What Americans really think.

[ironsides]

Is this a lie? Obama also made this promise and caved.
CNN: Pelosi to Wolf Blitzer: I promise no pork in the stimulus
LIAR LAIR LIAR
YouTube - CNN: Pelosi to Wolf Blitzer: I promise no pork in the stimulus

CNN: Pelosi to Wolf Blitzer: I promise no pork in the stimulus
LIAR LAIR LIAR
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=AaDtkG6afBc
They have no idea of what truth is.

"The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis -- starting in 2002 (and actually even earlier -- in the Clinton administration."

From - ProudToBeCanadian
September 24, 2008
(more info)




YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

So why again is Bush responsible for this economic woes of the world. Bush puts is in debt by 1.3 trillion, But it is Ok for Obama to increase that debt by another 6.4 trillion dollars just for this year. Next year into the far future nothing but tremendous debt that generations of our future children will have to pay.

 

[ironsides]

1. Please watch this video first.



YouTube - Candidate Obama vs. President Obama: Change We Can Believe In?



2. Then read this commentary.




Today, the U.S. Government is completely BROKE and we have current spending plans that will double total U.S. debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 years. Does this make sense?



Obama's proposed spending on a Global Warming Cap & Trade system + federal government managed Universal Healthcare + Dept. of Education run Universal Pre-k to College Entitlement for all will cost more than 7 TRILLION dollars and all three of these federal spending categories are brand new budget items, having nothing to do with mortgage defaults, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae fraud, AIG, Credit Default Swaps, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Cow Farts or any other diversionary excuse Obama and the socialist left create out of thin air to justify their current maniacal spending plans. To blame Bush or anyone else for these spending plans is the height of hubris and arrogance.



Spending too much money got us into "this mess", so let's spend 10 times as much as we have ever spent in our nation's history! Huh? The single highest annual budget deficit under George W. Bush was less than half that of any single spending year proposed under Obama's 10 year budget. And Bush was ridiculed for spending too much money and driving up our national debt? So if Obama calls his spending plans "investments", then everything's OK, right?



As a general rule, most Americans disdain and will do almost anything to avoid visiting any government run organization, be it the DMV, Post Office, Social Security administration, a VA office, the IRS, a traffic court, etc. So now we are to magically believe that Americans are eager to hand over our personal healthcare, our children's education, our financial security, and our home thermostats to the total control and jurisdiction of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Huh?



Oh by the way, have your heard the U.S. Post Office will go bankrupt in 2009? As a nation, we spend more public money per child on education than any nation in the world and our education record is an embarrassment. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud. Medicare and Medicaid are broke. And as a country, we have the second highest personal and corporate tax rates in the world. Given this remarkable record of success, it's obvious we should hire the Washington wizards of smart to manage another 50% of our free market industries!



If one were to believe that our current 'leaders" hate America, seek to destroy capitalism and hold our original U.S. Constitution in total disregard, every decision being made by today's elected officials makes perfect sense.



If you dislike the concepts of personal responsibility, individual liberty, economic freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, then Obama's your man. Did I mention he's got a really great smile, he's our first Black President and his wife and kids are really attractive? Seems like a really nice guy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ironsides, you reproduce the whole article here, but are careful not to give the source. It sounds like far right rant to me. What is the source? Worldnetdaily? Townhall? HumanEvents?

If it is a far right rant (as I think it is), it is not really worth responding to. The source taints the article.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Did I mention he's got a really great smile, he's our first Black President and his wife and kids are really attractive? Seems like a really nice guy.

Ironsides, this sounds like the parody by Obama as to what Republican smear machine would say about him. This is what Obama said (how Republicans would smear him). I don’t remember all of it, but towards the end:

“He has a funny sounding name. Oh, and did we mention that he is black?” At least you writer could be original.

 

[ironsides]

No, none of those. That I noticed also, that is why I left it in. Both the video and commentary were attached.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, none of those. That I noticed also, that is why I left it in. Both the video and commentary were attached.

You have given a link to you tube, which is fine. But where did the commentary come from, what is the source of the commentary?

 

[ironsides]

"Gwyn Ifill and Rob Cunningham" Cannot find the link to thr comment sorry.

 

[gopher]

The NY Times was the # 1 endorser of Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Libs are smarter than that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The NY Times was the # 1 endorser of Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Libs are smarter than that.

Gopher, about that. I remember two New York Times reporters wrote an article criticizing Bush when the Iraq war hysteria was at a fever pitch.

Bush supporters went ballistic. Not only was New York Times roundly condemned for daring to criticize Bush, there were demands that the reporters in question be tried for treason.

It is quite possible that New York Times was cowed by that. Besides, it was not only New York Times, but most of the media (including CNN, which has a reputation for being independent minded) fell in line behind Bush.

I think Bush had a popularity rating around 90% at that time, that also may have been the reason. Whatever the reason, I found coverage by CBC much more non partisan and objective compared to coverage by CNN.

There was a mass hysteria sweeping USA at that time. Either the press was caught up in the hysteria, or they were afraid of public reaction. Whatever the reason, the press fell down on the job.

 

[gopher]

Sir Joseph,

You are completely wrong!

See the articles written by Judith Miller whose pro war writings were instrumental in manufacturing a consensus for Bush's invasion. Yes, the NY Times retracted its war endorsement later on. But only after the damage was done.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am not talking about that, Ron, what you say may be true. However, I remember two New York Times columnists wrote an anti-war article and were crucified for doing so. At that time there were two major events which demonstrated the pro-war hysteria sweeping the nation. One was involving Dixie Chicks, and the other was New York Times reporters.

 

[gopher]

This also happened to the Washington Post: another so called ''liberal' newspaper that rabidly endorsed Bush's war on the grounds that there were WMD and an impending attack on the USA.

Thereafter, it changed its view and was attacked by right wing critics for doing so. Again, it changed only AFTER the damage was done.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

[FONT=&quot]Maybe the reporters were at Washington Post, gopher, my memory is fuzzy about that[/FONT]

 

[ironsides]

A lot of people and media groups endorsed the war, then changed their minds. Based upon the information we were given, it was justified. (except to those who oppose awr at all costs) Saddam did have WMD when he had the war with Iran. He either used them all up or disposed of them, but he still used the threat of them.) SirJosephPorter: Your not wrong, it was a few individual reporters working for Times, Wash. Post and a couple other papers who opposed it and were shouted down.

 

[JLM]

A lot of people and media groups endorsed the war, then changed their minds. Based upon the information we were given, it was justified. (except to those who oppose awr at all costs) Saddam did have WMD when he had the war with Iran. He either used them all up or disposed of them, but he still used the threat of them.) SirJosephPorter: Your not wrong, it was a few individual reporters working for Times, Wash. Post and a couple other papers who opposed it and were shouted down.

Your first three sentences are absolutely correct.

 

[ironsides]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
"If it is a far right rant (as I think it is), it is not really worth responding to. The source taints the article."
Forget the source for a moment SirJosephPorter this part of the statement in pretty accurate. The Information is easy to check.
"Spending too much money got us into "this mess", so let's spend 10 times as much as we have ever spent in our nation's history! Huh? The single highest annual budget deficit under George W. Bush was less than half that of any single spending year proposed under Obama's 10 year budget. And Bush was ridiculed for spending too much money and driving up our national debt? So if Obama calls his spending plans "investments", then everything's OK, right?



As a general rule, most Americans disdain and will do almost anything to avoid visiting any government run organization, be it the DMV, Post Office, Social Security administration, a VA office, the IRS, a traffic court, etc. So now we are to magically believe that Americans are eager to hand over our personal healthcare, our children's education, our financial security, and our home thermostats to the total control and jurisdiction of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Huh?



Oh by the way, have your heard the U.S. Post Office will go bankrupt in 2009? As a nation, we spend more public money per child on education than any nation in the world and our education record is an embarrassment. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud. Medicare and Medicaid are broke. And as a country, we have the second highest personal and corporate tax rates in the world. Given this remarkable record of success, it's obvious we should hire the Washington D.C. wizards of smart to manage another 50% of our free market industries!"

Remember all the talk about how Bush is creating a deficit that our children will be paying off, Obama is creating one that generations of our children will be paying off. One, can we survive it, and two will it be worth it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As a nation, we spend more public money per child on education than any nation in the world and our education record is an embarrassment.

Interesting, ironsides. USA also spends more money on health care (per person) than any other nation in the world, its health care is an embarrassment, and that doesn’t seem to bother your far right ideologue.

Because it is a private system, he seems perfectly happy to live with it. But since education is run by government, he is trashing the education system. Anyway, what is his solution? Get rid of public education and hand it back to the churches (that seems to be what he far right wants).

Spending too much money got us into "this mess", so let's spend 10 times as much as we have ever spent in our nation's history! Huh?

Leaving aside the partisan rhetoric and far right ideology in this statement (I bet he wasn’t bothered when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor) I am ambivalent about all this spending.

Normally I am a deficit hawk, I am strongly opposed to running deficits. But this seems to be extraordinary, once in a life time situation. Many economic experts, who normally wouldn’t advice going into deficit, are saying that government must spend money to keep banks, AIG etc. afloat. So I am not sure what the truth is here.

And frankly, neither does anybody else. You writer is obviously a far right ideologue, an Obama hater. He has no more idea than anybody else how to tackle the crises (except maybe hand over the power to McCain, with Joan of Arc the real power behind the throne).

Now that people have elected Obama, I say let him try it his way. If it doesn’t work, if he fails, he will be turfed out in 2012. But the fact is, nobody seems to have any idea how to come out of the present crises.

So now we are to magically believe that Americans are eager to hand over our personal healthcare, our children's education, our financial security, and our home thermostats to the total control and jurisdiction of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Huh?

Why not ask that to the people? There will be an election in 2010, if people don’t like the direction country is going, they will elect Republicans to the House and the senate.

 

[JLM]

"Spending too much money got us into "this mess", so let's spend 10 times as much as we have ever spent in our nation's history! Huh? The single highest annual budget deficit under George W. Bush was less than half that of any single spending year proposed under Obama's 10 year budget. And Bush was ridiculed for spending too much money and driving up our national debt? So if Obama calls his spending plans "investments", then everything's OK, right?

You're missing an important point, people don't figure Bush is a nice guy, but they figure Obama is and THAT makes ALL the difference.

 

[EagleSmack]

As a nation, we spend more public money per child on education than any nation in the world and our education record is an embarrassment.

Interesting, ironsides. USA also spends more money on health care (per person) than any other nation in the world, its health care is an embarrassment, and that doesn’t seem to bother your far right ideologue.

Who is it an embarrassment to?

 

[ironsides]

As a nation, we spend more public money per child on education than any nation in the world and our education record is an embarrassment.

Interesting, ironsides. USA also spends more money on health care (per person) than any other nation in the world, its health care is an embarrassment, and that doesn’t seem to bother your far right ideologue.

No it does not, because most people I know worked all their lives and received health care from their employer's. As we all grew up, we had choices in our lives, unfortunately some only gave thought to the here and now, never thinking about their retirement or old age. Now those who planned for it should give up part of our health plans for them. Some will and are being forced into gov. healthcare. Not referring to Social Security which is another program the goverment ruined by including people, borrowing etc. that was not included in its formation. The United States Goverment owes Social Security about 59 trillion dollars, no, not just Republicans fault but both parties.
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion - USATODAY.com

Because it is a private system, he seems perfectly happy to live with it. But since education is run by government, he is trashing the education system. Anyway, what is his solution? Get rid of public education and hand it back to the churches (that seems to be what he far right wants).

No, don't get rid of public education. why is it that in States like NY, Conn absically the whol;e Northeast the schools are excellent. In the rest of the country they are horrible. Florida for example around 47th or so. Yes taxes in NY are higher, but not that much more. When it comes time for budget cuts education is the first to go, except for the Northeast. To be more specific, NJ, Long Island, Westchester area's in NY. Forget Christian schools, they don't pay their teachers much either, in fact less.

Spending too much money got us into "this mess", so let's spend 10 times as much as we have ever spent in our nation's history.

Leaving aside the partisan rhetoric and far right ideology in this statement (I bet he wasn’t bothered when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor) I am ambivalent about all this spending.

Bush drained us paying for a war (right or wrong), ran up a debt of 1.3 trillion or so. The education budgets were ok then, yes health was high, but at least 285 million people had some form of it. Now with unemployment we have added a few million more to the 40 million without health insurance. Remember most companies had paid health coverage as well as some self employed.

Normally I am a deficit hawk, I am strongly opposed to running deficits. But this seems to be extraordinary, once in a life time situation. Many economic experts, who normally wouldn’t advice going into deficit, are saying that government must spend money to keep banks, AIG etc. afloat. So I am not sure what the truth is here.


I was against companies like AIG getting their bailout till I found out how world wide they were. Still not sure the gov. is doing the right thing.


And frankly, neither does anybody else. You writer is obviously a far right ideologue, an Obama hater. He has no more idea than anybody else how to tackle the crises (except maybe hand over the power to McCain, with Joan of Arc the real power behind the throne).

No one has the answer, Obama is experimenting with the budget. If he is wrong there will be chaos.

Now that people have elected Obama, I say let him try it his way. If it doesn’t work, if he fails, he will be turfed out in 2012. But the fact is, nobody seems to have any idea how to come out of the present crises.

True, nothing can be done about it now.

So now we are to magically believe that Americans are eager to hand over our personal healthcare, our children's education, our financial security, and our home thermostats to the total control and jurisdiction of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

The majority of the American people are not in favor of turning over our personal healthcare, our children's education, our financial security, and our home thermostats to the total control and jurisdiction of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Were talking about those who have jobs and or health insurance already. As far as education is concerned we do need more money for teachers and less for administration.


Why not ask that to the people? There will be an election in 2010, if people don’t like the direction country is going, they will elect Republicans to the House and the senate.

Here you are absolutly right, If he is wrong, we will start seeing a change in 2010.