The debt storm threatens America’s future

Steve Brown's picture

Someone hands you a photo of a horrific car crash, broken glass everywhere, steel frames in twisted little balls. The person then tells you this is your car several years down the road and your entire family was in it. Studying the picture more intently, you realize it is your car right down to the bumper stickers and the license plate.

Think of the scenario above as an analogy on where our federal government is heading. We have some very clear images showing what the future holds for us just a handful of years down the road.

Our economic growth over the last decade was more sluggish than in any other since World War II. The tax cuts of the last 30 years without significant cuts in spending, the two current wars, our current devastating recession, the financially debilitating stimulus programs and the looming explosion of retiring baby boomers are producing huge deficits.

Many of the older baby boomers left the workforce early due to the recession. The early retirements coupled with reduced tax revenues tilted Social Security so that the system is paying out more than it is taking in, arriving earlier than the year 2015 projection.

Social Security is fine for the next four to five years, but with the arrival of the obvious tipping-point of perpetually less revenue than benefits, the crisis will fall in the lap of a Congress that seems to care little about preventing disaster.

Social Security is restricted by law from paying out more than its balance in any given year. This year, the system will more than cover the difference from interest earned on revenue placed in Treasury securities.

Upon having control of the both the White House and Congress, neither political party has had the guts to forsake the special interests and do the right thing.

Wall Street’s get rich quick scheme through “bubbles and crashes,” resulting in jilted taxpayers and investors, has the population searching for the proper balance between the market and the government. Read the special report on Lehman Brothers (http://documents.nytimes.com/lehman-brothers-repo-105-valukas-report?ref...) and your anger about the thievery and lack of enforcement will rise dramatically.

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will spawn nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, and he could really care less. The Democratic strategy appears to be throwing huge amounts of federal tax dollars at every issue, pleasing the liberal base and worrying about the consequences later.

The outcome (and this is not the worst-case scenario) of this budgetary free-for-all could raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output (gross domestic product) by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The trillion dollar healthcare plan calls for steep tax increases on the higher income families and higher premiums and taxing the expensive “Cadillac” insurance plans later on. Does anyone really believe the Democrats are going to increase taxes on insurance plans for their union base? Does anyone really believe Congress will not tinker with the system to win points from special interest groups?

When President George W. Bush left office, the federal public debt was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household}. Under President Obama, thus far, the deficit totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household). According the CBO’s estimates, our federal deficit will reach $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020.

Beyond 10 years, the country’s lookout is devastating if we fail to act. According to economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland, countries with debt-to-GDP ratios “above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more.”

Thank goodness, the Communist Chinese government is going to keep lending us money, or will they? There has been a drop-off in investor demand for U.S. Treasury notes. If the Federal Reserve begins to make the note more attractive by raising rates, increasing the government’s borrowing costs, the delicate housing market could fall further.

The vice governor of the People’s Bank of China, Zhu Min, gave the European Union countries a tongue-lashing in Hong Kong over Europe’s inability to get their act together in the financial crisis.

We had better wake up to the fact that the world has changed since the global financial crisis. While our Democrats and Republicans have squandered away one opportunity after another to make our country financially whole, unfocused and self-serving, the Chinese have racked up an unprecedented $2.4 trillion in reserves. China now plays a key role in all global financial matters.

Much to their credit, when China has a problem, they take care of it. Who would have thought a decade ago that a country with a centrally-planned economy and per-capita gross domestic product of around $6,000 would be pushing the Western powerhouses around like toy cars on the kitchen floor?

What happens when the attention on the European Union’s inability to pay their debt turns toward the U.S.? Increasingly, we are no longer looked upon as the ultimate safe haven for the world’s capital. When faced with a problem, our government does not take care of it. Instead, they cave in to special interests that reap short-term gains from our pain.

Unless we make some significant changes well before 2020, the dramatic increase in our federal debt, the disintegration of Social Security and our continued reckless spending will shatter the future of our children and grandchildren.

This is not fear-mongering. The data is readily available and we all know Congress has a significant history of failing to step up to the task.

Take a good look at that photograph.

[Steve Brown is the former mayor of Peachtree City. He can be reached at stevebrownptc@ureach.com.]

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
This is were the money is going for 2010

What should be understood is that the inbound revenue stream is only $2.381 trillion. We could cut the discretionary spending to "0" and then we would have a operating surplus but would not come close to touching the $ 14 trillion running debt.
.
.
.
Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
.
.
Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Now which program gets the axe?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - Cuts

Let's cut them all mandatory and discretionary, we should cut them until we have a balanced budget. Then we should look at which ones to eliminate permanently. Then we should repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

Just dreaming.....

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
PTC Observer

I wish I had the answer. We can't cut the interest on debt as that is promised to debt holders. The other mandatory social "stuff" is law and has to be funded. That leaves us with the discretionary stuff some of which is necessary. Like I said I don't have the answer but I do know that increased spending by the "Guv" is going to bury us. That's why tax cheat Geithner said that something has got to be done. I wonder if anybody on the left is listening to him.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

What would happen if there were more jobs (more income)? I imagine that the forecast of income for 2010 is below what will really be collected from our citizens via 'income tax'. A dent will be felt if and when the fraud and corruption is corrected in government programs. I admit - the picture is bleak.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM a year has passed

and what has this administration focused on..? Let me clue you in .. IT WAS NOT JOBS..

How much of that Fraud, Waste and Corruption has been corrected?

Do you really believe that they are going to cut 500 BILLION from Medicare?

Our debt is going to keep rising exponentially from here. Our unfunded liabilities and mandates are bankrupting us and no fraud corrections are going to help at this point..

But I know.. It's all Bush's fault..

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey

I do not anymore understand what the word "focus" means to people like you!
I can only guess it means a lot of verbal screaming and thumping about it so everyone will think nothing is being done!
Saying what they want to hear in other words---useless talk.

"Focus" only works for cameras. What one should see is all that counts.
Down from 750,000 job losses per period to 150,000.

It seems that republican debt doesn't scare you but democratic debt does.
Only way out of a catastrophe for now.

I don't know what you mean by continuing "fraud." Do you mean in the investment community? Yes, in anything not closely regulated!

We will all be on Medicare not many years from now. It will be administered by Health Insurance companies who compete.
Calm down, all is well....we are still the greatest country on earth, soon will go to Mars, soon will end horrible wars, soon will close the torture factories, soon will have private car companies and banks again, and soon will be a world partner again.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
You know Bonkers

I am going to ask you..

WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

I hear from you lefties all the time about Bush debt.. Bush spending.. Where were you .. Whatever..

Ok let's say I was late to the game.. I wasn't.. but whatever makes you feel better.. but's let's say I was..

At least I am yelling NOW about the debt..

So Where are you and the other lefties..

If the Bush debt was so BAD and it was.. then so to is the TRIPLING of that DEBT by OBAMA..!!

You don't clean up a mess made by someone else by making it WORSE!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

I know - the sky is falling!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM.. playing Ostrich is not a position I would want to be in

If you think our MASSIVE debt that we are racking up means we are all going to be just fine.. Then there is no hope for you and those like you.

America is falling apart. Not just politically but financially.

People like you need to wake up and smell what you are shoveling..

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids Mom

Back in 2007, the inbound revenue stream was almost $2.6 trillion. That was the highest ever recorded. You're not kidding when you say bleak.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
revenue (stream?)

You have got to understand that as long as the deficit only cost us 5% interest, there will be no payback of that. Why should we, the average person pays way more than that, and corporation, also!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bonkers

Did you notice that servicing the debt went up 18% from the previous year. As the "guv" continues to borrow money to make up the "gap" that number will go from 18% to...... and will compete with things such as medicaid, medicare and social security. Now lets stress the budget by throwing in the cost of the recent health care bill.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
CY.. Did you see the CBO report on the debt?

It will be over 90% GDP by 2020..

10 years.. and America is done.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
SL

I've seen some forecasts that acknowledge 100% of the GDP by 2020. I do have to wonder just how close our nation is to "popping the bubble". It's Keynesian economics gone wild. Watch for that video on late-night TV with the other "gone wild" videos. It's a shocker!!!!

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
cyclist

In an emergency (paying for wars, recessions, crooks, etc.) spending by the government will avoid a Depression.

As long as we can hold to 5% or even 10% of the budget going to pay the interest, we can afford it.

Isn't that what you do?

Most countries are in much worse shape than we. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it is a fact. Due to our little debt, we are looked upon as the richest country in the world.

Idiots are predicting debt being 100% of the GNP, ever. Just a ploy for votes in November. Those predicting it if in power might do that somehow, however!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bonker$

For the 2010 budget, the forecast has the "guv" spending just north of $1 trillion more than it's forecasted revenues. The proposed 2011 budget has a gap of about $1.2 trillion. That's over $2 trillion added to the nation's running debt.
.
This is not substainable. Even the turbo tax cheat Geithner has trouble with it:
.

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the Obama administration and Congress need to rein in long-term budget deficits to ensure that investors remain confident in U.S. government debt.

“It is very important that the Congress work together to make sure we put in place over time a set of policies that will bring down our fiscal deficits to a more sustainable level,”

BTW, I don't think the CBO are idiots.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Who is the 'government'? Why the 'government;? PTC Observer

Over the years, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people has been turned over to lobbyists, professional politicians, and corporations, who have used 'government' for their own growth and greed - and not the growth of the American people - and the PEOPLE have stood by and allowed this to happen by given up their most sacred power - the vote. For years only 33-40% of the eligible electorate have accepted their responsibility as citizens.

The Founding Fathers were wise in their statement as found in the Constitution regarding government.

To Form a More Perfect Union: While initially, the (former) colonies weren't united, they soon came to realize that there is strength in solidarity and as such formed an alliance with one another. Thus, the Constitution provides for such a union.

To Establish Justice: The most vital role in a successful democratic government is to ensure justice within the nation. Though the term justice is open to interpretation, the explanation most widely accepted is that the law must be fair, unbiased, and logical. While these standards were not always met within this nation, the American people wish to strive for such ideals.

To Provide for the Common Defense: While the Constitution didn't necessarily allow for elite military operations, it did intend for the government to provide a basic system of defense against enemies of the state. The U.S. government has, over the years, broadened the definition of defense and has also utilized this role of the government most often.

To Secure the Blessings of Liberty: The American nation was built around the ideals of individual freedom and liberty, however, the Founding Fathers also came to the realization that certain boundaries must be set forth in order to ensure that such liberties would not breach those of other citizens'. While the government certainly makes it a point to promote such personal liberties, it is up to the American people to constantly challenge the government to provide for such freedoms.

To Promote the General Welfare: A broad purpose of the government that is constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the American people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Such regulations may include health and food standards, public education, and consumer protection. However, in order to allow capitalism to flourish, the government leaves certain services available to private businesses (such as railroads and airline transportation), this allows market competition to thrive so that the consumer can receive the best services and prices possible.

This role of the federal government is relatively self-explanatory in name. The government must provide order in society and allow for domestic peace. It must also present the nation from ever ascending into anarchy.

While the history of the United States has progressed, the purpose and role of the American government has also evolved. However, the purposes indicated in the Constitution still remain at the core of the American government foundation.

Which services do you want the 'government' to cease providing?

How would eliminating the 16th and 17th amendments improve services to the American people?

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
What Liberals really think!

To Promote the General Welfare: A broad purpose of the government that is constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the American people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Such regulations may include health and food standards, public education, and consumer protection. However, in order to allow capitalism to flourish, the government leaves certain services available to private businesses (such as railroads and airline transportation), this allows market competition to thrive so that the consumer can receive the best services and prices possible.

I think this passage from DM accurately depicts the skewed vision of Liberals as to how they think our government should work. They think the government should control anything that is for "the public good", and should only "Allow" private businessess to exist . I'm sure DM just overlooked "goods" in her explanation of what the government should "allow" private businesses to provide. Kinda makes you wonder if Liberals think that all "goods" should be controlled by the government.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
1bighammer

"I think this passage from DM....."

Uhhh, 1bighammer.....I wouldn't really place much faith in this passage actually being "from DM", if it is like the others. If you refer back to her post, the first three bullets were apparently copied verbatim from WikiAnswers (or either copied from her post to WikiAnswers - you decide). It seemed somewhat out of character for her. A quick Google search on the first few words of the bullets in her "post" got a hit from Wiki immediately - as an answer to the question "Which document states the purpose for the US government?". In it, the actual author explains his mission by stating "In the paragraphs below, I will attempt to provide a brief, simplistic synopsis of each primary point." Just giving credit where credit is due.....

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
MOC

You're absolutely right! Getting a brief simplistic synopsis so that all here can understand is the purpose of my research. I am not claiming to create 'new' answers to old questions. We are living in an age where information from different sources is very easy to obtain - and should be used. An informed electorate is imperative to a viable democracy - and no one should rely on talk show hosts or opinion makers in search of the truth. There are many sources on the web, in libraries, in different historical periodicals that should be used in search of the truth of an issue. I do not consider Wikipedia the best source in the world - but the information is not incorrect that I shared. Others may have a different opinion on what the Constitution says - and if so - share it.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
DM

Yes there are many sources, on the web and elsewhere, where information is easy to obtain. The point was the accepted practice is recognizing a source or providing a link, just so there is no confusion on who wrote it. I believe Sniffles used to accuse people here of "intellectual dishonesty" by failing to do that. I could be confused though....

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
1bighammer

You have not visited us for some time.
As it happens, generally the USA government would prefer to not be in most business and services.
Most, if not all, of the laws passed that allows the government to manage part of them has come about by the private sector (business men) taking advantage of as much of the on-regulation as is possible.
Then the government often goes too far.
Recent examples of this is Health Insurance companies having 50-75 years to come up with health plans that would cover all citizens at affordable costs. Neither does the states or local want to build any infrastructure.

The IRS and Sales Tax codes, and personal property tax codes, luxury taxes,
Corporate Taxes (gutted in recent years except for just a few large companies), fees of all types, licenses, selling air time to TV and radio, etc., selling public assets to anybody, tariffs, inheritance taxes, fines, and other things, came about due to locals not wanting to pay for anything voluntarily, except they will tell you they want their county to do it all---maybe the state a few things for which they will not gladly pay for either.

We wouldn't even have decent Interstate Highways if left to the States or the Counties.
Not even decent National, state, and county defense!

It is either a dictatorship or a democracy with a strong central government---nothing else works, and dictatorships are short-lived.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Bonkers in the past I would have agreed with you but

That was before the Obama Administration came along and wanted to put their hand in everything from banks, to the auto industy, to Health Insurance. Sure seems like this Govt WANTS to be in the business of goods and services.

I understand regulations, however, removal of CEO's and replacing them with appointments is NOT regulation, that's hands on.

As far as taxes go,Corporate Taxes (gutted in recent years except for just a few large companies) Yeah they've really been gutted. for 2009 the US had the second highest combined corporate income tax rate @ 39.54% thats down from...wait, No its up from 39.34% in 2000.

Oh and notice "DEFENSE" in the name: Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. A federal program as a part of the national defense.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Public Good/not just a 'liberal' thought!

However, in order to allow capitalism to flourish, the government leaves certain services available to private businesses (such as railroads and airline transportation), this allows market competition to thrive so that the consumer can receive the best services and prices possible.

Please share how private businesses will provide for our national security/military? (Blackwater) - taxpayer money could never afford what they were paid!! - they were paid much more than our men and women in our armed services!! (Or did taxpayer money actually pay for Blackwater????) My thought is not a 'liberal' or 'conservative' thought. It is a thought of a citizen of these United States. Our different philosophies/ideologies should be looked at and used to UNITE us - not divide us (for political purposes!) - -and to improve our quality of life as Americans. The idea of don't use MY money to help someone else is not a uniting thought - nor is don't use MY money to help someone who cannot work or cannot afford to provide services for themselves. You are not the only taxpayer who contributes to 'government' - so taxpayer money is not exclusively YOURS. Right? Everyone has a 'horse' in this 'race'. All opinions and views should be considered - not just liberal, conservative, etc. There are many in this country to don't give a care about political labels - they just want to be able to live in a free society that affords equal opportunity and access to services that they help to pay for.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Common defence (a british spelling)

The primary responsibility of the government of the United States of America; to ensure the nation is protected from threats both inside and outside the country, such as terrorism, war, subterfuge, etc.

Ever heard of "Triple Canopy", that's the Obama administrations equivalent of Blackwater! And here is the great part...they were founded in the Chicago area. Man...looks like Obama is getting his buddies in too! So much for the "change" in Washington. More of the same ole same ole.

DM, its really funny to see you spout your ideas and when people call you on them its always we must "unite" and we must be "bi-partisan" all that "can't we all just get along crap". Obama and the liberals WANT everyone to just shut up because they know what's good for you! No its not what's good for me, its what 's gonna keep them in power!

The idea of don't use MY money to help someone else is not a uniting thought - nor is don't use MY money to help someone who cannot work or cannot afford to provide services for themselves. You are not the only taxpayer who contributes to 'government' - so taxpayer money is not exclusively YOURS. Right?

Now that you mention it...Yes it is MY money, I work for it. Not You or anyone else. I have no problem helping theTRULY less fortunate amongst us. My problem is the masses of people on Welfare that are just as capable as you and I are to work. The people that bought waaaaay beyond their means and now want the Govt to bail them out. I don't think Wall Street should have been bailed out, the car companies, the airlines, NONE OF THEM! In our, "pre-bailout", "pre-stimulus" economy, the market (the producers and consumers, not Wall Street) determined which companies survived and failed. If a company wanted to survive , they had to evolve, not just ask for a bailout.

That's the basis of a free market capitalists society and what made the United States of America the greatest country on the face of the earth!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
1bighammer & thoughts on DM

Problem is that DM is a symptom of what happening in the USA, she actually believes she is entitled to your money. That this is what democracy is all about, taking your money because we voted to take your money.

Rationalizing theft by saying we owe each other something. We don’t, if I want to help someone I will donate my money to whom I want to have it. I don’t need government donating it for me.

Entitlement is the issue at hand and a "plantation" mentality that our "masters" in Washington will provide for us. They will only increase their power over us and enslave us.

The other shoe is going to drop.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC AND HAMMER

When one puts his or her money into a common pool (resource) - everyone in that pool (resource) has a 'say' about what happens to that money. You've voiced your feeling that you don't want your money to be used to assist or provide services to others. Fine. Get out of the pool and secure and provide for your own resources/services. Could you do that? Since you're no longer in the pool - you won't be receiving any government resources. There are those in this country that do this. They live in communes. You of course would have to delineate where your money should/should not be distributed. Maybe someone in the government could meet your demands. Interesting concept.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Dropping shoes

I'm afraid it did drop in November 2008!
Problems weren't getting resolved before that. All kinds of problems.
Banks, wars, health, immigration, and crooks in general were running free reign.

It is why we have two parties.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
big hammer

Now that you mention it...Yes it is MY money, I work for it. Not You or anyone else. I have no problem helping theTRULY less fortunate amongst us. My problem is the masses of people on Welfare that are just as capable as you and I are to work. The people that bought waaaaay beyond their means and now want the Govt to bail them out. I don't think Wall Street should have been bailed out, the car companies, the airlines, NONE OF THEM! In our, "pre-bailout", "pre-stimulus" economy, the market (the producers and consumers, not Wall Street) determined which companies survived and failed. If a company wanted to survive , they had to evolve, not just ask for a bailout.

Really? The current masses of people on Welfare are crowding job fairs looking for work. Are you suggesting that we cut off their unemployment checks? Be honest - when did the 'stimulus' 'bail out' first start? January 20, 2009? I don't think so. The sub-prime loans allowed people to buy waaaaay beyond their means. Now we are suffering the consequences. Many tried to warn about this happening - but obviously to no avail. We found out in California that our rolling blackouts were not due to 'government' but to the greed and craftiness of SOME 'private enterprise'. Have we learned from our mistakes and misplaced trust? Are we going to be led back to the status quo so that 'some' leaders can retain their power? . . . or are we going to look beyond the rhetoric and fear mongerers and move on? Free market capitalistic society led by honest men and women is what made America great. . .and will continue to do so if we elect honest men and women who really want to serve the American people and not their own greed. It is obvious that some here feel that Obama is not honest, moral, etc., etc. Fine, keep his feet to the fire. Make sure that he serves the American people and leads us towards a future where our grandchildren will be productive, free citizens. The goal of communism, Nazism, Marxism, and all the other isms in the US is to divide its citizens. Remember - United we stand - divided we fall. For this reason, I will continue to plead for unity.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
DM the gift of twist

Really? The current masses of people on Welfare are crowding job fairs looking for work. Are you suggesting that we cut off their unemployment checks?

DM you are truly gifted in the ways of the Liberal. You just take peoples words out of context and use them as you wish. I qualified my statement to those that are just as able as you and I are to work. Those that want to work but can't find a job...I don't mind helping them. Those that get unemployement, they obviously worked before and paid into it, they are entitled to unemployment.

Be honest - when did the 'stimulus' 'bail out' first start? January 20, 2009? I don't think so.

Once again you do it, calling it a 'stimulus' 'bailout', making them one in the same. They aren't and I never said they were. Airlines got bailed out under Bush but the "stimulus" is Obama's baby. So don't try to say I'm blaming it all on OBAMA!

It is obvious that some here feel that Obama is not honest, moral, etc., etc.

That's an UNDERSTATEMENT!

Remember - United we stand - divided we fall. For this reason, I will continue to plead for unity.

Yeah...As long as we are united behind YOUR ideals

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
1bighammer

Surely you aren't saying that the "big" bailouts of the Banks, leverage companies, and the auto companies was done with no knowledge of Paulson and Bush?

Or was the bank bailouts OK!

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
the moment that this happened, it changed the direction

of our country forever. Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 greatly expanded the federal government's oversite of agriculture and interpretation of the commerce clause--even when a product was not for sale. "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is . . . not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power . . . But even if [Filburn's] activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." a bunch of bovine execrement that expanded the US government and took them into every aspect of our lives.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Even now

the results of this action are being questioned. Have you written your representative? Are you concerned about crops being 'turned over' in order to control price - while citizens are going hungry? How many here are even aware of Wickard vs. Filburn and how it may be affecting us today? Is this being discussed/taught in the schools? WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT - we haven't done a good job of handling the bovine excrement have we?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
DM & Crops "Turned Over"

Not sure what that means, maybe it should be "turned under"? But I do know what for sure history will reflect that the Govt actually has paid farmers to let fertile cropland lie unplanted; all they had to do was keep the weeds cut

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

Thanks for clarifying. Turned under is what I meant.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - personal question

have you been diagnosed as schizophrenic?

do you know how many laws there are like this that screw up the economy and our country? thousands and thousands.

Then you state WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.....and we don't handle the BS. Then you turn around and say that the government should manage our health care, have you lost it?

As Lord Acton said:

"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."

You prove this statement.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC observer

Then you turn around and say that the government should manage our health care, have you lost it?
I guess if YOU say it loud and long enough - that will make it a FACT. The Congress (our representatives) has just passed a bill that will make health care more affordable and reasonable for American citizens. The only part of my personal health care managed by government is Medicare - thank heavens for that!! My health care premiums have increased 40% over the past two years!! Those increases are from my PRIVATE health care provider, an insurance company. I believe that health care in the US should be affordable for all citizens. NOTE: I did not say FREE! AFFORDABLE DOES NOT EQUAL FREE.
I am not schizophrenic - but I enjoy watching you and others trying to denigrate my opinions by putting a label (Liberal) on my thoughts. If my thoughts are so 'far out' to you, ignore them. I have accepted that we disagree - and have no desire to argue. I have presented the facts . . .and the Congress that represents us has spoken. If you don't like the way your Congressperson voted. . change him/her. It's still our government.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - puzzzled

The Congress does not represent me.... they represent themselves, lobbyists, neo-capitalists, and other special interests at my expense. I would not want the quality of character represented in Congress to represent me.

"…just passed a bill that will make health care more affordable and reasonable for American citizens."

Clearly you are not in touch with reality if you believe this statement.

watch www.usdebtclock.org - it is not hard to see that this will all end very badly. Sadly you don’t have a firm grasp on how economics works. Do you run your personal budget this way? Would you? Look at the numbers, nations are no different than people. They in fact can go bankrupt and when they do, we have people dying. I don’t think government run health care will help us then.

Finally, you cannot justify robbery no matter how you try. It is immoral to force someone to give up their property no matter how noble its pretexts. Robbery is robbery. You know "Thou shall not steal". Remember?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - replacing your Representatives!

If you're interested in replacing your representatives - I've got a number you can call! LOL!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - LOL

He laughs best who laughs last, unfortunately I will be weeping for my country.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTC.. now you know my pain

DM and Bonkers (and a few others here)have that issue.. No matter what proof/evidence/facts you present they will come back at you with an opinion piece from Salon or the Huffington Post. Seems they don't have the ability to distinguish Opinions from facts..

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Please

"Which services do you want the (central) 'government' to cease providing?"

(my clarification to your question)

As many as possible and soon as possible.

The role of the central government is: To protect life, liberty, and property FROM the government, other individuals, and other nation's interest.

Eliminating the 16th and 17th Amendments will reduce the power of the central government and push this power to the states where it belongs.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
A question

Unless we make some significant changes well before 2020

What significant changes do you suggest?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Question

How about turning back the clock? The debt clock that is:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

1.Cut the size and scope of government. Drive government out of our daily lives.Stop letting the government "manage" the economy.
2. Improve the environment for private free market exchange
Provide incentives for those that take risk in starting new businesses by not taxing them for the first five years of operations. Reward risk taking. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Eliminate the income tax.

Just to name a few things we could do.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Tax incentives for small businesses - PTC OBSERVER

Have you familiarized yourself with these?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Why?

Why would I want to familiarize myself with "tax incentives"?

There is no way that I would open a business today in this environment. Maybe I would open one offshore, but not in the Socialist States of America. Why would I want to work hard to have my money taken from me by force and given to someone who the government believes deserves it more that the person that earned it?

Read Atlas Shrugged, this government can only exist if we cooperate in its theft of our property. Business owners just need to sell out and go home, and then we can see what the “intellectuals” can do without a honey pot.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
GETTING RID OF THE DEBT

in the national budget as well as our individual budgets requires sacrifice. What sacrifices are you as a citizen willing to accept/ and we as a nation should accept?

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
What we should be prepared to accept

is the notion that social security will allow for independent living of seniors after the year 2025 or so. We had better get used to the concept of multi-generational families living under one roof. That sacrifice allows for the consolidation of resources with family units.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Wedge, did you perhaps forget

the word "not" in between "will" and "allow"?

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
yep, a silly mistake AHG

Social security "will not allow"; thanks for the correction :-)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - How?

What national budget "sacrifice"?

I would say tripling the debt is sacrificing our children's future, if that is what you mean.

The problem is that you start from a false premise. That is that government has the "right" and obligation to steal money from one class of citizens and redistribute it to others.

As M. Thatcher said, the only problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of the other guys money.

Keep watching the debt clock, your pyramid scheme will ultimately be exposed for what it is, theft.

Unfortunately, it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
PTC Observer

I really like your suggestions!
We don't even need that clock to maintain, do we?

I really like the one about no taxes! Wow, just think of that!
Since taxes pay for the military establishment, we could simply lay-off all of them (one or two million, I think, and look at that savings! Right there is a hundred billion plus. We would need to find about three million jobs for them and the civilian component, which we wouldn't need either.

West Point Military Academy and the Naval Academy, and The Air Force Academy, and the Coast Guard Academy would all be useless also. Big savings.

Several million Civil Servants would not work for nothing, so out they also go. Whoooooo, that is big.
The scrap metal we could salvage from the military would pay off a lot of our debt if the Orient would buy it. All of those bombers and fighters and tanks and guns and Humvees...wow! Not counting the 400 Navy ships.
All those bases would also be available for malls.

Of course social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and the whole State Department and other cabinet positions would be gone!

Our roads, dams, parks, waterways, and aid to states would disappear.

Allowing people to do commerce with no intervention, even by the Sheriff (oops he is gone) would make for a Sherwood Forest type economy, wouldn't it? Or, a Madoff one!

Where would you get the money to provide those incentives for new business? I assume moonshining OK, tax on tobacco and alcohol would be gone?

Now this income thing can be helped a little with about a 40% sales tax on everything traded or bought, but thieves would be as thick as worms on a dead jackass, stealing their cut! Walmart stores alone would need a guard force at each store just to guard the tax money collected every day!

You are correct though, there are still a lot more things we could do!

Without the Agriculture department to help us raise our food economically and with the 40% tax on a pound of sliced ham, it would cost about $15.00 a pound.
I'll bet hamburgers would be at least $20 for a bigun with cheese.
I can see you have thought this all through!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bonkers

you are not alone in your belief, keep watching the clock.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Good points....but

Good points Steve. However where was your concern in the last 8 or so years when Bush was doubling the debt via unfunded wars, major tax cuts, unbid $30billion contract to Haliburton, doubling the size of the U.S. Govt, allowing hedge funds to raise oil prices to $150 per barrel, and turning a blind eye to Wall Street allowing the set up of the greatest financial crisis since 1929?
Now the debt increase is scary, no doubt. But would the economy have been recovering with the loss of such huge organizations as GM or AIG, etc.? I agree that "too big to fail" should never have happened. Perhaps if the Republican Congress combined with the Republican President had "minded the store," we would not have had events with such huge impacts.
But one wonders why conservatives have suddenly found their fiscal center only when it concerns something that so tremendously helps American Citizens. No, not "wealthy" American Citizens, but ordinary American Citizens. And don't assume that only the "lazy poor" don't have health insurance, ask those 1000 plus out of work PTC citizens if they still have health insurance. Ask us about our employer provided health care now verses 2001 when Bush took over? Ask us about our pay scales now vs when Bush took over. Ask us about our retirement programs now, vs when Bush took over.
Bottom line Steve, we are ALL going to need national health care, either soon or in retirement. Those who oppose it will be first in line with their hands out demanding it when they need it.
So how about taking up for the "citizen" of America? I too worry about the deficit, but I worried about it all last decade. Why didn't you?
One last thing, Steve, Logsdon is the new "former mayor of Peachtree City." Your "title" is so last decade. Get over it.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
America's Quiet Anger

America's Quiet Anger

There is a quiet anger boiling in America. It is the anger of millions of hard-working citizens who pay their bills, send in their income taxes, maintain their homes and repay their mortgage loans -- and see their government reward those who do not.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Quiet anger

I am reminded by your comment "quiet danger boiling," about the bully who got knocked down by a small guy and got up and said," just wait til my big brother sees you next!"

It compares to "we will boil over if we don't get our way from this hidey hole."

Trying to make work socialistic, like everyone works the same hardness, is quite impossible. Most do work "hard" and pay their rent or mortgage and pay some taxes on earnings. We all pay sales and property tax who own property and a too high percentage do not pay all that---at least 9.7% of them right now probably do not.

Personally, I would rather have my good living than be someone who doesn't pay taxes or for their homes and even get some help!

Maybe the 1 in 10 unemployed (actually it is much more) will help you pay for your tax and home some day.

Let's just find the fifteen million unemployed a job right now, plus the enormous quantity coming into the work force who turn 18 each year.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Birdman..but what about bbbbbbush

You know WHO CARES WHERE ANYONE WAS 8 YEARS ago.. You and others keep looking over your shoulder to excuse the excess of today and don't see that the cliff is fast approaching..

I can argue all day about how the Conservatives screamed at Bush and the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED Congress spent us into this mess. But that's looking back too..

Bird we are in a tunnel and that light at the end of that tunnel is not the end of the tunnel but a freight train coming right at us..

We are at a tipping point we can either keep spending and putting our kids in a debt that will be impossible to pay or we can take the hit now and save the Country..

So my question is Where are you and your FRIENDS NOW?

"Conservatives have not been happy with George W. Bush. For each brand of conservatism, there is a different critique. Not so with Ronald Reagan, whom conservatives uniformly praise for various reasons. Seventy-nine percent of those in attendance at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference said they would prefer a candidate who is a Reagan Republican. Three percent would go for a G. W. Bush Republican. One gets the impression that Bush isn’t even considered a conservative." NRO

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
You know SL...

That's the theme that's thrown around by the Demos. Blame Bush for the debt and shout praises for their programs that expand the debt even more.

But you know, tax cheat Geithner has sent out little messages noting that the whole darn thing could collapse unless it's reeled in and that bipartisanship is needed to fix the problem. So when Senator Bunning said - wait a minute - on additional funding of unemployment insurance the Demos promptly painted him as an evil Repub. So much for bipartisanship.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I know Cy.. I am Sick and Tired

of hearing the libs say "Where were you when Bush..... you insert whatever"?

Bush is not the President.. Obama is and it's his policies along with the Democrat Controlled House ans Senate that are racking up the massive debts NOW..

I find it the height of hypocrisy for these Libs to have bashed the last administration over things this administration is doing and now you hear absolute silence.

The question is not where were you..When...? It is WHERE ARE YOU ...NOW?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"You didn't get mad...."

Lindsey, I don't blame you conservatives for wanting to pretend history started on January 20, 2009. I recognize that it's much easier for conservatives to shift the blame to President Obama than to admit that their unwavering support for George W. Bush was a mistake. "Avoiding Responsibility" appears to be a new core value of the conservative movement.

Along those lines, Rosie O'Donnell had a great response on her blog yesterday to those conservatives who chronically avoid responsibility for their actions:

  • You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
  • You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
  • You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
  • You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
  • You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
  • You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
  • You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
  • You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
  • You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
  • You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
  • You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
  • You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
  • You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
  • You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
  • You didn't get mad when the president ignored the clear and timely warning that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTCs.
  • You didn't get mad when the weapons inspectors, who said there were no WMDs, were ignored.
  • You didn't get mad when hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq.
  • You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.
dawn69
dawn69's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/24/2008
How would you know?

Just how would you know who got mad when Bush did .... (blah, blah, blah)? Unless you knew any of us back then, you can't exactly make those assumptions can you?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
dawn:

I think the point made was that conservatives were praising everything Bush did when he was President and now they are criticizing everything President Obama does.

However, since Bush left, he is all over with, he caused nothing, and they are doing their best to blame President Obama for not fixing it within one year!

Distraction is a good weapon if it works! It is not, however. We know who let the banks go wild, allowed without action "irrational exuberance," favored energy companies, approved torture---something we had never done, wire=tapped loyal citizens without warrants, outed CIA personnel, called the media as-ho--- for asking embarrassing questions and doubting their judgement!
The trillion spent on mistaken wars was patriotic, you see.
Too late now to say you were po'd but just didn't say so then! 4000 killed, 40,000 maimed, 200,000 enemy civilians killed and maimed, and now tens of thousands with their brains rattled loose with bombs we didn't pick up after invading Baghdad.
I could go on!
And you are worrying about ACORN, health plans, and debt Obama didn't create!
I'm sure MOC, cyclist, and other Bush lovers will speak for you on this however!

Give this administration a decent chance to succeed from this recession!

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Bonker$

"I'm sure MOC, cyclist, and other Bush lovers will speak for you on this however!"

Thanks, Bonker$. I'll do just that.

"I think the point made was that conservatives were praising everything Bush did when he was President and now they are criticizing everything President Obama does."

The point has also been made that your side (liberals, you can fancy yourself an Independent if you want, but you have never called Obama or the Dems out yet, so bam.....you're a liberal in sheep's clothing) did the same exact thing when Bush was in office. You are exactly like DM, old with fading memories. All you guys did was complain about everything Bush did, while now just merrily singing old Barry's praises. "Just give him time"....blah, blah, blah. You're too ignorant to realize or pig-headed to admit we just switched sides. It is nothing different except we've switched roles. You loved to complain before. Hell, there isn't a day that passes now without you blaming Bush and Repub's on here. You don't like it when people criticize now, because your side is in power. Deal with it old man. We did and still do.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
MOC

"Old and fading memories?"

I think you must assume that all people a certain age should not have an opinion or are usually wrong due to out-dated thinking!

Now, as to ignorant and pig-headed, I will plead guilty to ignorance----Einstein had it all over me at a very old age, but I need to know what you mean by "pig-headed!"

By the way, Independents don't wear sheep's clothing, or is it that the liberal wears the sheep's clothing that look like Independent clothing?
Does clothing make the difference?
You know Independents can be for a new health plan remodeling and be against such things as his lowering himself this week and making fun of Boehner, the senior republican. I knew what Boehner meant by "hell no," and also by his statement about the apocalypse occurring with the signing of the health bill.
(You know, the joke about the republicans dropping a seed onto the ground to raise some food, and coming back the next morning and finding nothing---and screaming that we were all going to starve!)

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Bonker$

You need to know what I meant by pig-headed? OK, I'll simply quote you in order to explain it.

"I think you must assume that all people a certain age should not have an opinion or are usually wrong due to out-dated thinking!"

Where did I say you shouldn't have an opinion? Where did I say your thinking was out-dated? This is what I said. You and DM have convenient memory loss. Remember the other thing you said earlier???

"I think the point made was that conservatives were praising everything Bush did when he was President and now they are criticizing everything President Obama does."

Let's just rework your sentence into the context of today versus before Obama took office.....

I think the point made was that liberals (and people like you who won't admit to being liberals) are praising everything Obama does while you were criticizing everything President Bush did.

I do appreciate your pleading guilty to ignorance, but that verdict was in long ago. Having said that, do you understand it now? If not, see if you can locate a first-grader to 'splain it to you.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Porky Pig

Rosie O'Donnell huh? My, what a riveting svengali you have there. Any word from your other sources of knowledge; Homer Simpson, Maury Povich and the Hamburglar?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
MOC

Maybe Oprah suits you better? Just joking!

Really in spite of Rosie's tartness and popularity among some for her total honesty, she is not a good one to put out front to be adored!

Her problem is that she is too liberal, and they aren't popular on talk shows now. Many would rather hear Limbaugh cut up Obama, Pelosi, and Reid than hear Rosie talk about how wonderful health coverage is now.

I remember Limbaugh saying that Secretary of State Albright actually was a distraction since when she walked her hose rustled!
It was OK for Bill Bennett to be a gambling addict and Limbaugh have three wives and lose them due to shopping doctors and maiming housekeepers reputations, and taking shovels full of dope!
He is now worth 100 million and doesn't even drink Snapple.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Bonker$

"Her problem is that she is too liberal, and they aren't popular on talk shows now."

NOW? When were they ever popular? Remember Air America Radio going Tango Uniform? Looked at the cable TV ratings lately, or ever for that matter? Even the "fairness doctrine" can't create and sustain something that isn't there. There is no market for liberal talk. You're stuck with Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow (wonder why she and Rosie haven't hooked up??). It just kills you guys that you can't create a personality and a market that Rush has. I couldn't even tell you what station carries his show locally, but it delights me that he is such a threat to you guys.

Oh, I know what you're going to say in response. Liberals don't need talk shows to get their talking points. Well, technically I guess not. Since you guys have access to Rosie's blog and can cut and paste it here.....

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
MOC

All radio and TV was liberal until the hate mongers found a way to pick up the extreme radicals and losers.

Rush is on 640 AM, was on 750 but they got rid of him. I can stand to see what his point is for the day about 3-4 minutes then I have to switch due to something nasty rubbing off on me.
I like John the clown better! Or the junior Senator from Minnesota! Very intelligent people, well educated. Harvard and a VA Ivy school.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Bonker$

"All radio and TV was liberal until the hate mongers found a way to pick up the extreme radicals and losers."

If you say so. One would extrapolate from the current situation that liberal talk is getting its butt kicked by conservative talk, and will for the forseeable future. That means your side now carries the mantle of jealous hate mongers and obviously.....losers. Time for a new and more restrictive "fairness doctrine" or what about "talk show reform"????

Also, I'm sure Rush is both overjoyed that you tune in for 3-4 minutes and heartbroken when you switch. "John the clown" needs you anyway, whoever that is.....

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
MOC: Sonnet for you

Arguing with skunks is always a loss,
They will surely squirt hatred on you.
So let them preach, preach and toss.
That way maybe you can avoid the goo.

Independents, ones who really decide
Aren't impressed by vicious diatribe.
The best thing for them to do is hide.
That way sympathy may some way abide.

To continue ugliness, hatred and crime,
Will only separate the wheat from chaff,
Leaving most of us feeling the sublime.
I know my concern will be reduced to half.

To allow all the rebels, Teas, and threats,
To gain any power will only increase debts.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey MOC,

You are too much!!!!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Agree Sniffle

great cut and paste.. but then again not one original thought there.. Go ahead and live in the past.. I thought we were supposed to be the angry ones...

• You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
Oh you mean all those hanging chads.. and voter intents and all those recounts that showed BUSH STILL WON.. ..
• You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
What energy policy.. you mean the same one Obama just adopted? ..
• You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You mean that Valerie Plame that was actually outed by her HUSBAND.. ..
• You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You are right then again Obama just renewed and continued the process so where is your anger? ..
• You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
I didn’t know we invaded Bhutan..
• You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You mean the War that Democrats VOTED for? ..
• You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
Did you get mad when it was discovered $89 BILLION lost in the Stimulus Bill? ..
• You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
How many people have we beheaded? I know playing Ace of Base 24/7 really is a lot like torture. ..
• You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
I am still waiting on those Court cases of all those illegal wiretaps.. ..
• You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
Are you mad we still HAVE NOT? ..
• You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
Actually in-correct I was pissed.. but then again WHAT HAS CHANGED AFTER A YEAR UNDER OBAMA and Democrat control? ..
• You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
Well now just when did we have the technology to divert a Hurricane. And I guess Bush fixed all of those buses to not be able to run.. ..
• You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
Wow I’m RICH… didn’t know because I GOT A TAX BREAK TOO. ...
• You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
Well yes we did.. Just google Conservatives mad at bush deficit and see just how many hits you get.. BUT THEN AGAIN HOW MAD ARE YOU OVER OBAMA TRIPLING THAT DEBT? ..
• You didn't get mad when the president ignored the clear and timely warning that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTCs.
Well I have yet to see that one.. I guess it goes into the same column as Bill Clinton being offered Bin Laden on a Silver Platter by the Sudanese Government.. ..
• You didn't get mad when the weapons inspectors, who said there were no WMDs, were ignored.
Oh I guess about as mad as you When Clinton said Saddam did..and almost EVERY DEMOCRAT AGREED.. ..
• You didn't get mad when hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq.
War is hell and people DIE.. I got pretty pissed on 9-11 how about you? ..
• You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.
Again I ask show me one person that was denied treatment for ANYTHING just because they could not pay..
Illegal Backroom Bribes, Stealing our Tax Dollars(goes both ways sniffie) and a blatant takeover of our Government by Unconstitutional means of the progressives . But you want to give 30 million people 2 TRILLION dollars worth of Healthcare during a time when America is broke.. OH HELL NO..

Back at cha..

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Great Cut & Paste...

How about something original for a change?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Every one of these horrors..

were defended by talk radio, most Fayette countians, and corporate CEOs!

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
cyclist: Lindsey

Are you saying that our current recession, with coming depression, wasn't created by bad management of the banks, loans, and wars of the Bush administration? You can't blame congress. They don't execute.

Because if you are, you are mislead!
You listened to too many idiots such as Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Gingrich, and the alcoholic crazy man along with two women making a living espousing memorization!
The HATAREES and the TEAS and a dozen militias were also created by those talk radio fools.

Have you ever noticed that the rank and file of those organizations are as dumb as small doorknobs?
Worse than David Duke's bunch.

When you talk about "conservative" Reagan who ran up eight trillion deficit, and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as idols to look up to, you must have forgotten the slaves they owned and their illegitimate children! Worse than the Preachers and Fathers who take advantage of children and the law looks the other way!

Suggest you keep religion out of government.

I can't figure what you two want anyway. All banks broke, 25% unemployment, church run schools, etc.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bonkers

answer this ONE question..

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT OBAMA TRIPLING THAT DEBT?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey: debt

What "tripling" of debt?
Is this old tired falsehood all you people have? Besides the fact he is a minority?

The health plan will SAVE money over ten years.
The trillion BUSH authorized hasn't been spent yet.
The smaller stimulus Obama authorized is just now being spent and you will notice things have slowed down in their fall!

2-3 more years and the jobs thing may be back to 6-8%. He is working on that.

Joe is making sure the money doesn't go where it won't just "dribble down" but will be put to use without subtracting profits for banks, etc.

Republicans may have a slim chance to get another try at Washington in 2014, but I doubt it. They simply went too far in their greed and ignorance.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
OMG.. I just blew a gasket

"What "tripling" of debt?
Is this old tired falsehood all you people have? Besides the fact he is a minority?"

Do you even read or watch SOMETHING other than CNN and Keith Oberman??? DO you really not know that OBAMA has now pushed our debt IN ONE YEAR.. to triple what Bush racked up in 8 years!!!???

Amazing absolutely amazing..

btw.. that little "minority" crap you threw out won't work.. Go ahead call me a racist.. Don't care.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html

"It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion."

Here is the Wall Street Journal try reading something other then the Huffington Post why don't you..

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Lindsey: debt and paid for?

I read the WSJ article as saying it will be paid for and NOT be a deficit.

Big difference!

Stop using spending as deficit! Spend a dollar now, save 500 later!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well a liar you are

I guess Hutch was RIGHT..

The WSJ article DID NOT SAY THAT anything would be paid for..

"The claim to reduce the deficit by half compares this year's immense (mostly inherited) deficit to the projected fiscal year 2013 deficit, the last of his current term. While it is technically correct that the deficit would be less than half this year's engorged level, a do-nothing budget would reduce it by 84%. Compared to do-nothing, Mr. Obama's deficit is more than two and a half times larger in fiscal year 2013. Just his addition to the budget deficit, $459 billion, is bigger than any deficit in the nation's history. "

Once again you wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and smacked you in the face..

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey

If you "leave the tab to the taxpayers," as it says, is that not "paid for?"

Not like Bush's two wars which were not budgeted, therefor went straight to the deficit!

You defenders of our current fiscal struggle not being a Bush bonanza for some, are pitiful!

And, just who are those under 250,000 dollar earners is it that will pay for the health plan?

The days of parsing words are done!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bonkers you are so lacking anything that resembles

CREDIBILITY!

The Wall Street Journal article was very clear and PRECISE no fumbling around. The only parsing of words is coming from you.

But Bush did it all.. No he tried but Obama is doing it better.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Lindsey: Recidivists

I have found a group in which some of you may have some interest. They call themselves "Guardians of the Free Republics" (counties).

They are against recidivists since they prefer to work underground and not be show-offs.

Their thinking:
Return to de jure
terminate powers of corporation USA
end all foreclosures
end all tax prosecutions
end all cards showing i.d.
terminate state authority
no 1040 forms, car registrations, birth certificates, and bank signature cards
end state control of marriage certificates--it is a right
restore people's money stolen by banks
vest all loans as paid
no taxes except what is asked for
do it all quietly and secretly

Sounds good doesn't it: thousands of free counties doing as they please.

They are coming out of the woodwork into the house! Caused by: talk radio and our lack of education and reasoning.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bonko & "Underground"

So you call writing letters to multiple Govenors telling them they best resign being "underground"? Guess I missed something in the translation. And I will bet you a dollar to a dognut that the FBI is all over their ass, as well they should be.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Noticed you did not answer...

but then again you nor DM ever do...

Talk Radio is that now the new EVIL consortium..

According to Obama it is..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1437

In an interview with Harry Smith on CBS' "Early Show" Friday morning, President Obama called out Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as purveyors of "vitriol" - creating a climate in which he's called a "socialist" and even a "Nazi."

Poor baby he's called names..

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Obama's 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman's claim of being

Obama's 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman's claim of being 'over-taxed'

This is a "president" that is completely unable answer a simple question without someone else writing an answer for him and feeding it to him via teleprompter.

The fact is, he knows that the bill is bad for America, but he doesn't give a flip. He only wants more power over citizens and wants to turn us all into slaves.

This idiot makes GWB look like a genius.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
George W. Bush a genius

No, I would not go that far, but no one could seriously doubt GWB's sincerity and his commitment to defending America. I'd say we could use a bit more of that right now and a lot less of Prezbo's ego and bluster.

It would be better for us all if the government would at least try to appear to be working to preserve and strenghten the country instead of trying to remake it in the image of Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers. Remember how all the libs acknowledged that they were lunatic fringe and denied that those two clowns would ever influence Obama?

Counting down the days until November.

MARTA Rider
MARTA Rider's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/13/2009
Her claim of being? It's

Her claim of being? It's like the old saying: "Understanding is the being of such a potentiality of being which is never still outstanding as something not yet objectively present, but as something essentially never objectively present, is together with the being of Da-sein in the sense of existence." Amirite?

Also, nice "use" of quotation marks around "president", or should I say "quotation Marx" since we're "dealing" with a communist "president"? Right, "Joe" Kawfi?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
S. Lindsey

At least when GW said "bring it on", he was speaking to our enemies.

When Obama stated "go for it", he was referring to his own version of the enemy - his fellow Americans that happen to disagree with his policies.

This type of vitriol will only continue from this administration. Did you read about how the unions are harassing Delta employees? They have become emboldened by Obama's nomination of union thug Craig Becker to head up the NLRB.

Obama is nothing but a big baby that can't take criticism and so he uses the old syle Chicago politics of extrotion and threats against people who happen to disagree with his policies.

He's not a leader; he's a tyrant.

Recent Comments