Obama's CHANGE for the Better

[jreeves]

I knew there was a "quote" someplace about "hindsight". I found it .... "hindsight is always better than foresight" . Easy to say once hindsight is behind us.

I am sure you can tell by my posts that I am not a "kid". But I do have children and six grandchildren. It sickens me to see what has happened in the last 8 years! I tell them that. For the first time in my 65 years I am scared! Not for myself. I am scared for them and their future as an American. And ... not for the threat of $20 a gallon gas, either! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would ever have to say that ..... as a 'flag flying', wear my 'American Patriotism Pride' on my sleeve, citizen!

And trust me .... I would still kick President Bush's ass, if I could! No! He did not do this alone ... so he could line each and every person up behind him that helped him cause it! And I would kick their asses, too!

Sorry ... I got my Motherly Hen Feathers ruffled.

I guess it all depends on your perspective. Bush does bear some responsibility for the Iraq war. In my opinion, he is directly responsible for poor war execution at the onset of the war.

 

[Chris]

I guess it all depends on your perspective. Bush does bear some responsibility for the Iraq war. In my opinion, he is directly responsible for poor war execution at the onset of the war.

Funniest post of the year!

"Bush does bear some responsibility for the Iraq war"

 

[AllieBaba]

How about a "none of the above" choice? I chose not to vote.

I have no clue how current the estimations on this ... Estimated Costs of an Iraq War According to CBO .... website is, but I know the war in Iraq is costing us "billions" of $$$$ a month!

In my humble opinion if we were not spending what we are spending over there .... the "poor", the "middle class", and even the "rich" people in this country would be a hellva lot better off!!

Yes! I will admit I voted for Bush! Both of them! And if I could get within kicking range of either of them I would KICK THEIR ASSES!!!!

Actually, it's had no effect whatsoever on them. The poor and the middle class are doing better now than prior to the war. Foodstamp allotments have increased, cash grant amounts and incentives (welfare) have increased, extended medical coverage and extended cash incentives and extended foodstamps have increased, and unemployment benefits have been extended.

Not only that, tax breaks for the working poor have increased by leaps and bounds.

 

[Chris]

Actually, it's had no effect whatsoever on them. The poor and the middle class are doing better now than prior to the war. Foodstamp allotments have increased, cash grant amounts and incentives (welfare) have increased, extended medical coverage and extended cash incentives and extended foodstamps have increased, and unemployment benefits have been extended.

Not only that, tax breaks for the working poor have increased by leaps and bounds.

The middle class are doing better? Why do you lie?

U.S. middle class losing ground - Jul. 23, 2008

 

[CA95380]

Actually, it's had no effect whatsoever on them. The poor and the middle class are doing better now than prior to the war. Foodstamp allotments have increased, cash grant amounts and incentives (welfare) have increased, extended medical coverage and extended cash incentives and extended foodstamps have increased, and unemployment benefits have been extended.

Not only that, tax breaks for the working poor have increased by leaps and bounds.

I think you are right about (part) of one point you made.

Foodstamp allotments have increased, cash grant amounts and incentives (welfare) have increased, extended medical coverage and extended cash incentives and extended foodstamps have increased...... and unemployment benefits have been extended.

But the part that you forgot to include is that these things have increased, and are being received by more and more "illegal aliens" .... that is what you meant to say, right?

 

[KMAN]

George Bush raised taxes more than any president in history by borrowing $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to fund the Iraq war.

Deficit spending is an invisible tax, because when increase the supply of money, the money you have becomes worth less. That is why we now have inflation and $4 a gallon gas.

From what I remember just about everyone supported goingto war with Iraq so are you saying we should go to war and not fund it???

By the way if you want lower taxes we need to stop creating Federal programs....

 

[KMAN]

The Democrats always talk about bringing America together but wouldn't everyone agree that McCain is more middle than Obama?

 

[Angel Heart]

Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor

Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 25, 2008
12:30 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

More...

I sure as heck don't want what Obama is peddling.

 

[Charles_Main]

I think it is funny all these Democrats bashing Bush for his spending, when they are all Prepared to elect a president and increase a Democrat Majority in congress, that will make Bushes spending look like peanuts.

 

[Chris]

I think it is funny all these Democrats bashing Bush for his spending, when they are all Prepared to elect a president and increase a Democrat Majority in congress, that will make Bushes spending look like peanuts.

Bush spent money he didn't have. He and Reagan did that, and that is why we are in trouble. The last Democratic president is also the last president to have a balanced budget.

 

[Angel Heart]

Only after the Republican Congress forced him to. I'm guessing you're forgetting when the federal government was shut down due to Clinton not wanting to do it.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/index.html

 

[Chris]

Only after the Republican Congress forced him to. I'm guessing you're forgetting when the federal government was shut down due to Clinton not wanting to do it.

And they deserve credit for that.

But the point remains, it was Clinton who balanced the budget. It was Reagan and Bush that created 90% of the National Debt.

 

[Charles_Main]

Bush spent money he didn't have. He and Reagan did that, and that is why we are in trouble. The last Democratic president is also the last president to have a balanced budget.

There you go again giving Clinton credit for balancing a budget that was actually balanced by a republican congress, and a massive surge in the economy. Your hero Clinton actually forced a shut down of the government protesting the republicans attempts to balance the budget.

You are correct that Bush spent money we didn't have, and I fault him for it. Where I think you are going wrong, is believing the Democrats when in full control will not do the same, and spend even more!

 

[Chris]

There you go again giving Clinton credit for balancing a budget that was actually balanced by a republican congress, and a massive surge in the economy. Your hero Clinton actually forced a shut down of the government protesting the republicans attempts to balance the budget.

You are correct that Bush spent money we didn't have, and I fault him for it. Where I think you are going wrong, is believing the Democrats when in full control will not do the same, and spend even more!

Here in Virginia, we had the same situation. A Republican governor, Jim Gilmore, got in and cut taxes and the state had a BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Then a Democrat, Mark Warner, was elected and he balanced the budget and became the most popular governor in the history of Virginia with a 77% approval rating. Now the two of them are running against each other for the U.S. Senate. Guess who will win?

 

[jreeves]

Funniest post of the year!

"Bush does bear some responsibility for the Iraq war"

Actually I think your AGW claims take the cake.

 

[jreeves]

Here in Virginia, we had the same situation. A Republican governor, Jim Gilmore, got in and cut taxes and the state had a BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Then a Democrat, Mark Warner, was elected and he balanced the budget and became the most popular governor in the history of Virginia with a 77% approval rating. Now the two of them are running against each other for the U.S. Senate. Guess who will win?

How's Gov. (D)-Tim Kaine doing with the budget....good god your so partisan.:eusa_shifty, I bet you bleed donkey crap.

 

[Charles_Main]

Here in Virginia, we had the same situation. A Republican governor, Jim Gilmore, got in and cut taxes and the state had a BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Then a Democrat, Mark Warner, was elected and he balanced the budget and became the most popular governor in the history of Virginia with a 77% approval rating. Now the two of them are running against each other for the U.S. Senate. Guess who will win?

Way to completely ignore the fact that Clinton, DID NOT BALANCE THE BUDGET, and in fact fought the Republicans in there attempts to Balance the budget at all costs.

In actuality neither Clinton or the Republicans balanced the Budget, Though Republicans certainly talked about it, and did more to try and make it happen than Clinton ever did.

It was a massive increase of revenue from the hyper growth of the Economy that did it, mainly do to the Tech stock bubble which we all know was doomed to burst. So largely it was a false economy and false growth that balanced the budget.

both Parties deserve a share of the blame for not doing a damn thing with the short lived surpluses that came out of the 1990's economy to actually pay down our debt.

Check this out

The galloping economy has played a major role in reducing the deficit by sweeping record levels of tax revenue into the treasury over the past two years. This year, federal revenues are running about $110 billion above those of 1996. Here again Republicans can deservedly claim partial credit -- but mainly for what they have not done, rather than what they have done. They have not crippled the economy with costly new mandates or regulations (although the forthcoming EPA clean air mandates may be a severe body blow). They have not enacted expensive entitlement expansions (with the glaring exception of this year's child health care programs). They have not raised taxes. The animal spirits guiding this economic expansion appear contented enough with a Congress that is at a bare minimum committed to doing no harm.

The historical irony is that the person most responsible for deficit reduction gets very little attention in the national media. The president who deserves the most credit for the fast-approaching balanced budget we are now witnessing is not Bill Clinton. And the Republican who deserves the most credit is not Newt Gingrich. Rather, the politician whose long-run policies are most responsible for leading us to a potential balanced budget next year is Ronald Reagan. Yes, Reagan, the man vilified by Clinton for "tripling the national debt in the 1980s."

Reagan's legacy affects us dramatically today in two ways. First, Reagan's anti-Communist foreign policy and his military buildup hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In the past eight years, America's victory in the Cold War generated a half-trillion-dollar peace dividend. That peace dividend grows every year, and it fell like manna from heaven into President Clinton's lap. The budget deficit is falling, not primarily because Clinton raised taxes and not primarily because the congressional Republicans committed themselves to a balanced budget, but because the defense budget is nearly $100 billion lower today than when the Berlin Wall came down.

The second effect of the Reagan years was to launch America into what is now widely regarded as a remarkable 15-year low-inflation, high-employment bull market (the Dow was at 800 in 1982, 8,000 today)--interrupted only mildly in the middle Bush years. These 15 years of prosperity were propelled by Reaganomics: lower tax rates, a long-run decline in inflation and interest rates (which also lowers tax rates), freer international trade and a strong dollar. Even with the anti-supply-side Bush and Clinton tax hikes, the top tax rate today of 40% is far below the towering 70% tax rate that disabled the economy in the 1970s. The end of the Cold War has created an international environment of peace and stability, nudging the economy into still higher gear in recent years.

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich can compete for the Washington spotlight over the good news of dramatic deficit reduction. Their policies have not contributed much to this riveting high-technology age of economic expansion and corresponding fiscal improvement—but, by the same token, their policies haven't impeded it either. Meanwhile, the politician whose policies are most responsible for cultivating this era of growth lives 3,000 miles beyond the Washington Beltway.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6107
(Expect to see this link every time you use that Reaganbushdebt.org link that you love so much kirk )

So now who is talking about policies that will do the most to cut spending today?

From McCain's web site

Seal the Pork Barrel

Among the most glaring abuses in Washington is the willful setting aside of taxpayer dollars for the pet projects of special interests, often through last minute additions to appropriations bills. Pork barrel spending is an insult to taxpayers, a waste of public resources, and an abdication of our leaders' responsibility to be good and honorable stewards of the public treasury, for the benefit of all Americans, not just a few.

Too often it appears that elected leaders use the treasury as a campaign kitty, channeling taxpayer dollars for pet projects to preserve incumbency rather than to meet national needs. John McCain has been a tireless warrior against wasteful spending, and one of the few leaders who has the guts to challenge abusive Congressional earmarks and the pork barrel politics that grip Washington. John McCain understands that, fundamentally, wasteful spending is an issue of ethics.

As he pointed out recently as part of his longstanding, principled, and often lonely vigil against pork barrel earmarks in Congress: "Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue." As President, John McCain would shine the disinfecting light of public scrutiny on those who abuse the public purse, use the power of the presidency to restore fiscal responsibility, and exercise the veto pen to enforce it.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/cb15a056-ac87-485d-a64d-82989bdc948c.htm

 

[Chris]

Clinton....eight years of peace and prosperity.

You hate it, don't you?