You had 8 years, why weren't any measures taken to avoid it?

UM, didn't this start with the housing market? The Bush administration warned of Fannie and Freddie problems 17 times (http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/) and Democrats not only blocked any reform measures, they whined and protested that they were just fine (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html).

The Dems campaigned - falsely - in 2006 when they won control of Congress that they were going to be fiscally responsible (Paygo I believe it was and which Obama is now claiming as his own policy after spending us even further into oblivion). They didn't rein in anything, they immediately proceeded to investigation after investigation instead.

We've been down this road, you can't lay all of the blame on Bush and let the Dems off without a scratch.

We've been down this road, you can't lay all of the blame on Bush and let the Dems off without a scratch.I'm not but that's exactly what ET is doing but the other way around. Apparently he has all the answers, if only the government followed his advice.

I guess paygo is what I heard Obama say just last night, I think, that we can't spend a dollar unless we are collecting a dollar, or something like that.

So. Does he mean that he is going to cut spending to match income, or raise taxes to support the profligate policies that he has so far promoted?

The new flat tax approaches. Whatever you have, just send it to the IRS.

Anyone with any understanding of history can say that with a very high degree of certainty. Just as I was able to say a year ago that this massive disaster was going to happen under Obama because I know and understand history.

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred, you are trying to argue that the same thing would have happened under any president. But it wouldn't have, because no other president would have done what Obama is doing.

Elliot

We could all see the mess coming Elliot. Not just you conservatives. It is only you conservatives who are attributing it ALL to Obama (with the exception somewhat of Tom).

My knowledge is limited (so no doubt ill get one of your long winded rants at my lack of it), but in my 'limited' opinion, de-regulation, particularly of the banking sector has been a major problem.

Yes, we down under here are but a small small fish in a very big ocean. I am under no illusions about that. However, we are currently not in recession. Things are tough and we may yet fall into recession as we tend to be a little behind you guys in North but so far things are OK. We are without doubt in one of the best (if not, the best) positions of Western nations to cope with this global downturn. Why? Largely due to regulation of our banking sector. Our banks aren't going broke. They don't have the billions and billions in bad debt that your banks accumulated. Our economy whilst not at its strongest is not falling apart. Regulation has held it together and put us in a stronger position than many to fight off this downturn.

I really find it amusing that you can simply lay the blame entirely at the feet of Obama. Its amazing you can actually see through those glasses of yours Elliot. The tint is so red it must be near impossible at times.

Here are the monthly inflation rates (CPI) for the last 12 months available:

May 2008 0.84%
June 2008 1.01%
July 2008 0.53%
August 2008 -0.40%
September 2008 -0.14%
October 2008 -1.01%
November 2008 -1.92%
December 2008 -1.03%
January 2009 0.44%
February 2009 0.50%
March 2009 0.24%
April 2009 0.25%


After 5 months of heavily DEFLATING PRICES, when Obama came into office we suddenly see massively INFLATING PRICES.

Yes, the inflation is here, it is bad, and it is getting worse.

You wanted proof of the immdiacy of the problem? That it's not just a snapshot in time? Here it is.

Elliot

What about the massive inflation in May, June and July last year. Who's to blame for that?

We could all see the mess coming Elliot. Not just you conservatives. It is only you conservatives who are attributing it ALL to Obama (with the exception somewhat of Tom).

My knowledge is limited (so no doubt ill get one of your long winded rants at my lack of it), but in my 'limited' opinion, de-regulation, particularly of the banking sector has been a major problem.

Yes, we down under here are but a small small fish in a very big ocean. I am under no illusions about that. However, we are currently not in recession. Things are tough and we may yet fall into recession as we tend to be a little behind you guys in North but so far things are ok. We are without doubt in the one of the best (if not, the best) positions of Western nations to cope with this global downturn. Why?? Largely due to regulation of our banking sector. Our banks aren't going broke. They don't have the billions and billions in bad debt that your banks accumulated. Our economy whilst not at its strongest is not falling apart. Regulation has held it together and put us in a stronger position than many to fight off this downturn.

I really find it amusing that you can simply lay the blame entirely at the feet of Obama. Its amazing you can actually see through those glasses of yours Elliot. The tint is so red it must be near impossible at times.

Even though I agree that the fault doenot lie with obama as of now, but if the economy is still in a recession in 3 to 4 years then that's adifferent story. As for the Australian economy you can't compare it to the u.s, you can't compare apples and oranges.

Money is money Dare. Not apples and oranges.

And I agree. If the US is still in recession in 4 years time then Obama will have to take the blame. It's a big if and a long time. You should show some patience in the meantime.

Money is money Dare. Not apples and oranges.

And I agree. if the US is still in recession in 4 years time then Obama will have to take the blame. Its a big if and a long time. You should show some patience in the meantime.

I think you are right and I think that "deregulation" is our downfall.

I see banking without regulation like this.
It's like the students will not behave if the teacher leaves the room. Or you certainly can't depend on it. SO... either teacher stays in the room or assigns someone else to oversee the classroom to assure that all he// doesn't break lose.

The problem I see with Obama is the DIRECTION he is taking on most everything.

When we get the PROOF that he is wrong, it may be a tad late.

He is either a spinmeister, or has a good one to call on. On jobs, admisnistrations are rated on how many jobs created and the unemployment rate. Obama is selling the "jobs saved" index. A figure that he can pull out of thin air.

I'm not but that's exactly what ET is doing but the other way around. Apparently he has all the answers, if only the government followed his advice.

But they didn't. Neither did Bush during his final year.

Yes, the beginning of the bailout mess began with Bush. He set the precedent, and as a result, he ended his presidency with a huge budget deficit.

But that is where his responsibility ends.

OBAMA then took control and in less than 6 months he quadrupled the budget deficit, increased the national debt, is increasing inflation massively, has nationalized the 7% of the total economy (GDP) by taking over the auto-manufacture sector of the economy, and is poised to nationalize another 13% of the total economy (GDP) with nationalized healthcare. THIS IS OBAMA'S STUFF, not Bush's. (And I haven't even talked about taking over AIG and the largest banks in the country.)

I place responsibility for Bush's actions on Bush. But I place responsibility for Obama's actions with Obama. I don't try to claim that Obama is doing what "Bush's economy" forced him to do.

Elliot

I think you are right and i think that "deregulation" is our downfall.

I see banking without regulation like this.
It's like the students will not behave if the teacher leaves the room. Or you certainly can't depend on it. SO...either teacher stays in the room or assigns someone else to oversee the classroom to assure that all he// doesn't break lose.

How many times must we go over this?

Freddie, Fannie, and the banks WERE REGULATED.

The problem is that they were regulated according to the wishes of ACORN and the liberal Democrats (a la Barney Frank, et al)

Are you obtuse or just in denial?

The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that aren't true."--attributed to Mark Twain

The word deregulation has been used as shorthand to describe the repeal or easing of particular rules. To the extent there was a heyday of such deregulation, it was in the 1970s and 1980s. It was at this time that economists--and consumer activists--began to question many longstanding restrictions on financial services.

Major deregulation of financial services was the repeal of the Depression-era prohibition on banks engaging in the securities business. The ban was formally ended by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which followed a series of decisions by regulators easing its impact

Hello again, El:

I know you guys want immediate satisfaction, but it don't happen that way. I'm not going to argue your facts, because they represent a point in time that isn't germane.

When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up. As proof, I ask, if it happened sooner, how come the inflation rate hasn't skyrocketed since the Fed printed zillions and even more zillions of dollars?? I'll tell you why, because it hasn't worked it's way through the economy yet. Give it a year from now, and it'll knock your socks off. Buy gold.

excon

That is bovine manure. If congress and Obama were to stop payroll taxes for 3 months, you will see

1] reasonable people using their hard earned money to pay down debt. They may be able to avoid foreclosure or pay off outstanding credit card debt.

2] some may invest in a business, or start a new business, or keep employees instead of having to lay them off, or offer more benefits, or hire new employees, or expand their business

3] some may stimulate the economy with more purchases

4] some may get into more debt

5] some may be able to pay for health insurance

ETC.




It would happen within the first weeks. This would help the economy more than anything thus done by this gov.

Right now the US gov is borrowing future tax revenue to spend. It is spending power that gives the politicians [ both R and D ] their power. It is also very inefficient. We only have to look at GM and Chrysler to see that the billions in taxpayor money went to waste.

The taxpayor knows how to spend THEIR money the best, but the politicians can't have that because they will have to relinquish power. Also when the taxpayor has to go back to an after tax take home pay, there will be more citizen participation.




G&P

That is bovine manure. If congress and Obama were to stop payroll taxes for 3 months, you will see

1] reasonable people using their hard earned money to pay down debt. They may be able to avoid foreclosure or pay off outstanding credit card debt.

2] some may invest in a business, or start a new business, or keep employees instead of having to lay them off, or offer more benefits, or hire new employees, or expand their business

3] some may stimulate the economy with more purchases

4] some may get into more debt

5] some may be able to pay for health insurance

ETC.




it would happen within the first weeks. This would help the economy more than anything thus done by this gov.

Right now the US gov is borrowing future tax revenue to spend. It is spending power that gives the politicians [ both R and D ] their power. It is also very inefficient. We only have to look at GM and Chrysler to see that the billions in taxpayor money went to waste.

The taxpayor knows how to spend THEIR money the best, but the politicians can't have that because they will have to relinquish power. Also when the taxpayor has to go back to an after tax take home pay, there will be more citizen participation.

If this was true, the stimulus checks should have revived the economy,but it didnt, it was too little too late then and it will be very late and too little now


G&P

If this was true, the stimulus checks should have revived the economy,but it didn't, it was too little too late then and it will be very late and too little now

You mean this:


Stimulus Checks | Stimulus Check | When Will I Receive My Stimulus Check | Taxes (http://www.stimuluspackagedetails.com/irs.html)


An average of $13 per person per paycheck



That is pathetic, in 3 months a 2 income house hold making $40,000 a year will get $312 in 3 months?

2009 Tax Brackets Announced (http://taxes.about.com/b/2008/10/21/2009-tax-brackets-announced.htm)

Cut out fed taxes altogether for 3 months and that same houshold will KEEP $1291 of THEIR MONEY in 3 months.




G&P

Consider this :

The Fed's Mortgage Muddle - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jun2009/pi2009069_296350.htm)





Fear of inflation and concerns over the long-term impact of ballooning government debt have been driving up yields on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes, which reached 3.91% on June 8 before easing back to 3.84% the next day.

But hasn't the Federal Reserve been working overtime to keep rates down? The prime reason for the Fed's commitment to buying Treasury debt was to lower mortgage rates to revive the moribund housing market. That was starting to work, but economists are now warning that rising mortgage rates will stop any rebound in the housing market in its tracks and derail the broader economic recovery.




Rising Rates Could Threaten Economic Recovery, Stock Rally - Markets * US * News * Story - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/31169355)



The housing market had begun showing signs of recovery when the 30-year fixed mortgage rate plunged below 5 percent, triggered by government buying of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

But as the surge of Treasurys has continued, mortgage rates have popped higher, and that has put a damper on a housing recovery and investors hopes for a market turnaround.

"Housing was just starting to turn around, and higher mortgage rates, even if it's incremental—50 or 75 basis points—that can make all the difference in the world in terms of affordability," says Tom Higgins, chief economist at Payden & Rygel in Los Angeles.

Among the lingering concerns is that the Federal Reserve will react to inflation worries by tightening monetary policy, which would drive up mortgage costs even more.


The gov is going into more and more debt trying to manipulate interest rates to maintain recovery yet despite historically low rates

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MORTG.txt


Even a rate of 5.5% is enough to dampen the housing market and recovery yet also spark concerns of inflation!


In the 80s mortgage rates were > 10% and even with spending, primarily for defense to win the cold war, tax rates were cut and the result was the surplus of the 90s and some semblence of peace.




G&P

You mean this:


Stimulus Checks | Stimulus Check | When Will I Receive My Stimulus Check | Taxes (http://www.stimuluspackagedetails.com/irs.html)



that is pathetic, in 3 months a 2 income house hold making $40,000 a year will get $312 in 3 months?

2009 Tax Brackets Announced (http://taxes.about.com/b/2008/10/21/2009-tax-brackets-announced.htm)

Cut out fed taxes altogether for 3 months and that same houshold will KEEP $1291 of THEIR MONEY in 3 months.




G&P
No I am talking about the bush stimulus checks,

Here's one view from North of the border on our oh-so-cool president.


The reprint of this article will be appearing in the New York Times shortly. NOT. A sad observation from our neighbors from the north. How clear to them. Better overall vision?

To All: Very interesting article from Canada. The Canadian Press seems to be something like our AP, gathering news from across the world for the Canadian media. If these observations are true, it appears that the wizard behind the curtain is becoming exposed. We can only "hope". Now that would be "change" we could believe in

Canadian insight into the Obama Thing. What is astounding is that it comes from Canada, a, so far, more left Country than the U.S.

The Canadian Press (http://www.thecanadianpress.com/about_cp.aspx?id=104)

Obama's White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009

In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.

Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.

Ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries

While the press is still chewing over Obama's Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama's endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America's traditional allies. Those who aren't being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.

While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let's put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama's shows have solved absolutely nothing. They
Have served only as high profile entertainment.

Neither alienating America's traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America's enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.

At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.

The European Union Parliament's swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world's richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama's entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state's rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.

That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.

Obama's tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.

His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn't just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama's White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who's too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.

Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American's diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.

The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW

Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public's patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn't play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on Café standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.

With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren't there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.

In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.

A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head

Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama's White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.

[Fluke. Double posted, edited.

[Fluke. Double posted, edited.

One man's opinion. Big whoop:rolleyes:

Here's one view from North of the border on our oh-so-cool president.


The reprint of this article will be appearing in the New York Times shortly. NOT. A sad observation from our neighbors from the north. How clear to them. Better overall vision?

To All: Very interesting article from Canada. The Canadian Press seems to be something like our AP, gathering news from across the world for the Canadian media.

The Canadian Press (http://www.thecanadianpress.com/about_cp.aspx?id=104) You linked to the respectable site of the canadian Press and you describe it correctly BUT the article is NOT from them, it's from a conservative rag blog: Obama's White House is Falling Down (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11866)

Here's the writer's bio: Canada Free Press: Daniel Greenfield (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/11866/Greenfield/)
He's american through and through.

It's this attempt at lying that turns people off the whole republican thing. Pathetic and cheap.

You linked to the respectable site of the The canadian Press and you describe it correctly BUT the article is NOT from them, it's from a conservative rag blog: Obama’s White House is Falling Down (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11866)

Here's the writer's bio: Canada Free Press: Daniel Greenfield (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/11866/Greenfield/)
He's american through and through.

It's this attempt at lying that turns people off the whole republican thing. Pathetic and cheap.

Wow, good work NK!

Remember we wanted change. Now we are going to get it.

In our pockets. Thanks to The new change of Industrialized America.

This is all about Control (not the land of the free) unless we add free to be taxed.

A cool President will be the one that will put an end to these Money hungry men, that seek power, and control over the people that elect them into office. Who work tirelessly to take away our freedoms that good men fought and died for. A cool President concerns are not based on these things and will not be swayed by untruths. Shall stand and crush all that comes his way. Not hide his face with glasses nor dress himself with a cool suit.

For a man must face all enemies face to face, eye to eye and make the RIGHT choice that will later determine, just how good of a choice it really was. For all things come back on us. Why not do it right the first time around. Time tells all .

More to raise eyebrows.

Scalia is following through: The pressure to continues to mount of getting suspicious records about Obama and his county of origin.

SNOPES confirms that Occidental College did, indeed, release records that Obama had been admitted to that California college as Barry Sortero ( one of Obama's known 6 names) on a Fullbright Scolarship with his country as INDONESIA!! Finally, just maybe the mask will come off. TRUTH OR FICTION takes a neutral position.

Smoking Gun Found? So what will happen now? Wonder why the media has not reported on this?

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship
For foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya, and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy, and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front- page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.


In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin S calia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.


Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his person al records.
Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney gene ral, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

Dude, I think you lost credibility a long time ago.

Hello again, gal:

OMG! He IS a terrorist after all. Al Quaida has won.

You're getting a little too carried away... Here - smoke some of this... it's better than the koolaid you're drinking.

Actually, I think it's good to keep posting that stuff. We really need to know how bonkers your side is getting, and who is influenced by this stuff. Certainly YOU are.

You DO know that right wing groups, probably like the one's who dreamed up this stuff, ARE being investigated??

Should they be investigated?? Yup!

excon

Y'all keep saying it ain't so, and mebbe you're right.

Howsomever, if Obama has nothing to hide, why is he fignting tooth and nail to hide it?

Maybe he only defrauded someone on the scholarship.

Now that would be embarrassing wouldn't it?

More change from the cool dude.

This from USA Today.

Ellen Bassuk, president of the National Center on Family Homelessness.

"Shelters are overflowing to capacity. The number of families on the streets has dramatially increased."

Hopenchange delivered, right?

More cool from the Snowman.

Obama's budjet, if continued is projected to increase the national debt to $12.5 trillion by 2019.

(Source: Heritage Foundation)

Isn't that more than the COMBINED debt of all administrations from G. Washington to G. Bush?

Is that cool, or what?

Here's a graph of our national debt.

File:USDebt.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png)

Since the early eighties it has tripled. Clinton brought it down a bit, so that means those responsible stewards of our economy the Republicans more than tripled it since the Reagan era. What should have been happening, if we had had good government under any Republican for the last 30 years, is that during good times we run a surplus/pay off debt so that when there is a crisis (like now) we have some capacity to run a deficit to keep the economy stimulated. Unfortunately our economy has been grossly mismanaged for the past 3 Republican presidents and now we are forced to make unpleasant choices. If we weren't foced to be making payments on our current debt our nation would have been able to afford the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, universal health care and a better energy policy.

I regularly waste my vote on candidates like Ross Perot and local centrist independent party candidates so I am far from a Democratic partisan, but I have nothing but sneering disregard these days for republicans opining about irresponsible democrats. Obama deserveds a bit of leeway to see what he can do. If we can get some solutios to health care, energy independence and our current economic crisis great. In a couple years will be time to put the pressure back on for dealing with our Republican-created budget mess.

Agreed that Bush was not a fiscal conservative, and the Republicans left their conservative base.

BUT the Obama plan seems to be spend more and tax more.

He has bragged about a minuscule cut in spending, but continues to spend like the supply is unlimited. It isn't!

Elsewhere, I suggested that we should amend or repeal the Federal Reserve Act and the government directly SPEND money into circulation instead of printing it and then BORROWING it into circulation.

It would help a lot, but it ain't going to happen.

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.

What could go wrong?

That's a good one Galveston


The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new economic stimulus package.


The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the a.shol.s in Washington





G&P

That's a good one Galveston


Yea but it's not his words.



Like much of what he writes he lifted it from any one of these sites


passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes - Google Search (http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=passed+by+a+Congress+that+hasn%27t+read+it%2C+si gned+by+a+president+who+smokes&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=)

Where he likely gets most of his talking points.



Same with your words inthebox, you stole them fromsoemwhere else:

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=Ophthalmologists+considered+the+idea+shortsighte d&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=





A bunch of plagiarists you are.




All my love,





Nk.

yea but it's not his words.



Like much of what he writes he lifted it from any one of these sites


passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes - Google Search (http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=passed+by+a+Congress+that+hasn%27t+read+it%2C+si gned+by+a+president+who+smokes&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=)

where he likely gets most of his talking points.



Same with your words inthebox, you stole them fromsoemwhere else:

Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted - Google Search (http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=Ophthalmologists+considered+the+idea+shortsighte d&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=)





A bunch of plagiarists you are.




all my love,





nk.

We never said it was original. We just think it's funny.

Don't you?

Besides, when I do post something original, Ex says I'm not smart enough to think of it myself. Shucks, I just can't win.:D

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

Gal,

That's great.

Do you mind if I steal it? Or at least borrow it liberally?

Elliot

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

Got this reply in my email today

What could possibly go wrong:

The phone rings and the lady of the house answers, "Hello?"

"Mrs. Sanders, please."

"Speaking."

"Mrs. Sanders, this is Dr. Jones at St. Agnes Laboratory. When your husband's doctor sent his biopsy to the lab last week, a biopsy from another Mr. Sanders arrived as well. We are now uncertain which one belongs to your husband. Frankly, either way the results are not too good."

"What do you mean?" Mrs. Sanders asks nervously.

"Well, one of the specimens tested positive for Alzheimer's and the other one tested positive for HIV. We can't tell which is which."

"That's dreadful! Can you do the test again?" questioned Mrs. Sanders.

"Normally we can, but the new health care system will only pay for these expensive tests just one time."

"Well, what am I supposed to do now?"

"The folks at Obama health care recommend that you drop your husband off somewhere in the middle of town. If he finds his way home, don't sleep with him."

Hahahaha, Tom believes spam!

I'm about ready to believe that NK has no sense of humor.

Great one Tom!

Geez, NK. Do you have absolutely no ability to recognize a joke? And that was a good one, too.

Ok, OK, OK, I'll join the fun:

"Everyone's favorite Idaho senator who did not have gay sex in a public bathroom, Larry Craig, is back in the news. You may remember, he pleaded guilty to public indecency for playing footsie with an undercover cop in the men's room in the Minneapolis airport. Well, not long after that, he decided he was not playing footsie and asked the judge if he could withdraw his guilty plea. Well, the judge today said 'no.' For some reason now, Senator Craig has decided not to resign. ... His fellow Republicans are not happy. They want him out of there. A lot of them stopped talking to him. Some of them have stopped having sex with him."

"They shut down Pennsylvania Avenue because of a suspicious package, did you hear about that? Turns out it was just a big bag of laundered money for Tom DeLay."

Over 5,000 years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land."
Nearly 5,000 years later, Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel; this is the Promised Land!"
Now Bush Jr. wants to steal your shovels, kick your asses, raise the price of your Camels, and mortgage the Promised Land.
Bush Jr. wants to change the Republican Party Emblem from an elephant to a condom, because it stands for inflation, protects a bunch of pricks, halts production, and gives a false sense of security while one is being screwed.

Does this show the difference between conservative humor and liberal humor?

Really old material NK. You need to get out more.

Did you really think tom's joke was new? It's a variation on a very old joke about Alzheimer's.

Did you really think tom's joke was new? It's a variation on a very old joke about Alzheimer's.

At least it is updated.

I doubt there ARE any new jokes.

Speaking of funny. I listened to this guy talk and he was very humorous for an american. ;)

Being a Dem though you guys probably won't find him funny at all.

Peter Hartcher | Australia-USA channels (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/friendly-banter-in-the-back-channels-that-nurture-an-alliance-20090824-ewg5.html)