That dribble on prime time TV last night?
It seems that it has gotten so bad that the anointed one has to resort to going on prime time TV for an hour to sell his line to the general public now. What gives with that?
So far he is proposing a trillion dollar deficit for the next ten years, more taxes for everyone, socialized medicine, free education for illegals. When will the madness in Washington end?

How nice that you use the term 'the anointed one' !
And still without even having to mention his name, everyone knows who you are referring to !

In previous years one had to describe his predecessor with maniac, idiot, stupid, warmonger, etc. 'The anointed one' sounds much better.

As to the issue itself : it was also that predecessor who caused the current worldwide financial and economic problems to occure, while 'the anointed one' may clear the wreckage...

If the stupid one had not used his eight year reign of terror to put us in the red the anointed one would not have to sell anyone on anything.

Look at where our economy was when the Bushmeister took office.Look at it when he left.

Look at it one year after he took office.He negated everything Clinton did in 8 yrs. In one year.

free education for illegals. When will the madness in Washington end?Hello 450:

I don't know. I suppose when the madness ends on your end. Really, I didn't hear that part about illegals. If you did, maybe you should get your TV fixed, or just say NO to those emails. They're not telling you the truth.

excon

How nice that you use the term 'the anointed one' !
And still without even having to mention his name, everyone knows who you are referring to !

In previous years one had to describe his predecessor with maniac, idiot, stupid, warmonger, etc. 'The anointed one' sounds much better.

As to the issue itself : it was also that predecessor who created the current worldwide financial and economic problems, while 'the anointed one' may clear the wreckage ....
So you do not believe that it was Jimmy carter who started us on this spiral? It was Carter who pushed for the laws forcing banks to offer loans to everyone. Then it was your beloved Bill Clintoon and his inept Janet Reno who enforced laws to further punish the banks if they did not give enough of the "questionable' loans out. Or how about the Banking committee with it's lead goof ball Barnie Frank that has defended Freddy Mac and Fannie May. Yes he has received sweat heart deals from them. So who is to blame/ It is easy to blame the President for the current state of affairs. While in truth it is the fault of every member of congress. But with another inept person in the white house proposing God knows how many ill fated items to further push this country into a deeper depression this is not what we need. We need strong leadership with people in authority who have the guts to stand up and do what is right, not turn us into another banana republic.

But EC it it not sort of interesting that the economy was going gang busters under the republican congress, But when the Dems got control it tanked? Gee, who was to blame for that?
Like I said before, I put the blame for this mess squarely on the shoulders of congress. It is them who write the laws is it not?

So you do not believe that it was Jimmy carter who started us on this spiral?
The US economy was in excellent condition when Bill Clinton left office. That changed after the last predecessor took over. When he left office, the US economy was in an all time low, and the banking system at the brink of a financial collapse.

I fear you need new glasses...

But EC it it not sort of interesting that the economy was going gang busters under the republican congress, But when the Dems got control it tanked? Gee, who was to blame for that?Hello again, 450:

It was all on credit... Credit that NOBODY could pay... Credit that was arranged for by the dufus and his friends...

I guess that could LOOK like gang busters, but then the bill came in.

excon

Maybe you need to go back and read American history starting with the Carter years of 18% interest rates and inflation hovering around 12%.
If Clintoon had done his job, we would not have had the Second World Trade center incident among several other incidents that HE stuck his head in the sand over. Again, IF you were to read a little, you would see that the economy was in good shape under the Republican led congress. It was not until the last two years under democrat leadership that we have had gasoline at $5.00 a gallon, unemployment hovering at 10percent and much higher in some of the democrat led states like Oregon and Michigan.
Like I said before the problems can be paid squarely at the feet of Congress.

EC who is it that is proposing a one TRILLION dollar deficit for the next ten years?

EC who is it that is proposing a one TRILLION dollar deficit for the next ten years?
Hello again, 450:

Somebody has got to pay the bill. That's ALWAYS the tough part. But, have no fear. Adults have taken over.

excon

How nice that you use the term 'the anointed one' !
And still without even having to mention his name, everyone knows who you are referring to !

In previous years one had to describe his predecessor with maniac, idiot, stupid, warmonger, etc. 'The anointed one' sounds much better.

As to the issue itself : it was also that predecessor who caused the current worldwide financial and economic problems to occure, while 'the anointed one' may clear the wreckage ....

Sarnian. How can the liberals have such a short memory? My wife is a liberal and I'm not. Even she knew this problem was mentioned By Clinton as president. She is swinging to wards the Conservative side not because of me its simply because the liberals are running on too much misinformation like yours and she thinks that's way out of line period Her party is not what it used to be. Like Obama too wild and out of control.

Dear 21boat

Please read what I stated in the first reaction (#1) on the topic post. Your post #12 is nothing more than a red herring !

sarnian

Because your post#1 was totally and completely inaccurate. If you had read my post#5 you might have learned the real truth as to what and why the system is in such bad shape today. 21 boat was trying to explain to you in subtle terms that you are mistaken in your beliefs.

Because your post#1 was totally and completely inaccurate.
Let me repost that post#1 than here again :

How nice that you use the term 'the anointed one' !
And still without even having to mention his name, everyone knows who you are referring to !
In previous years one had to describe his predecessor with maniac, idiot, stupid, warmonger, etc.
'The anointed one' sounds much better.
As to the issue itself : it was also that predecessor who caused the current worldwide financial and economic problems to occure, while 'the anointed one' may clear the wreckage ....

Hmm : nothing wrong with that : totally and completely accurate !

As to the issue itself : it was also that predecessor who caused the current worldwide financial and economic problems to occure, As to the issue itself : it was also that predecessor who caused the current worldwide financial and economic problems to occure, while 'the anointed one' may clear the wreckage ....

Sarnian If you are referring to obamas predecessor as the Bush years and keep redundantly reflecting that on the quote above then you are very Wrong.

Clinton made mention of the problem and the house of cards and did NOTHING about it to stop it. Either you are to young to remember that far back or you are not well informed and missed a big part here.

It was so memorable when Clinton brought that problem up in one of his presidential speeches that My liberal Wife never forgot it. Simply because she deals in Stocks Markets and it would financially effect her directly if this blew up so all ears were perked back then!!

If you keep Re posting the same thing over and over apparently this means you are stuck there. That liberal tactic doesn't work with informed people. At least express Why you can't elaborate more. Or maybe because your on a dead end here and was brain washed like so many who WANT to Believe and it stops there.

Yup!

The US economy was in excellent condition when Bill Clinton left office. That changed after the last predecessor took over. When he left office, the US economy was in an all time low, and the banking system at the brink of a financial collapse.

I fear you need new glasses ....

Bill Clinton had a SANE Republican congress since 1994, remember the "Contract with America?" He did not have the Rino's during the Bush years, and certainly not the Reid /Pelosi catastrophe.

Let's see, economy happened to start crashing when the DEMOCRATS took control of congress in 2007. Hmmm Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, who was to oversee them ----- Barney Frank [D] and Dodds [D].


Maybe if Billl Clinton paid attention to WTC 1 and Osama bin Laden instead of Monica, 9/11 and all its associated costs would never have happened.

Oh and Bill Clinton rode the internet/ dot com bubble, only to have it burst during Bush jr's term. And what helped the economy then?

That is right - TAX CUTS.


And what is the "clueless one" proposing to do? Spend trillions, and raise taxes.






G&P

inthebox

Of course everyone can twist and turn the data to support their personal views.
I refer to the topic starter post that used terminology as 'the anointed one' in a failing attempt to attack this democratically elected President.

You and many of your club seem to lack any valid arguments against Obama, and therefore have to fall back in their attacks on using 'the anointed one' . But doing so only shows the emptiness of the 'argument'.

Sad, very sad !

They always seem to mix religion into everything - the sign of a brainwashed fanatic.

inthebox

Of course everyone can twist and turn the data to support their personal views.
I refer to the topic starter post that used terminology as 'the anointed one' in a failing attempt to attack this democratically elected President.

You and many of your club seem to lack any valid arguments against Obama, and therefore have to fall back in their attacks on using 'the anointed one' . But doing so only shows the emptiness of the 'argument'.

Sad, very sad !

Really, after 8 years of hearing of the dreaded Bush theocracy, decades of warnings about "the rise of the religious right" and the scores of downright nasty names Bush, Cheney & Co. were called, this kind of outrage is laughable. And, as I've pointed out several times recently, Obama would not be called "the anointed one" or "the Messiah" had it not been for the creepy devotion of his followers (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/).

They always seem to mix religion into everything - the sign of a brainwashed fanatic.

No, this (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-is-lightworker-attuned-being-with.html) is a sign of a brainwashed fanatic.

If you believe every wacko on the web then you are in trouble.

And, as I've pointed out several times recently, Obama would not be called "the anointed one" or "the Messiah" had it not been for the creepy devotion of his followers
But 450donn did use the terminology "the anointed one" in the topic question text.
So fight it out with 450donn, and not with me. I mainly reacted to the terminology used.

But 450donn did use the terminology "the anointed one" in the topic question text.
So fight it out with 450donn, and not with me. I mainly reacted to the terminology used.

And I told you why 450donn and others, including myself, describe Obama in such terms. Not only his followers, but he himself brought it on with his "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" nonsense. Granted, without arguments to accompany the titles he's been given it's pretty shallow, but MANY a valid argument has been offered here and his supporters dismiss them out of hand. One way conversations get us nowhere.

If you believe every wacko on the web then you are in trouble.

You're always so helpful, NK. The link I provided Sarnian offered quotes from many supposed intellectuals and celebrities simply overcome with Obama's greatness. The link I provided you is a SF Chronicle columnist (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL). It isn't my problem that liberals look up to idiots like that.

sarnian
Would it be better if I described him as dumb and dumber, or how about OJT (on the job training) or So far left he is beyond Socialist, or the special one, or his only job was as a community agitator, or as never having held a real job? Would those be better? I still remember seeing a picture of his robots in fatigues and high topped boots singing praise to him like he was some sort of god. Of course that picture is now dead and berried someplace. To have any sort of meaningful conversation you first need to get yourself away from the likes of NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN and most of the rest of the media and start reading what little substance the person YOU helped put into office has.

Byron York reminds us of Obama's claims in the campaign.


Barack Obama used to get very upset about federal budget deficits. Denouncing an "orgy of spending and enormous deficits (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/On-Spending-and-the-Deficit-McCain-Was-Right-41936467.html)," he turned to John McCain during their presidential debates last fall and said, "We have had, over the last eight years, the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history…Now we have a half-trillion deficit annually…and Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets."

That was then. Now, President Obama is asking lawmakers to vote for a budget with a deficit three times the size of the one that so disturbed candidate Obama just a few months ago. And Obama foresees, for years to come, deficits that dwarf those he felt so passionately about way, way back in 2008.

Everywhere you go on Capitol Hill, you hear echoes of the last campaign's spending debate. So on Thursday morning, as the budget fight raged, I asked McCain about the president's seemingly forgotten concern about deficits. McCain doesn't like to rehash the campaign -- "The one thing Americans don't like is a sore loser," he told me -- but when I read him Obama's quote from the debate, he said, "Well, there are a number of statements that were made by then-candidate Obama which have not translated into his policies."

That's an understatement. The deficit issue could be one of the most, if not the most, consequential of Obama's unkept campaign promises. Just how consequential was made clear last week in a little-noticed conference call featuring Budget Director Peter Orszag. Orszag was trying to explain to reporters how the Obama administration calculated its rather rosy forecasts for economic growth. Near the end of the call, he was asked whether deficits along the lines of those predicted by the Congressional Budget Office are sustainable."

Orszag at first dodged the question, saying he was sure the final Obama budget will "reflect a fiscally sustainable path."But the questioner persisted: Are those deficits sustainable? Relenting, Orszag said such deficits, in the range of five percent of the Gross Domestic Product, "would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable."

The simple version of that is: If the Congressional Budget Office projections are correct, we're headed for hell in a handbasket.

I asked McCain what might happen if Obama and Orszag get their way. First, the U.S. could have to print a lot of new money, "running the huge risk of inflation and returning to the situation of the 1970s, only far worse," McCain said. The second option is to raise taxes.

Just this week, former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin conceded that Obama's budget could present a "scary scenario" that would "raise deficits to unsustainable levels well after the economy recovers." The solution, she wrote, is higher taxes, and not just for the richest of the rich.

Of course, that's what McCain said during the campaign. And it's what the much-maligned Joe the Plumber said, too. Remember when he took so much flak for objecting to Obama's plan to raise taxes only on those Americans making more than $250,000 a year? Joe didn't make anything near that, the critics said, so why was he worrying?

The point was not that Joe made that much, or that anybody at McCain's rallies made that much -- the vast majority didn't. The point was that Obama was promising so many things that to pay for them he would eventually have to raise taxes on people making far less than $250,000. Look out, McCain warned -- someday he'll come after you.

Ok you Obama supporters, when will you acknowledge that his lofty campaign rhetoric is nothing like his performance and that his deficits are going to be far more devastating than Bush's that both you and Obama complained of? Come on, man up... or woman up, or person up whichever applies. And don't give me that we're going to have to spend our way out of this crisis BS.

Hello Steve:

So, he had this campaign going on since 2007. Then the economy went off a cliff two months before he was elected... Should he ignore that??

Bush wanted to be the education president. Then 9/11 happened. Should he have ignored it?

Things happen.

Nonetheless, Obama DID say that he was going to reform health care, entitlements, and energy. Those problems led to the economy falling off the cliff in the first place. So, he's going to fix them. Personally, I'm glad.

That is unless you can tell me that we're not running out of oil, that health care is working for you, or that Medicare isn't broke. I don't think you're going to tell me those things. Unless you guys would rather pretend those problems don't exist...

That's exactly WHY we're here, because they DO exist, and have existed for 30 years or more. Nobody wanted to fix them before now, because it was unpopular, and that's WHY the problem is SOOO big today...

It's NOT rocket science.

excon

The deficit began many, many years ago. We've been addressing this problem since I remember, President John Kennedy, and most likely before. Let's face it, government does not know how to run itself while remaining in the black.

Both parties are to blame. Congress is to blame and we, yes we are to blame. Because we have a part in the deficit when we choose to remain silent and not voice our opinions with our individual Congressional delegates.

Be proactive. We elected what you refer to as the "stupid one, the annointed one" He is our President... Let your voice be heard. Find productive ways to make a difference. Begin with calling your representatives and senators. Lead a march, get involved and get bills/laws changed. It can happen. Don't sit back ,criticize and do name calling.

The Wall Stree Journal on March 24 had an article on President Obama's 2010 budget. It is 28.5 percent higher than 2008. That's frightening. His plans to increase government programs such as medicare, medicaid and many other social programs will cost the American people 2.3 TRILLION dollars over the next 10 years. Refer to the article, read it. 'Obama Sticker Shock" It ought to drive you to take positive action.

His increases in taxes for 2011 will be $629 billion in new cap and tax carbon revenues. It is projected that the share of the debt held by the public will double to 82.4% in 2019 FROM 40.8% in 2008. That does not include his plans to provide free health care to every American. Too bad Florida doesn't grow money trees along with all those orange orchards.

Take action. Contact your Congress people and voice your opinion.

Hello Steve:

So, he had this campaign going on since 2007. Then the economy went off a cliff two months before he was elected.... Should he ignore that???

But, but, but, but... that's all I hear. No one said ANYTHING about ignoring the economic turmoil, I want to know how his wasteful, nonsensical spending plan is going to make it better. The man is still talking about giving tax cuts to 95 percent of Americans at the same time he's spending trillions of new dollars that even his own budget director admitted "would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable."

Should he ignore that? It's not rocket science.

"would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable."

Should he ignore that? It's not rocket science.Hello again, Steve:

Attn: From the FOX news website:::

WASHINGTON — Medicare (search) will have to begin dipping into its trust fund this year to keep up with expenditures and will go broke by 2019 without changes in a program that is swelling because of rising health costs, trustees reported Tuesday.

Social Security's finances showed little change.

The deteriorating financial picture for the health care program for older and disabled Americans is a result, in part, of the new Medicare prescription drug law that will swell costs by more than $500 billion over 10 years, according to the annual report by government trustees.

Provisions of the law that President Bush signed into law in December "raise serious doubt about the sustainability of Medicare under current financing arrangements," the trustees said.

Social Security's projected insolvency date remained 2042.

The 2019 go-broke date for the Medicare trust fund (search), which is devoted primarily to paying beneficiaries' hospital bills, is seven years sooner than what the trustees projected last year.

-------------------------

So, we go broke by 2042 or earlier, or we FIX it now, and hopefully NOT go broke. It STILL ain't rocket science.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Attn: From the FOX news website:::

WASHINGTON — Medicare (search) will have to begin dipping into its trust fund this year to keep up with expenditures and will go broke by 2019 without changes in a program that is swelling because of rising health costs, trustees reported Tuesday.

Social Security's finances showed little change.

That sucks, too, but I'm not talking about 2 programs going broke, I'm talking about an entire federal budget that the White House admits is unsustainable.

I'm talking about an entire federal budget that the White House admits is unsustainable.Hello again, Steve:

Then we're doomed either way. Let's get high.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Then we're doomed either way. Let's get high.

excon

Hey, it's 20 degrees, the wind is blowing snow horizontally at 40-50 mph, we're closed for the day... sounds good. Got any rum, too?

WASHINGTON — Medicare (search) will have to begin dipping into its trust fund this year to keep up with expenditures and will go broke by 2019 without changes in a program that is swelling because of rising health costs, trustees reported Tuesday.

Social Security's finances showed little change.

The deteriorating financial picture for the health care program for older and disabled Americans is a result, in part, of the new Medicare prescription drug law that will swell costs by more than $500 billion over 10 years, according to the annual report by government trustees.

Provisions of the law that President Bush signed into law in December "raise serious doubt about the sustainability of Medicare under current financing arrangements," the trustees said.

Social Security's projected insolvency date remained 2042.

The 2019 go-broke date for the Medicare trust fund (search), which is devoted primarily to paying beneficiaries' hospital bills, is seven years sooner than what the trustees projected last year.

I vividly remember when Hilliary Clinton expressing it was her mission to fix the health care problem and be the crusader on that while Bill was having Sex in the white house with his aid. "But its true" She finially realized it was a very big dragon that can't be slayed. Now think of this. Here's a woman who's husband is the President of the U.S. and how much pull is that!!

The Clintions couldn't resolve that issue Excon speaks of. On top Clinton's GREAT economy was in publicly mentioning about the Fannie Mae and the house of cards but behind the doors he was had meetings saying he wanted it easier for citizens to get a loan for home ownership. Expressed that in a speech also. Mean while Bill is back at the House saying whatever it takes make the loans to people and rewrite it so citizens can qualify for the mortgages. This will BOOST the economy and growth in the housing industry. So what HAPPENED later when this all caught UP!! I will Repeat, it WAS NOT Obama predecessor that screwed this up CLINTON single handily started and PUSHED for the rewrites of the mortgage companies so a lower income person could qualifiy to get a loan for a home. It publicly made him look good and in turn based the supposedly "fake" good economy on his watch and on bad loans that at the time reflected the "good ecomny"

I will Repeat, it WAS NOT Obama predecessor that screwed this up CLINTON single handily started and PUSHED for the rewrites of the mortage companies so a lower income person could qualifiy to get a loan for a home. So why didn't the republicans correct that in the 8 years?

Hey NK, you might want to get a new avatar (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0327092sham1.html).

Hey NK, you might want to get a new avatar (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0327092sham1.html).
I don't care about his personal life but I am due to change my avatar as I rotate them with some regularity. Hey who hasn't slapped around a prostitute before, come one!

I don't care about his personal life but I am due to change my avatar as I rotate them with some regularity. Hey who hasn't slapped around a prostitute before, come one!

LOL, well I haven't. You could always use the shot of him the link had.

inthebox

Of course everyone can twist and turn the data to support their personal views.
I refer to the topic starter post that used terminology as 'the anointed one' in a failing attempt to attack this democratically elected President.

You and many of your club seem to lack any valid arguments against Obama, and therefore have to fall back in their attacks on using 'the anointed one' . But doing so only shows the emptiness of the 'argument'.

Sad, very sad !

Sarnian,

It is not a matter of twisting data, but stating facts.
Notice that I quoted you, and thus was answering your post not the OP's.
I don't call him or consider him the "annointed one." I think "clueless one" is better :)

As to valid arguments against Obama:

What do you think of his numerous cabinet picks that have not paid their taxes?
[Geithener, daschle to name a few if you did not know]

What do you think of spending trillions of dollars of taxapayor money in what he described as an economic catastrophe. Catastrophe? Think about it for a second. If you had trouble paying for utilities, shelter, food, transportation and have $10 k in credit card debt, what sane person would then propose putting another $20,000 in going out to eat or gatting a new TV?

In this time of economic crisis why is Obama letting taxpayors fund Planned Parenthood ABROAD?

How about Obama closing Gitmo, and Europe not wanting the prisoners?


Its not even 100 days and all this and more...








G&P

So why didn't the republicans correct that in the 8 years?

Ahhhhhh let me take a wild guess could it be the Liberals were in the way..?

Nah that would be to simple and make too much sense to be true. Need more Karma here

How about the Liberals would scream the Republicans are bad people and don't want the poor person to own a home even if they can't afford it.

But the Liberals said I can. Just ask my friend bill Clinton. He started it because he wanted his watch to look good for his history book and family album and didn't care if he stemmed a fake Economy that in the Long term could collapse the economy.

Here we Are...

How about Obama closing Gitmo, and Europe not wanting the prisoners?
Many European countries have opposed the going-on's at G. was from day one, so why should they now accept prisoners from there ? G. was from start an unconstitutional concentration camp with unconstitutional holding practices and unconstitutional actions. No matter where the captives were accused of (or as in most cases were never accused of at all in the end).

Ahhhhhh let me take a wild guess could it be the Liberals were in the way..........????

Nah that would be to simple and make too much sense to be true. Need more Karma here

How about the Liberals would scream the Republicans are bad people and don't want the poor person to own a home even if they can't afford it.

But the Liberals said I can. Just ask my friend bill Clinton. He started it because he wanted his watch to look good for his history book and family album and didn't care if he stemmed a fake Economy that in the Long term could collapse the economy.

Here we Are.....So republicans have been effectively neutered? It's amazing how easy it seems to be able to do that.

So republicans have been effectively neutered? It's amazing how easy it seems to be able to do that.
So that's why they have no balls? :)

So republicans have been effectively neutered? It's amazing how easy it seems to be able to do that.So that's why they have no balls?

So predictable for liberals, 3 one liners. The shock statement. Hit and run with nothing behind it. Big### must suck the brain from ones ability to express oneself past a couple or sentences and child like statements.

We Rep may have lost our ### so to speak but at least we have our brains and calculators. Having ### is one thing, but can that person think in long terms to understand the repercussions of there child like reactions...

Obama did the same thing. He thought in the now when he promised Puerto Rico equality in his campaign speech, in so doing has 4 million of his voters Friends /relatives suing the U.S. for parity. Island Puerto Rico verses the States

In turn, the other 4 million relatives state side are not happy because it shows to them racial discrimination between the cultures. How dumb was that!!

Think of it. The irony here is a black president saying he will bring the people together and single handily took us BACK WARDS in racial tensions!!

What was Obama reason to say this in his speech, to get the Puerto Ricans Friends and relatives in the states to vote for him. Obama did not think of the effects this may have in the many years to come.


So if I had a choice over ### to the real important parts of the body. I choose body not ####.