Take a walk Mr President

[HomeInspect]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

 

[Cammmpbell]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

I can only hope that the present idiocy of the Republican(T) party continues. If they don't do a little reality check and begin to alter their extreme positions they are history in American politics. Just an observation.

 

[HomeInspect]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

I can only hope that the present idiocy of the Republican(T) party continues. If they don't do a little reality check and begin to alter their extreme positions they are history in American politics. Just an observation.

Extreme ? Fiscally, there ain't no difference. Bush was a spending freak.. and a lot of that was the goofy wars. Obama has run up 6 trillion on top of it, and aside from the wars, makes Bush look like a penny pincher. Obama is the ultimate extreme spender. (just another observation)

 

[Cammmpbell]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

I can only hope that the present idiocy of the Republican(T) party continues. If they don't do a little reality check and begin to alter their extreme positions they are history in American politics. Just an observation.

Extreme ? Fiscally, there ain't no difference. Bush was a spending freak.. and a lot of that was the goofy wars. Obama has run up 6 trillion on top of it, and aside from the wars, makes Bush look like a penny pincher. Obama is the ultimate extreme spender. (just another observation)

Surely you jest. Back when I was a Republican they never submitted a budget which wasn't balanced. Once his own party got all over Nixon for asking for $18 billion of debt. You folks who absolutely don't know shit about how the government runs it's finances need to stay in a closet somewhere. The day the last Bush budget completed the interest due and payable on the Reagan/Bushes debt was $451 billion. That's nearly half a trillion dollars. Half a trillion that must be paid each year. Obama didn't cause this shit. Reagan and the Bushes did:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[HomeInspect]

Obama and the National Debt: President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt

Obama and the National Debt: President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt
Gary W. Patterson, Jr.

Obama and the National Debt President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt


Not surprisingly, President Obama is blaming the Bush administration for the debt racked up under his own presidency. Recently, on 60 Minutes, the president was asked to respond to critics who point out that the debt has gone up $5.2 trillion since he took office. In response, Obama claimed:

“Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.”

Fact checkers from the Washington Post, Factcheck.org, and Politifact.com all agreed these claims are simply false. Obama’s assertion is based upon a Congressional Budget Office projection from January of 2001. The CBO had projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses from 2001-2011. As is so often the case, the government agency grossly overestimated revenue and underestimated costs. By 2002, the CBO was projecting a surplus of $313 billion. Instead, there was a deficit of $158 billion, a net change of $471 billion. Considering the 2001 CBO projection was so wildly off just a year later, it is striking how often it is cited by Obama and his allies.
So why was the CBO’s 2001 projection so horrendously misguided? When the CBO put out their budget projection in 2002, they explained, “nvestment plunged beginning late 2000. A sharp drop in profit margins, probably tied to excess capacity stemming from over-optimism ... worsened that fall ... the contraction in the share of GDP claimed by corporate profits is expected to be one of the worst since World War II.” The economy entered a recession in mid-2001; then came September 11, 2001. “Investors, consumers, and businesses lost confidence. As a result, stock prices fell, consumers bought less, and firms sharply reduced orders for new equipment. Lower demand in turn led business to reduce their workforces.” Also, “[C]apital gains realizations in calendar year 2001 fell by nearly 20%.” Corporate tax receipts fell from 2.1% of GDP in 2000 to 1.7% in 2001, and were projected to fall to 1.5% by 2002.

The CBO also grossly underestimated outlays in their 2001 projection. As a result of the recession and September 11, spending increased significantly. By 2002, the CBO was projecting unemployment compensation to soar 67%, and those on food stamps to increase 19%. Of course, there was also the war in Afghanistan. Authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan was bi-partisan and virtually unanimous.

As we are all too aware, that $5.6 trillion in surpluses never materialized. The increased spending, tax cuts, wars, economic downturn, interest payments, and September 11 all contributed. As indicated above, we have added $5.2 trillion to the national debt since Obama took office. For the president’s claim to be accurate, only $520 billion of that amount would be attributable to his policies.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Obama and the National Debt: President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt

Obama and the National Debt: President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt
Gary W. Patterson, Jr.

Obama and the National Debt President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt


Not surprisingly, President Obama is blaming the Bush administration for the debt racked up under his own presidency. Recently, on 60 Minutes, the president was asked to respond to critics who point out that the debt has gone up $5.2 trillion since he took office. In response, Obama claimed:

“Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.”

Fact checkers from the Washington Post, Factcheck.org, and Politifact.com all agreed these claims are simply false. Obama’s assertion is based upon a Congressional Budget Office projection from January of 2001. The CBO had projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses from 2001-2011. As is so often the case, the government agency grossly overestimated revenue and underestimated costs. By 2002, the CBO was projecting a surplus of $313 billion. Instead, there was a deficit of $158 billion, a net change of $471 billion. Considering the 2001 CBO projection was so wildly off just a year later, it is striking how often it is cited by Obama and his allies.
So why was the CBO’s 2001 projection so horrendously misguided? When the CBO put out their budget projection in 2002, they explained, “nvestment plunged beginning late 2000. A sharp drop in profit margins, probably tied to excess capacity stemming from over-optimism ... worsened that fall ... the contraction in the share of GDP claimed by corporate profits is expected to be one of the worst since World War II.” The economy entered a recession in mid-2001; then came September 11, 2001. “Investors, consumers, and businesses lost confidence. As a result, stock prices fell, consumers bought less, and firms sharply reduced orders for new equipment. Lower demand in turn led business to reduce their workforces.” Also, “[C]apital gains realizations in calendar year 2001 fell by nearly 20%.” Corporate tax receipts fell from 2.1% of GDP in 2000 to 1.7% in 2001, and were projected to fall to 1.5% by 2002.

The CBO also grossly underestimated outlays in their 2001 projection. As a result of the recession and September 11, spending increased significantly. By 2002, the CBO was projecting unemployment compensation to soar 67%, and those on food stamps to increase 19%. Of course, there was also the war in Afghanistan. Authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan was bi-partisan and virtually unanimous.

As we are all too aware, that $5.6 trillion in surpluses never materialized. The increased spending, tax cuts, wars, economic downturn, interest payments, and September 11 all contributed. As indicated above, we have added $5.2 trillion to the national debt since Obama took office. For the president’s claim to be accurate, only $520 billion of that amount would be attributable to his policies.

Hey...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when Obama assumed an annual interest payment of nearly half a trillion dollars a year from the Reagan/Bushes debt he didn't exactly have a clean slate. You Think?

..............................ANNUAL INTEREST/NATIONAL DEBT.............................

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[BreezeWood]

freedom of religion does not endorse Christianity.

 

[Pogo]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

Cute self-absorbed video. So self-absorbed that the guy doesn't seem to notice he invoked three of our least religious, least Christian presidents.

Ironic.

 

[HomeInspect]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

Cute self-absorbed video. So self-absorbed that the guy doesn't seem to notice he invoked three of our least religious, least Christian presidents.

Ironic.

Yeah, the guy is self-absorbed. But the video does show how this country was built on Christianity... which Obama will never admit, and seems to drive him crazy. By the way, I love your Avatar. Achmed with Jeff Dunham is my absolute favorite.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

Cute self-absorbed video. So self-absorbed that the guy doesn't seem to notice he invoked three of our least religious, least Christian presidents.

Ironic.

Yeah, the guy is self-absorbed. But the video does show how this country was built on Christianity... which Obama will never admit, and seems to drive him crazy. By the way, I love your Avatar. Achmed with Jeff Dunham is my absolute favorite.

Deism is not Christianity; man is born free and everywhere enslaved by organized churches.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

When are the liberals going to do a background check on Obama?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Deism is not Christianity; man is born free and everywhere enslaved by organized churches.

That used to be the case. But nowadays all the really cool Oppressers are using Gov't to reach their goals.

 

[Pogo]

Funny.. I don't see "In Allah We Trust" anywhere in this video
walk

Cute self-absorbed video. So self-absorbed that the guy doesn't seem to notice he invoked three of our least religious, least Christian presidents.

Ironic.

Yeah, the guy is self-absorbed. But the video does show how this country was built on Christianity... which Obama will never admit, and seems to drive him crazy. By the way, I love your Avatar. Achmed with Jeff Dunham is my absolute favorite.

Thanks for that reader feedback, yes he is a hoot

I don't see how you can get "built on Christianity" out of this. I see that that is his intention, but all he really talks about is a few quotes that have "God" in them (a common vernacular style of their times) made by three Presidents who were highly skeptical of Christianity anyway -- Jefferson took the time to reconstruct the Bible; Lincoln was notoriously agnostic; and there's little evidence that religion played anything more than a perfunctory role in Washington's life, so the whole "built on Christianity" claim is quite the stretch.

The Founders were drawn not to religion but to secular philosophy. Influenced not so much by Rome as by Rousseau. The overreaching hand of organized religion was very much what they were building a new nation to get away from, so to pretend they were motivated by religion is like pretending that Verizon exists because it really thinks we should talk to each other.

-- The video guy seems to want to take us back and undo what they did. Not to mention, he shoots his own introductory point in the foot; first he concedes we are not a Christian based nation, then he bends over backward to try to prove it is.

 

[Underhill]

Cute self-absorbed video. So self-absorbed that the guy doesn't seem to notice he invoked three of our least religious, least Christian presidents.

Ironic.

Yeah, the guy is self-absorbed. But the video does show how this country was built on Christianity... which Obama will never admit, and seems to drive him crazy. By the way, I love your Avatar. Achmed with Jeff Dunham is my absolute favorite.

Thanks for that reader feedback, yes he is a hoot

I don't see how you can get "built on Christianity" out of this. I see that that is his intention, but all he really talks about is a few quotes that have "God" in them (a common vernacular style of their times) made by three Presidents who were highly skeptical of Christianity anyway -- Jefferson took the time to reconstruct the Bible; Lincoln was notoriously agnostic; and there's little evidence that religion played anything more than a perfunctory role in Washington's life, so the whole "built on Christianity" claim is quite the stretch.

The Founders were drawn not to religion but to secular philosophy. Influenced not so much by Rome as by Rousseau. The overreaching hand of organized religion was very much what they were building a new nation to get away from, so to pretend they were motivated by religion is like pretending that Verizon exists because it really thinks we should talk to each other.

-- The video guy seems to want to take us back and undo what they did. Not to mention, he shoots his own introductory point in the foot; first he concedes we are not a Christian based nation, then he bends over backward to try to prove it is.

Agreed. I've never understood the logic which says, 'the same people who told us we don't have to be Christians, really wanted us all to be Christians'.

Well if the goal was a christian nation, don't you think they would have created one?

 

[Ernie S.]

Yeah, the guy is self-absorbed. But the video does show how this country was built on Christianity... which Obama will never admit, and seems to drive him crazy. By the way, I love your Avatar. Achmed with Jeff Dunham is my absolute favorite.

Thanks for that reader feedback, yes he is a hoot

I don't see how you can get "built on Christianity" out of this. I see that that is his intention, but all he really talks about is a few quotes that have "God" in them (a common vernacular style of their times) made by three Presidents who were highly skeptical of Christianity anyway -- Jefferson took the time to reconstruct the Bible; Lincoln was notoriously agnostic; and there's little evidence that religion played anything more than a perfunctory role in Washington's life, so the whole "built on Christianity" claim is quite the stretch.

The Founders were drawn not to religion but to secular philosophy. Influenced not so much by Rome as by Rousseau. The overreaching hand of organized religion was very much what they were building a new nation to get away from, so to pretend they were motivated by religion is like pretending that Verizon exists because it really thinks we should talk to each other.

-- The video guy seems to want to take us back and undo what they did. Not to mention, he shoots his own introductory point in the foot; first he concedes we are not a Christian based nation, then he bends over backward to try to prove it is.

Agreed. I've never understood the logic which says, 'the same people who told us we don't have to be Christians, really wanted us all to be Christians'.

Well if the goal was a christian nation, don't you think they would have created one?

At the first census in 1790, there were just under 3.2 million citizens (excluding slaves) It is not likely that there were more than 10,000 non Christians, probably far fewer.
What freedom of religion was at the time was freedom to worship Christ as you saw fit. The 30,000 Methodists in Vermont didn't want the 700,000 Presbyterians in Virginia telling them how they had to worship. The Congregationalists in Connecticut didn't want the Baptists in Georgia telling them not to dance.
Good or bad, THAT was what freedom of religion was. They didn't tell us we had to be Christians, more or less because they assumed everyone was to varying degrees. Virtually everyone that came here, did so to escape religious persecution. Puritans came here to escape being forced to be Anglicans. Archbishop Leopold von Firmian kicked 20,000 Lutherans out of Austria and those that didn't freeze to death ended up in Georgia. French Huguenots and Catholics persecuted each other depending on who was in control of the province. Many of each ended up here too.
But, even though Sunnis and Shiites were at war as always, they didn't end up here.
There were a hand full of Jews, some deists, likely a few Muslims and some closet athiests, But it WAS a Christian country.
Their goal was to build a nation with lofty ideals and moral principles. Christian values seemed to fit.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for that reader feedback, yes he is a hoot

I don't see how you can get "built on Christianity" out of this. I see that that is his intention, but all he really talks about is a few quotes that have "God" in them (a common vernacular style of their times) made by three Presidents who were highly skeptical of Christianity anyway -- Jefferson took the time to reconstruct the Bible; Lincoln was notoriously agnostic; and there's little evidence that religion played anything more than a perfunctory role in Washington's life, so the whole "built on Christianity" claim is quite the stretch.

The Founders were drawn not to religion but to secular philosophy. Influenced not so much by Rome as by Rousseau. The overreaching hand of organized religion was very much what they were building a new nation to get away from, so to pretend they were motivated by religion is like pretending that Verizon exists because it really thinks we should talk to each other.

-- The video guy seems to want to take us back and undo what they did. Not to mention, he shoots his own introductory point in the foot; first he concedes we are not a Christian based nation, then he bends over backward to try to prove it is.

Agreed. I've never understood the logic which says, 'the same people who told us we don't have to be Christians, really wanted us all to be Christians'.

Well if the goal was a christian nation, don't you think they would have created one?

At the first census in 1790, there were just under 3.2 million citizens (excluding slaves) It is not likely that there were more than 10,000 non Christians, probably far fewer.
What freedom of religion was at the time was freedom to worship Christ as you saw fit. The 30,000 Methodists in Vermont didn't want the 700,000 Presbyterians in Virginia telling them how they had to worship. The Congregationalists in Connecticut didn't want the Baptists in Georgia telling them not to dance.
Good or bad, THAT was what freedom of religion was. They didn't tell us we had to be Christians, more or less because they assumed everyone was to varying degrees. Virtually everyone that came here, did so to escape religious persecution. Puritans came here to escape being forced to be Anglicans. Archbishop Leopold von Firmian kicked 20,000 Lutherans out of Austria and those that didn't freeze to death ended up in Georgia. French Huguenots and Catholics persecuted each other depending on who was in control of the province. Many of each ended up here too.
But, even though Sunnis and Shiites were at war as always, they didn't end up here.
There were a hand full of Jews, some deists, likely a few Muslims and some closet athiests, But it WAS a Christian country.

Only by a stretch of adjectival definition. By the same logic, the car in my driveway was built in England, therefore presumably by Anglicans. That makes it an "Anglican" car.

In truth of course, my MINI has no religious beliefs, nor did the country. The First Amendment puts it thus:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say "no law respecting an establishment of a Christian religion sect"; it says religion.

Your observations of internal frictions within the Church are well taken, but it does not follow that the Founders therefore viewed those frictions as the problem while assuming the validity of Xianity as a whole as some kind of gospel, so to speak. None of them ever articulated that.

These references to "God" mentioned in the video refer to a universal deity, not a specifically Xian one.

Their goal was to build a nation with lofty ideals and moral principles. Christian values seemed to fit.

That's entirely subjective, depending on what one considers "Christian values" to be. In light of all the intrafamilial squabbling you've accurately pointed out above, it might not be what they had in mind for a country at all.