Friday, July 29, 2011

America Is On Fire. So What Is Obama Doing Today?

46-Year-Old Political VirginWhile Republicans in Congress are trying to put together a deal to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling you may be wondering what Obama is doing today. Not only is he not working hard to end this spending crisis and raise our national debt, but he is busy raising our miles per gallon on our cars. This shows you how out of touch this guy is. He can't come up with a plan of his own other then talking about what he wouldn't sign. Could we have picked a bigger idiot then this guy to run our country? It's as if he doesn't give a shit about anything that effects everyone in this country. If he was a CEO of a company he would have been canned a long time ago. We need a leader now more then ever and all he and the Senate have done is stir the pot and run away. His actions and words show us all how little he truly cares about us and the economy.
Last night on C-Span a Democratic Party Congressman begged Congress to push this debt crisis past 2012 so that the next president can deal with it. He did say that he hopes it's Obama for 4 more years. But our debt and spending is just politics to the Democratic party. It is doing the easy thing to do nothing and keep spending like tomorrow will never come. Democrats know their time is limited and that the next guy will have to do the hard thing. And those same pussy Democrats will be all over those doing the hard work in the near future. We have see the cloth that these Democrats are cut from. We have seen that they are willing to screw the next generations so that they don't have to do the hard thing. Their spending has put us in this predicament and it is their lack of constitution and backbone that will harm this country in the future.
We will be dealing with this again if we don't do something now. I don't think screwing the next generation with our debt is the right thing to do. But the Democratic Party has no problem screwing them over and stealing their future for the mindless spending they have done. The future of this country doesn't look good thanks to the Democratic Party that has run this country into the ground faster then ever before in our history.
The country voted for a community agitator and that is just what we got. The Democrats have the WH, the Senate and half of the House and the Republicans are the only ones doing any work in Washington.
We conservatives told you that the Democrats would put us in this position and they have. So don't be suprised when it happens. The Obama budget puts us another $10 Trillion in debt over the next 10 years. Since he took office the national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $15 trillion and rising. Doesn't that make things worse?


  1. Tea Party or not, they will raise the debt limit. The Democrat(Socialist) party will get to spend more.

  2. LOL.

    If your readers want real analysis and not just your B.S. rants they should read Bruce Bartlett's article on how the republican tax cuts brought us to this place.

    and then they could see the graph which clearly shows that a majority of the spending that brought us to this point is Bush's.

    But you won't read them or accept that its your republican president that you voted for who brought us this debt crisis. You republicans are not only stupid but liars.

  3. Bruce Bartlett29 July, 2011 16:09

    It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.

    By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.

    Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year — barely above the postwar average.

    Few people remember that a major justification for the 2001 tax cut was to intentionally slash the budget surplus. President Bush said this repeatedly during the 2000 campaign, and it was reiterated in his February 2001 budget document.

    In this regard, at least, the Bush-era tax cuts were highly successful. According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.

    Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion.

    Excerpt from...

    Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

  4. Theresa Tritch29 July, 2011 16:13

    With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

    Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole........

    ..........The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.

    A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

    In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

    excerpts from

  5. Both these last entries are from the New York Times who just recently went to Groupon for help in getting subscription's and also prints the babbling idiot Paul Krugman who calls himself an economist (remember Enron?) and this to be expected to be other than a joke?

    My God Joe,,WAKE-UP!

  6. Mark,
    In what world does the name of Paul Krugman come up in a debate over a blog about economic policy written by a long time conservative? He has no place in this. And enough of the debate over your "Attack the Messenger" fallacy. Can you disprove what he says? simple enough right?

    Prove him wrong!

    I double dog dare ya!!! LOL.

  7. Joe,

    Learn to read, my name is not Mark.

    Then again this proves you only see what you want to see and not reality.

    You must understand that the NYT will only print what it and this White House approve of and that is the reason for the mention of Krugman. His Keynesian BS is no different than what you point to.

    I need not prove or disprove a damn thing, as one of your own, James Carville, said it best,,"It's the economy stupid"!

  8. All Obama wants out of this mess is the calendar... that would take another debt crisis AND Obamacare off the table for 2012 - I would rather see Congress raise taxes than give him the calendar.... if you think things are bad now, just wait until medical care is free!

  9. Cp,
    Sorry, i got my names mied up flipping back and forth. LOL.

    Did i hear you right? You don't care to disprove that Bush caused this debt ceiling vote, but you'll refer back to the economy and play shoot the messanger.

    I'm astounded at that level of ignorance coming from you. I expect adherence to the talking points by people like Chris who can't grasp the concepts, but seemed smarter than this. Guess i was wrong.

  10. Joe,

    No you did not read my word's correctly as I said (and this should have given you a hint);

    "Then again this proves you only see what you want to see and not reality"

    You speak of ignorance and that is exactly what one has when they read the NYT. The garbage and WH talking points they print has been proven wrong and or false time and again that whatever it prints is not worth the time or effort to discuss as it is irrelevant (kind word there).

  11. CP,
    your attack has little or no basis in reality as the Times has had staunch conservative and NPR pundit also, Willaim Kristol right op-eds and Bruce Bartletts conservative credentials are better than yours.

    Have you seen the things he's done.
    On staff for
    Ron Paul
    Jack Kemp (help write the Kemp-Roth bill)
    Roger Jepsen (both deputy and Director of JEC)
    Ronald Reagan
    Goerge W.H. Bush

    He even went on to write the book that should be a Tea Party manifesto about W's failure to be a conservative.

    So if he writes for the Economist, Fortune and other business magazines along with the Times you would be wise to take his theories seriously even if they appear in the Times.

    I can understand your reluctance to read the times, but in a time when Chris posts blindly from biased conservative sources you really have no ground to suggest that a blog in the Times sin't credible.

    So have you read it and what do you think of his points.

  12. Joe,

    I have no idea how you would be an expert on conservative credentials?

    The only person he worked for that you list that came even close to the term is Ronald Reagan.

    Then you mention a book that you claim could be a Tea Party manifesto and again this conclusion is way off base, understandable due to the fact you have no clue what this movement is about.

    If you truly desire what a conservative believes to be the closest book to a Tea Party manifesto or understand what our values are you would be wise to read Mark Levin's' 'Liberty and Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto'.

    Anything outside of that is rubbish.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.