Bush had done any of these things, you rightly so would have freaked -- but now, that he's your guy-- growing dictatorship is ok? How about Czars, which increased power that work outside the scope of accountability to Congress, what about the ballance of powers? Is it ok now, but only bad if an R gets elected -- they will likely abuse that power as well, and the more you let someone shread the Consitution, the harder it will be to put those powers back into that lock box. The current adminsitration claims the government is the only thing big enough to fix our problems (Bush did too with TARP) but they do nothing to fix the problems caused by over-spending -- not only do they spend more they take power each time (as they claim to do doing it "for our own good.")

Yo Bob! Conservatives in this country have just got to Roll-With-It over the next few years! After all, it took a combination of Reaga-nomics Bush-o-nomics to finally get us where we are today. The long arm of time will be the barometer and judge whether Obama knows what he's doing or whether the GOP are colluding together hoping for failure as a nation, a President....as their vehicle to get back into power. Sit Tight.....we've got nothing but time.:curtsey:

[rastaman]

**** even the Canadians get it. Thoughts???

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784

In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots like Winston Churchill – along with America’s heroic help and sacrifice – saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of “I’ve been to the mountaintop” Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an unprecedented level of social justice.

The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.

We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.

The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.

Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.

I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented

Until now
Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of the free world is the first U.S. president to proclaim to anyone within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country, and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies – for America! – to Americans and foreigners alike.

As Ed Lasky writes: “We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned that criticism of his wife was `off-limits’. But criticism of America – well, that is fine.”

We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning yahoos who “cling” to those silly things, and that in Europe he consistently gave voice to America’s supposed “sins.” But all that pales in comparison to the clear contempt – looks more like hatred to me – that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:


In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.
In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!
In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.
In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.
In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.
In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation.
And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.
Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.

Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama “had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama’s moral equivalence, they realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive – understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover for moral laxity and ‘can’t we all get along?’

Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…not a word came from Britain about colonialism…nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”

In addition, Hanson continues, “We hear nothing about our Gettysburg, or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid. The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed. Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush’s efforts at extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients — but again, this is never referenced.”

Blogger James Lewis says that Obama’s “obsessive need to put down his own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao’s purges.”

And Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell adds, “Obama `gets’ the America-haters.”

Abandoning allies, Embracing enemies
“If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse, forgotten,” write Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. “But if you have a track record as an ally or friend, you won’t get the right time of day.”

Follow the link for the rest of this masterpiece

Pssst! Hey Hotrod, how do you make the leap of logic and assume PRESIDENT OBAMA hates America, when in fact Conservative America has made it abundantly clear how much they HATE OBAMA! One could ascertain that its the Conservatives who truly hate America.

Just an :angel: observation.

[cutthemdown]

I hated Obama's apology tour for the most part, but he did say some things in Egypt I liked.

I think we all just need to be less partisan. If Obama showing some remorse for American mistakes, maybe it will be easier to form a consensus on Iran and N Korea,

I'd rather have Russia green light taking out Irans nuclear capabilities, then have missile defense near Russia and Iran have nukes.

So I will wait to see how Obama plans to use the capital he gained by making these apologies. Until we see his end game you can not judge it IMO accuratly.

Time for Repubs to criticise for sure, but lets not just ciriticise everything for the sake of arguing. I think on this one its a political game and Obama not yet finsished. Or he's an idiot, but we don't know exactly yet.

Certianly though you won't see Putin apologizing for slipping that dude in Great Britian a nuclear mickey.

[Bob]

why don't you go post this dribble in the other hundred of threads by the suddenly fiscal conservatives around here?Your heroes reagan and bush grew the government substantially.Was it ok then? We are in a facked up situation right now that requires government interaction. If the banks had collapsed where would we be right now?Seriously you guys have no plan at all, constant criticism is all you have.

Unlike you, I can state the obvious -- about those that are ideologicly more simular to my own views -- Bush over spent, Reagan at least bankrupted the USSR (allong with a war in Afghanistan.)

How about spending less -- is that something akin to a plan? Or do you prefer hyper inflation? Oh, sorry, forgot: hyper-inflation is the plan of the current admin, and to keep idoits like you from believing that it could ever happen to us... their plan later, when that does happen, will be to shift ALL blame elsewhere, and you will predisposed because of various social stances on irrelivant topics to believe it.

[Dukes]

Pssst! Hey Hotrod, how do you make the leap of logic and assume PRESIDENT OBAMA hates America, when in fact Conservative America has made it abundantly clear how much they HATE OBAMA! One could ascertain that its the Conservatives who truly hate America.

Just an :angel: observation.

It's easy to hate someone who wasn't even born here. ;D

[Hotrod]

It's easy to hate someone who wasn't even born here. ;D


LOL

[Bob]

Yo Bob! Conservatives in this country have just got to Roll-With-It over the next few years! After all, it took a combination of Reaga-nomics Bush-o-nomics to finally get us where we are today. The long arm of time will be the barometer and judge whether Obama knows what he's doing or whether the GOP are colluding together hoping for failure as a nation, a President....as their vehicle to get back into power. Sit Tight.....we've got nothing but time.:curtsey:

Again, spending money we dont have under Obama is just as bad as over-spending under Bush.

Do you have any clue how much more we are spending now, even after a few short months? And when, we have hyper inflation three years from now, you hopefully wont be interested in blame, because it wont matter that much, as you and I will both be living with it.

I spoke out against Bush, for the last year of Bush's admin on the issue of over-spending, but should have been more informed earlier, but wasnt.

This is the crux of it -- if one guy (Bush) is over spending on weapons, and his pet projects the right generally says nothing -- he's a club member after all. Now, when someone left of center gets in, he over-spends too on various green projects, and bailout outs of large companies (which I guess your ok with?) because he has ideas that are closer to your own.

But both R's and D's are left with the coming crisis, which means ALL of our various pet projects are raped and crushed -- no strong military for the R's and a Medicare system that is even more broke, and an SSDI check that has no actual value, a weakened global position that does not allow us to put any pressure on China to do anthing green -- as they have decided that we have no more blood to suck on. So, we are not on two different ships, but the same one, which has a gaping hole, I know their are points to garner, but what might be slightly more important is to fix the hole. The A-hole before Obama made the situation worse, why ignore a current president's policies when he is doing the same thing? What social policies could be worth the destruction of the value of the dollar? I cant think of any on the left or right.

[Rigs11]

Again, spending money we dont have under Obama is just as bad as over-spending under Bush.

Do you have any clue how much more we are spending now, even after a few short months? And when, we have hyper inflation three years from now, you hopefully wont be interested in blame, because it wont matter that much, as you and I will both be living with it.

I spoke out against Bush, for the last year of Bush's admin on the issue of over-spending, but should have been more informed earlier, but wasnt.

This is the crux of it -- if one guy (Bush) is over spending on weapons, and his pet projects the right generally says nothing -- he's a club member after all. Now, when someone left of center gets in, he over-spends too on various green projects, and bailout outs of large companies (which I guess your ok with?) because he has ideas that are closer to your own.

But both R's and D's are left with the coming crisis, which means ALL of our various pet projects are raped and crushed -- no strong military for the R's and a Medicare system that is even more broke, and an SSDI check that has no actual value, a weakened global position that does not allow us to put any pressure on China to do anthing green -- as they have decided that we have no more blood to suck on. So, we are not on two different ships, but the same one, which has a gaping hole, I know their are points to garner, but what might be slightly more important is to fix the hole. The A-hole before Obama made the situation worse, why ignore a current president's policies when he is doing the same thing? What social policies could be worth the destruction of the value of the dollar? I cant think of any on the left or right.

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 9, 2009

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.

Mr. Obama — responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders — met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”

“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”

When challenged about the deficit, Mr. Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. “There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care,” Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.

Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.

First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn’t clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.

Second, even serious health care reform won’t be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

“Things will get worse gradually,” Mr. Auerbach predicts, “unless they get worse quickly.” Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/bu...leonhardt.html

[Miss I.]

It's easy to hate someone who wasn't even born here. ;D

So Cutler was born in a foreign country? Is Whiny Biatch a foreign country? Oh yeah, it's France....no wonder, it explains so much about Cutelier...

Obama, on the other hand, was born in Hawaii, says so on the internet so it must be true...

:peace:

[gunns]

Well I prefer him speaking the truth about our sins than saying God loves us the best. And personally I love the fact he doesn't respond to those idiots such as Ortega and Chavez. To me that's a diss in itself because they do it for a reaction. They aren't important enough to react to their ramblings.

[cutthemdown]

Well I prefer him speaking the truth about our sins than saying God loves us the best. And personally I love the fact he doesn't respond to those idiots such as Ortega and Chavez. To me that's a diss in itself because they do it for a reaction. They aren't important enough to react to their ramblings.

Yeah I have no problem with Obama taking the book, and then saying nothing.

Repubs a little out of control with nitpicking every move. IMO they are doing it because they feel Bush got same treatment.

At some point people need to pull for there country, not beat down the President.

I don't like several things Obama is doing, mostly the energy bill and the union bailouts, but as far as his style goes, his supposed apology tour, taxing the rich, healthcare, I am willing to see how it goes.

If Obama pulls off stopping Iran getting a nuke that would also go a long ways with me.

He is spending too much, but if he doesnt get inflation we can pull it off.

[Bob]

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 9, 2009

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.

Mr. Obama — responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders — met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”

“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”

When challenged about the deficit, Mr. Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. “There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care,” Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.

Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.

First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn’t clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.

Second, even serious health care reform won’t be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

“Things will get worse gradually,” Mr. Auerbach predicts, “unless they get worse quickly.” Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/bu...leonhardt.html

Agreed that everyone has blame in this -- Bush doubled the national debt, but Obama is on course to double it again.

Obama will raise taxes yes -- but so far he has increased total net spending -- he has made some token "cuts" but again net spending is way up. This article seems hell bent on giving Obama a pass, and shifting most/all blame, but what should anyone expect from the NY Times, who is in the tank for Obama -- I wonder if Obama will bailout the NY Times? "You betch-ya."

[Rigs11]

Agreed that everyone has blame in this -- Bush doubled the national debt, but Obama is on course to double it again.

Obama will raise taxes yes -- but so far he has increased total net spending -- he has made some token "cuts" but again net spending is way up. This article seems hell bent on giving Obama a pass, and shifting most/all blame, but what should anyone expect from the NY Times, who is in the tank for Obama -- I wonder if Obama will bailout the NY Times? "You betch-ya."

Where are you getting your figures that obama is going to double it?If you don't like the NY times I can get you another source.

[Bob]

Yeah I have no problem with Obama taking the book, and then saying nothing.

Repubs a little out of control with nitpicking every move. IMO they are doing it because they feel Bush got same treatment.

At some point people need to pull for there country, not beat down the President.

I don't like several things Obama is doing, mostly the energy bill and the union bailouts, but as far as his style goes, his supposed apology tour, taxing the rich, healthcare, I am willing to see how it goes.

If Obama pulls off stopping Iran getting a nuke that would also go a long ways with me.

He is spending too much, but if he doesnt get inflation we can pull it off.

How will it not result in inflation -- as countries are not willing to buy all of our debt, we are now buying our own debt...have you read anything from the former US Comptroller of the United States, David Walker (he was primary bean counter for our books) one cannot increase our over-all money supply by this much, and for their to be no consquences....

It will bounce up for less than a year, and crash.

[rastaman]

How will it not result in inflation -- as countries are not willing to buy all of our debt, we are now buying our own debt...have you read anything from the former US Comptroller of the United States, David Walker (he was primary bean counter for our books) one cannot increase our over-all money supply by this much, and for their to be no consquences....

It will bounce up for less than a year, and crash.

So if you were President today, what would you do? I myself think Obama isn't doing enough! Maybe we need to start a thread titled "What I would Do As President"!

[Dukes]

So Cutler was born in a foreign country? Is Whiny Biatch a foreign country? Oh yeah, it's France....no wonder, it explains so much about Cutelier...

Obama, on the other hand, was born in Hawaii, says so on the internet so it must be true...

:peace:

The ;D means sarcasm................................

[Broncojef]

Where are you getting your figures that obama is going to double it?If you don't like the NY times I can get you another source.

Double it?? Good God the man spent more in 3 months than Bush did in 8 years (wars included), this was after he told us Bush's spending was unsustainable.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/federal-budget-deficit-tops-trillion-time/

[watermock]

Not to mntion tht the Generals are demanding another 20k troops in Afghan, bring our levels to Iraq pre-surge levels.

Tha's right, 100k of American troops guading the poppy fields, right next to Russia and the Khyber pass to China.

WTf, why didn't w just take the oil and go home?

Iran is going to take Iraq, it's only a matter of time.

Why aren't we building some new nuclear? It's like we are waiting for an accident with 40 yeaar old plants.

[Broncojef]

Not to mntion tht the Generals are demanding another 20k troops in Afghan, bring our levels to Iraq pre-surge levels.

Tha's right, 100k of American troops guading the poppy fields, right next to Russia and the Khyber pass to China.

WTf, why didn't w just take the oil and go home?

Iran is going to take Iraq, it's only a matter of time.

Why aren't we building some new nuclear? It's like we are waiting for an accident with 40 yeaar old plants.

This isn't about fixing America its about breaking it to the point Barry has ultimate control. Its about breaking big business and industry so that Americans are equal and dependent on the government and taxing the crap out of anything that still has the audacity to turn a profit. Every step this administration and Congress is making is to the detriment of our soverinity and financial long term well being.

[TailgateNut]

Yes sir buddy. Time is ripe for some changes.


http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12829657

[Bob]

Double it?? Good God the man spent more in 3 months than Bush did in 8 years (wars included), this was after he told us Bush's spending was unsustainable.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/federal-budget-deficit-tops-trillion-time/

But it is in spending obligations, and not yet spent...when it is all said and done eight years from now it will be about double (very conservatively) from what Bush has spent.

The Congressional Budget Office, and Obama for heaven sakes that have communicated that this is not susutainable -- so why do they continue? I am still trying to figure that one out, maybe it would take too much political capital to do the right thing (short-term pain, vs long term fix?) Maybe, there are some R's and D's who want to destroy the middle class, and create a larger group of dependent serfs? This last possibility sickens me to the core, if true, if there are some who know what is coming, but see the power that can be taken. I should say, that the R's (many of them) were on this same path, and dont like a populace who can take care of themselves.

[rastaman]

But it is in spending obligations, and not yet spent...when it is all said and done eight years from now it will be about double (very conservatively) from what Bush has spent.

The Congressional Budget Office, and Obama for heaven sakes that have communicated that this is not susutainable -- so why do they continue? I am still trying to figure that one out, maybe it would take too much political capital to do the right thing (short-term pain, vs long term fix?) Maybe, there are some R's and D's who want to destroy the middle class, and create a larger group of dependent serfs? This last possibility sickens me to the core, if true, if there are some who know what is coming, but see the power that can be taken. I should say, that the R's (many of them) were on this same path, and dont like a populace who can take care of themselves.

I think Obama is gifted at bringing people together and forging alliances. But that will only solve some of our problems. There are other very serious problems where that won't work. For that, we need someone with teeth. On the other hand, I believe if the public unites and demands change, he would respond with action. Of course, that remains to be seen. And the U.S. public is spectacularly passive and ignorant of how their wealth has been stolen.

When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson

[Bob]

I think Obama is gifted at bringing people together and forging alliances. But that will only solve some of our problems. There are other very serious problems where that won't work. For that, we need someone with teeth. On the other hand, I believe if the public unites and demands change, he would respond with action. Of course, that remains to be seen. And the U.S. public is spectacularly passive and ignorant of how their wealth has been stolen.

When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson

"When they came for the Jews I said nothing, as I was not Jewish..."

When they came for the car dealerships, the CEO's, and the rich, or the "wrong" Indiana union I said nothing... and why should I care? Because the list of undesirable behaviors and people seem to be growing, who might be next?

1. Vets -- those unstable folks should be checked on often, so they dont do what happend in OK City.
2. Conservatives, that's a given
Anybody with a Ron Paul Sticker...I mean those Founding father types are nuts...
3. Gun owners -- but, but at first -- just evil assault weapons, then semi's, then tax the hell out of ammo (for conservation efforts of course.)
4. Fat folks -- I mean think of all the carbon wasted on these folks -- not to mention the cost to the kind, but facist state, who "has to" supply healthcare to them. Hardees, McDonalds will be taxed -- hell they are plush with untapped money, not to mention Coke, and Pepsico.

[rastaman]

"When they came for the Jews I said nothing, as I was not Jewish..."

When they came for the car dealerships, the CEO's, and the rich, or the "wrong" Indiana union I said nothing... and why should I care? Because the list of undesirable behaviors and people seem to be growing, who might be next?

1. Vets -- those unstable folks should be checked on often, so they dont do what happend in OK City.
2. Conservatives, that's a given
Anybody with a Ron Paul Sticker...I mean those Founding father types are nuts...
3. Gun owners -- but, but at first -- just evil assault weapons, then semi's, then tax the hell out of ammo (for conservation efforts of course.)
4. Fat folks -- I mean think of all the carbon wasted on these folks -- not to mention the cost to the kind, but facist state, who "has to" supply healthcare to them. Hardees, McDonalds will be taxed -- hell they are plush with untapped money, not to mention Coke, and Pepsico.

So where are you going with your counter point of the above stated comments?

[cutthemdown]

How will it not result in inflation -- as countries are not willing to buy all of our debt, we are now buying our own debt...have you read anything from the former US Comptroller of the United States, David Walker (he was primary bean counter for our books) one cannot increase our over-all money supply by this much, and for their to be no consquences....

It will bounce up for less than a year, and crash.

I don't know that it won't but I can't predict the economic future.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/fox-circus-x4.jpg
</center>

[Dukes]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/fox-circus-x4.jpg
</center>

Did you make that in kindergarden class?

[Bob]

Did you make that in kindergarden class?

Did the LA facist say something? After it was clear he could never say anything but party-line drivel, he was blocked.