PDA

View Full Version : Goodbye America - It Was Fun While It Lasted


HometownGal
02-12-2009, 07:02 PM
I'm not a supporter of Ann Coulter, but I must say, this article is spot on. :thumbsup:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30674

Goodbye, America! It Was Fun While It Lasted

by Ann Coulter
02/11/2009

It's bad enough when illiterate jurors issue damages awards in the billions of dollars because they don't grasp the difference between a million and a billion. Now it turns out the Democrats don't know the difference between a million and a trillion.

Why not make the "stimulus bill" a kazillion dollars?

All Americans who work for a living, or who plan to work for a living sometime in the next century, are about to be stuck with a trillion-dollar bill to fund yet more oppressive government bureaucracies. Or as I call it, a trillion dollars and change.

The stimulus bill isn't as bad as we had expected -- it's much worse. Instead of merely creating useless, make-work jobs digging ditches -- or "shovel-ready," in the Democrats' felicitous phrase -- the "stimulus" bill will create an endless army of government bureaucrats aggressively intervening in our lives. Instead of digging ditches, American taxpayers will be digging our own graves.

There are hundreds of examples in the 800-page "stimulus" bill, but here are just two.

First, the welfare bureaucrats are coming back.

For half a century, the welfare establishment had the bright idea to pay women to have children out of wedlock. Following the iron laws of economics -- subsidize something, you get more of it; tax it, you get less of it -- the number of children being born out of wedlock skyrocketed.

The 1996 Welfare Reform bill marked the first time any government entitlement had ever been rolled back. Despite liberal howling and foot-stomping, not subsidizing illegitimacy led, like night into day, to less illegitimacy.

Welfare recipients got jobs, as the hard-core unemployables were coaxed away from their TV sets and into the workforce. For the first time in decades, the ever-increasing illegitimacy rate stopped spiraling upward.

As proof that that welfare reform was a smashing success, a few years later, Bill Clinton started claiming full credit for the bill.

Well, that's over. The stimulus bill goes a long way toward repealing the work requirement of the 1996 Republican Welfare Reform bill and rewards states that increase their welfare caseloads by paying unwed mothers to sit home doing nothing.

Second, bureaucrats at Health and Human Services will electronically collect every citizen's complete medical records and determine appropriate medical care.

Judging by the care that the State Department took with private visa records last year, that the Ohio government took with Joe the Plumber's government records, that the Pentagon took with Linda Tripp's employment records in 1998, and that the FBI took with thousands of top secret "raw" background files in President Clinton's first term, the bright side is: We'll finally be able to find out if Bill Clinton has syphilis -- all thanks to the stimulus bill!

HHS bureaucrats will soon be empowered to overrule your doctor. Doctors who don't comply with the government's treatment protocols will be fined. That's right: Instead of your treatment being determined by your doctor, it will be settled on by some narcoleptic half-wit in Washington who couldn't get a job in the private sector.

And a brand-new set of bureaucrats in the newly created office of "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will be empowered to cut off treatments that merely prolong life. Sorry, Mom and Pop, Big Brother said it's time to go.

At every other workplace in the nation -- even Wal-Mart! -- workers are being laid off. But no one at any of the bloated government bureaucracies ever need fear receiving a pink slip. All 64,750 employees at the department of Health and Human Services are apparently absolutely crucial to the smooth functioning of the department.

With the stimulus bill, liberals plan to move unfirable government workers into every activity in America, where they will superintend all aspects of our lives.

Also, thanks to the stimulus bill, the private sector will gradually shrivel and die. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of servicing the bill's nearly trillion-dollar debt will shrink the economy within a decade.

Robert Kennedy famously said: "There are those who look at things the way they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

The new liberal version is: There are those who look at things and ask, "Why on earth should the government be paying for that?" I dream of things that never were funded by the government and ask, "Why not?"

steelreserve
02-12-2009, 07:30 PM
I forget who it was, but some political analyst said, "People were so fed up with Bush that they were willing to sacrifice their future to feel good."

I don't know why anyone thinks this "stimulus" package is going to actually work, much less in the form it's in now. Big government spending programs didn't work to get us out of the Great Depression and they probably won't work now.

Anyway, like I've always said about Obama ... I don't know exactly who he's trying to help, but it sure as hell isn't me.

AllD
02-12-2009, 08:11 PM
America needs to invent an efficient renewable energy system. That will create a new industry that would drive the economy. We haven't done anything since the internet and before that it was the transistor, assembly line, and light bulb.

lilyoder6
02-12-2009, 08:15 PM
i said i would of had bush another 4 yrs before i would want obama...

and lookie what is happening... obama is killing any chance reg citizens have at a normal life.. and there children and there children

The Patriot
02-12-2009, 09:12 PM
Come on HTG, don't be so negative. Just look at it as America's 800 billion dollar going away party! :flap:

HometownGal
02-12-2009, 09:19 PM
Come on HTG, don't be so negative. Just look at it as America's 800 billion dollar going away party! :flap:

Nope - not being negative here at all. As I said - I'm not an Ann Coulter groupie, but she's right on the money with most of what she penned.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket, sadly and when all is said and done, there are going to be a LOT of people wearing :egg: on their faces.

As revs' signature sez - "Don't Blame Me - I Voted McCain".

The Patriot
02-12-2009, 09:52 PM
As revs' signature sez - "Don't Blame Me - I Voted McCain".

This election really didn't provide a legitimate solution to this county's economic turmoil. We were going downhill fast and we were given the option to either wait for things to blow over or throw money at it. Obviously America voted for the latter, but either way this country was in for it. We're victims of irresponsible government spending and an unrealistic vision of a prosperous future that developed after WWII. Americans may be about to lose a lot of their 'nice things' but, although an economic depression can take away our pretty possessions, it can't destroy our spirit. I know it sounds poetic, but many of our great grandparents came to this country with nothing and somehow they prospered. If we can't do the same today then America was dead along time ago.

Perhaps good will come from this. Getting irresponsible CEOs out of the stock market and into the factories should teach them how much a million dollars REALLY is.

SteelCityMom
02-12-2009, 10:06 PM
Very good article HTG, and I agree with Coulter on this one. This is one of the reasons I voted Libertarian. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, but I have more issues with Democrats as a whole. Found an article on Ron Pauls website that projected Obamas first 100 days in office to FDRs.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=9

This is looking to be the road that Obama is taking, and nothing good can come from it.

rbryan
02-12-2009, 10:09 PM
This is way too depressing. I think I'd rather go talk about flinging dog poo back into the neighbors yard.

devilsdancefloor
02-12-2009, 10:12 PM
Very good article HTG, and I agree with Coulter on this one. This is one of the reasons I voted Libertarian. I don't agree with Republicans, but I have more issues with Democrats as a whole. Found an article on Ron Pauls website that projected Obamas first 100 days in office to FDRs.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=9

This is looking to be the road that Obama is taking, and nothing good can come from it.

a marxist is a marxist they will do alot of things that are very similar. hell the think it work once why not try again. im not a coulter fan at all, but she is right on or as close as i have seen anyone put it in writing. i think the problem is not republican or democrat any more because at times it is hard to see the difference anymore. they all think we can throw money at it and solve it.

MasterOfPuppets
02-12-2009, 10:36 PM
WAR COSTS IN PERSPECTIVE

With $872.6 billion, the cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, the United States could fund...

...a year's worth of health care for 117 million Americans ($7,439/person)

...one year of public elementary school for 116 million children ($7,500/child)

...four years of public university tuition for 35 million students ($6,185/student)

...145 billion mosquito nets to help stop malaria in the developing world ($6/net)

...4.6 billion laptops to promote literacy in the developing world ($188/laptop)

If you had an expense account that let you spend $1 million dollars per day...

...it would take 2,391 years to spend $872.6 billion, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan so far.

The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan laid out end-to-end in $100 bills...

...would extend 846,157.6 miles or just short of 34 times around the Earth's circumference.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost each American family of four $11,458. and the bill keeps goin up.......:doh: i'm not endorsing obama's plan.....but had 8 years ago the taxpayers been told old GW was gonna get us into a trillion dollar war....what would the responces have been like???

lilyoder6
02-12-2009, 10:40 PM
and the bill keeps goin up.......:doh: i'm not endorsing obama's plan.....but had 8 years ago the taxpayers been told old GW was gonna get us into a trillion dollar war....what would the responces have been like???

after what happened on 9-11???

plz if bush did not react there would of been more att of terriost atks

SteelCityMom
02-12-2009, 10:58 PM
While I agree that Bush did not have much choice other than to do something after 9/11...I don't think waging war on Iraq was necessarily the answer to the problems of terrorism. I understand him going into Afghanistan to seek out Bin Laden and others associated with al-Qaeda, but there was no hard evidence that Hussein and Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks. It was an ill-advised plan from the get go.

An article on Global Exchange clarifies these reasons pretty well, but I think reason #5 says it best:

"5) A Costly Invasion Would Take Resources Away from Much Needed Priorities at Home

This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. And it's a poorly thought out choice, one that will distract from the social problems here at home. It is estimated that any full-scale invasion of Iraq will cost up to $200 billion. During the first Gulf War, allies like Japan covered 80 percent of the cost. This won't happen again, leaving US taxpayers—already facing budget deficits—to pick up the costs. Instead of spending $200 billion on an unnecessary war, we should be investing in our nation's overcrowded schools and failing health care system."

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/invadeIraq082702.html

Obama's solution to this problem is just as bad as the actual problem though, the government spending more money to try to get out of an economic slump is just like throwing water on a gasoline fire. It's going to get out of control very quickly.

tony hipchest
02-12-2009, 11:05 PM
Goodbye, America! It Was Fun While It Lasted

by Ann Coulter


:wave:

its about time she left.

Preacher
02-12-2009, 11:12 PM
:wave:

its about time she left.

about what I expected in a political thread.

devilsdancefloor
02-12-2009, 11:22 PM
This "war" would have been over with if the politicians kept their collective asses out of it! Let the military do its job ... kill things and break things. :thumbsup::drink:

MACH1
02-12-2009, 11:35 PM
Yep..Obama's going to spend and tax his way out of it, he thinks. If you think it's bad now give it six months.

MasterOfPuppets
02-12-2009, 11:39 PM
i just wanna know where, ole annies articles on the bush administrations trillion dollar, economy drain debts are ???

tony hipchest
02-13-2009, 12:13 AM
about what I expected in a political thread.

what you didnt expect was a whole bunch of ann coulter ballwashing, huh? :rolleyes:

HometownGal
02-13-2009, 08:26 AM
i just wanna know where, ole annies articles on the bush administrations trillion dollar, economy drain debts are ???

Bush isn't the Prez any longer and the fubars he made are in the past. It's Obama's turn in the hot seat. As I said in a prior thread - I will support him because he is the President of the country I love with all my heart, but when he screws up, I'm going to call him on it.

This thread is about President Obama, not former President Bush. Let's keep this one on topic, shall we? :wink02:

lilyoder6
02-13-2009, 08:38 AM
i just wanna know where, ole annies articles on the bush administrations trillion dollar, economy drain debts are ???

before we go back on topic... bush did not put a trillion debt in this country, we were alrdy half way to a trillion b4 we entered the war.. bush just got us 2 a trillions.... but bush is not the 1 who is going to add a 2 trillion dollar debt to the 1 trillion we alrdy have.. that would be obama

RunWillieRun
02-13-2009, 08:46 AM
This thread is about President Obama, not former President Bush. Let's keep this one on topic, shall we? :wink02:


:toofunny: Good one, HometownGal!

How are the libs going to respond to any Obama criticism? You know it is impossible for any lib to defend Obama's actions without mentioning Bush.

HometownGal
02-13-2009, 08:55 AM
:toofunny: Good one, HometownGal!

How are the libs going to respond to any Obama criticism? You know it is impossible for any lib to defend Obama's actions without mentioning Bush.

Exactly and that is why I posted what I did. :thumbsup:

Let's get to the meat of Coulter's article instead of running around in circles screaming "but Bush, but Bush, but Bush". :rolleyes:

revefsreleets
02-13-2009, 09:24 AM
Maureen Dowd (and I can't believe I'm going to say this) has been spot on in her lashings of the banking industry and the government bailing it out. She's finally found the perfect foil for her posion to be spewed at.

Can't STAND Coulter, but I'll give her credit when it's due.

MY stimulus plan would have worked. I'd have hired McDonald's to run it, by the way...

Indo
02-13-2009, 11:38 AM
OK. I have to throw in my 2 cents...

I don't want this post to be about why I think Obama sucks :banging: so I will try to stay away from that...his admin keeps trying to blame Bush for what they were handed, but the nonsense goes way back beyond that----at least back to Carter.

I make my living as a Surgeon, so I know a little about what Ms. Coulter is talking about with respect to the Health Care "Reform". I deal with it every day of my life.

First of all, let me start by saying that I think we do need some kind of reform. Health care in these United States is very costly.

But here's the problem:

As Americans we want Two things:
1) we want things RIGHT NOW---we're impatient and we don't want to wait. For anything. We want a beer RIGHTNOW. We want our Steelers season tickets RIGHTNOW and we want our health care RIGHTNOW.
2)we want things to be cheap (or,more accurately, inexpensive----cheap implies "of poor quality"--we certainly don't want things that are of poor quality------that's why all those car manufacturers can't sell a damn car. Their products suck...but instead of letting them "go under" as they should in a Free-Enterprise system, we bail them out because...well, you tell me why).

But I digress...

Back to Health Care.
So-----everybody wants Quality Health Care that's Inexpensive and RIGHT NOW.

Not Possible.
You get one or the other.

RIGHT NOW means someone has to pay for it.
Tests are expensive. Operations are expensive.

Inexpensive Health Care means you have to wait. The funding has to come from somewhere (generally, the Government. Yes. It's Socialized Medicine...but we just don't call it that.)and the funding has to be "approved". NO "approval", no funding. No funding, no operation.

Here's the problem----the person doing the approving is usually someone sitting at a computer screen who can't spell D N A. But they make the decision whether or not your heart surgery or breast cancer surgery is approved based on what the computer tells them. It's based on formulas and what is known as "evidence-based medicine". The kicker is that the "evidence" (research) is sometimes out-of-date. How long do you think it takes for the govt to approve a computer algortihm for medical care? 10 years? 15?

Make no mistake. This govt control of health care is already in effect. It's just gonna get worse. MUCH worse...

Here are two examples:

CMS (which is essentially Medicare/Medicaid) has a rule that if a patient acquires a pneumonia while in the hospital it will not reimburse the hospital for the patient's care related to the pneumonia (antibiotics,etc), so the hospital ends up swallowing the cost. How long do you think hospitals will be able to stay alive with this kind of "forward" health care reform? Do you think it was the hospital's fault that the patient got pneumonia? Or was it the fault of the patient who is, in all likelihood, a heavy smoker? Should the hospital be punished for the patient's decisions that he/she made before admission?

Example 2:

I was planning a colon resection for a patient with colon cancer. As part of the pre-op I ordered a specific intravenous antibiotic for her to receive just prior to the operation. I was told by the hosp. administration that I had to order a different anitbiotic because the CMS (Medicare) guideline was to use the other antibiotic. The antibiotic was inferior to the one I wanted to use (once again, based on research that was done about 10 years ago, the CMS guideline was somewhat out of date).

I used the correct antibiotic (not the one recommended in the "Guidelines"), and of course had to have a meeting about it with the hosp admin. I asked her what she would've wanted me to do if the patient had been her mother. Incredibly, her answer was, "well, there ARE Guidelines", despite the fact that I showed her all of the up-to-date research showing that the Guidelines are wrong!!!

This is what we are ALREADY dealing with, people.

It will get MUCH worse.


So sorry for the long post------I actually edited quite a bit out

Hammer67
02-13-2009, 12:15 PM
This is way too depressing. I think I'd rather go talk about flinging dog poo back into the neighbors yard.

Amen! :chuckle:

SteelCityMan786
02-13-2009, 05:00 PM
:toofunny: Good one, HometownGal!

How are the libs going to respond to any Obama criticism? You know it is impossible for any lib to defend Obama's actions without mentioning Bush.

They drank too much of the Kool-Aid as far as I'm concerned.

All the Obama folks need to stop blaming Bush and realize that there boy is now in office and is the one who has the keys to the car

revefsreleets
02-13-2009, 06:30 PM
Indo, you think more government involvement in healthcare will, be a good thing, or a bad thing?

(I already know the answer, but it will carry a TON more weight coming from you)

MACH1
02-13-2009, 09:05 PM
Where's the KY at, I have a feeling this is gonna hurt.

steelwall
02-13-2009, 09:15 PM
I had a long conversation with a very intelligent man who is the head of the Australian Chamber of commerce here in Guangzhou.

We both agreed this stimulus package is like trying to put a band-aid on an amputated leg.

Our Economic situation has been brought on by a number of things. Bad corperate management, government spending outta control, imigration, the recent spike in oil prices that scared the crap out of everyone, government programs that suck up tax payers money for nothing, consumers living beyond their means, outlandish health care costs...ect...ect...ect

We need to fix these problems individually. It won't happen overnight, and possibly over years, but unless these problems are dealt with this stimulus package is throwing money into a hole...IMO

revefsreleets
02-16-2009, 09:28 AM
The difference between this stimulus plan and the War in Iraq? A true Democratic ally in Iraq could potentially be a multi-trillion dollar asset in the near term. This "stimulus plan" will probably just multiply debt and mire us in a tangled web of beaurocratic mess for the next 20 years, and it will be really difficult to untangle that mess.

Krauth on Iraq, by the by...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/39629837.html

Look! A small miracle in Iraq
By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post


Published on Sunday, Feb 15, 2009

WASHINGTON: Preoccupied as it was poring through Tom Daschle's tax returns, Washington hardly noticed a near-miracle abroad. Iraq held provincial elections. There was no Election Day violence. Security was handled by Iraqi forces with little U.S. involvement. A fabulous bazaar of 14,400 candidates representing 400 parties participated, yielding results highly favorable to both Iraq and the United States.

Iraq moved away from religious sectarianism toward more secular nationalism. ''All the parties that had the words 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost,'' noted Middle East expert Amir Taheri. ''By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained.''

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went from leader of a small Islamic party to leader of the ''State of the Law Party,'' campaigning on security and secular nationalism. He won a smashing victory. His chief rival, a more sectarian and pro-Iranian Shiite religious party, was devastated. Another major Islamic party, the pro-Iranian Sadr faction, went from 11 percent of the vote to 3 percent, losing badly in its stronghold of Baghdad. The Islamic Fadhila party that had dominated Basra was almost wiped out.

The once-dominant Sunni party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the erstwhile insurgency was badly set back. New grass-roots tribal (''Awakening'') and secular Sunni leaders emerged.

All this barely pierced the consciousness of official Washington. After all, it fundamentally contradicts the general establishment/media narrative of Iraq as ''fiasco.''

One leading conservative thinker had concluded as early as 2004 that democracy in Iraq was ''a childish fantasy.'' Another sneered that the 2005 election that brought Maliki to power was ''not an election but a census'' — meaning people voted robotically according to their ethnicity and religious identity. The implication being that these primitives have no conception of democracy, and that trying to build one there is a fool's errand.

What was lacking in all this condescension is what the critics so pride themselves in having — namely, context. What did they expect in the first elections after 30 years of totalitarian rule that destroyed civil society and systematically annihilated any independent or indigenous leadership? The only communal or social ties remaining after Saddam Hussein were those of ethnicity and sect.

But in the intervening years, while the critics washed their hands of Iraq, it began developing the sinews of civil society: a vibrant free press, a plethora of parties, the habits of negotiation and coalition-building. Reflecting these new realities, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani this time purposely and publicly backed no party, strongly signaling a return — contra Iran — to the Iraqi tradition of secular governance.

The big strategic winner here is the United States. The big loser is Iran. The parties Tehran backed are in retreat. The prime minister who staked his career on a strategic cooperation agreement with the United States emerged victorious. Moreover, this realignment from enemy state to emerging democratic ally, unlike Egypt's flip from Soviet to U.S. ally in the 1970s, is not the work of a single autocrat (like Anwar Sadat), but a reflection of national opinion expressed in a democratic election.

This is not to say that these astonishing gains are irreversible. There loom three possible threats: (a) a coup from a rising and relatively clean military disgusted with the corruption of civilian politicians — the familiar post-colonial pattern of the past half-century; (b) a strongman emerging from a democratic system (Maliki?) and then subverting it, following the Russian and Venezuelan models; or (c) the collapse of the current system because of a premature U.S. withdrawal that leads to a collapse of security.

Averting the first two is the job of Iraqis. Averting the third is the job of the U.S. Which is why President Obama's reaction to these remarkable elections, a perfunctory statement noting that they ''should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future,'' was shockingly detached and ungenerous.

When you become president of the United States you inherit its history, even the parts you would have done differently. Obama might argue that American sacrifices in Iraq were not worth what we achieved. But for the purposes of current and future policy, that is entirely moot.

Despite Obama's opposition, America went on to create a small miracle in the heart of the Arab Middle East. President Obama is now the custodian of that miracle. It is his duty as leader of the nation that gave birth to this fledgling democracy to ensure that he does nothing to undermine it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Stlrs4Life
02-17-2009, 10:55 PM
LOL at all these threads, now yas know how we felt for the past 8 years!

MACH1
02-17-2009, 11:49 PM
LOL at all these threads, now yas know how we felt for the past 8 years!

http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2008/09/clown-funeral-small.jpg
See that coffin? Thats the future to come, yours, your children, children's children

Notice the current administration as the pall bearers. :chuckle:

SCSTILLER
02-18-2009, 07:53 AM
And now Obama wants to create a bill for around $50 billion (before pork) for mortgage foreclosures. Now, I am for helping the person who was living in his means, bought a house he could afford, and maybe lost his job and did everything he could to keep it but is out of options.

I am not for helping these people that got ARM's, got into mortgages they could not afford, or were just plain greedy in their buying of the house. When I bought my little condo, the bank actually approved me for $225,000 but when I did my math and budget I knew I could only afford a fixed monthly payment that equalled to $150,000. Now, I am not going to get any help because I was responsible with my finances, but this $50 billion (in my opinion) is going to go to the people who had no right to buy a house/that expensive of a house in the first place.

Basically, we will be printing more money, racking up that debt.

fansince'76
02-18-2009, 08:50 AM
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb136/garyb12001/wahoo6.jpg

Steelcitygal87
02-18-2009, 09:51 AM
And now Obama wants to create a bill for around $50 billion (before pork) for mortgage foreclosures. Now, I am for helping the person who was living in his means, bought a house he could afford, and maybe lost his job and did everything he could to keep it but is out of options.

I am not for helping these people that got ARM's, got into mortgages they could not afford, or were just plain greedy in their buying of the house. When I bought my little condo, the bank actually approved me for $225,000 but when I did my math and budget I knew I could only afford a fixed monthly payment that equalled to $150,000. Now, I am not going to get any help because I was responsible with my finances, but this $50 billion (in my opinion) is going to go to the people who had no right to buy a house/that expensive of a house in the first place.

Basically, we will be printing more money, racking up that debt.

The problem is.......champagne taste on beer income. Too many are trying to live way beyond their means.

Godfather
02-18-2009, 10:03 AM
And now Obama wants to create a bill for around $50 billion (before pork) for mortgage foreclosures. Now, I am for helping the person who was living in his means, bought a house he could afford, and maybe lost his job and did everything he could to keep it but is out of options.

I am not for helping these people that got ARM's, got into mortgages they could not afford, or were just plain greedy in their buying of the house. When I bought my little condo, the bank actually approved me for $225,000 but when I did my math and budget I knew I could only afford a fixed monthly payment that equalled to $150,000. Now, I am not going to get any help because I was responsible with my finances, but this $50 billion (in my opinion) is going to go to the people who had no right to buy a house/that expensive of a house in the first place.

Basically, we will be printing more money, racking up that debt.

I agree with you in principle, but a lot of innocent people are getting shafted by the mortgage meltdown. If a few other people in your condo building go to foreclosure, the value of your condo drops. Then you might get transferred and have to sell at a loss...that's not right either. Plus there's all the people whose retirement funds took a big hit because of the idiotic derivatives Wall Street created.

People who knowingly bought a fancier house than they could afford don't deserve to be bailed out. But if we don't do it, responsible people may end up paying even more than their share of $50 billion in tax dollars.

drizze99
02-18-2009, 10:57 AM
i said i would of had bush another 4 yrs before i would want obama...

and lookie what is happening... obama is killing any chance reg citizens have at a normal life.. and there children and there children


WTF? Its people like you that drive me insane. Bush is the jackass that did this us and you want another 4 years of this shit?

I can't wait to see what you idiots say when Obama turns everything around. Its not going to happen overnight. I find it so funny that the right wingers are so far up Obama's ass with criticism and they are the idiots that put here in the first place.

Some of you are jokes really.... you get all pissy and bent out shape when I talk about how much I hate B.A. and how bad he sucks as a O.C. but feel its perfectly fine to talk smack about our president who I might add has ONLY been in office for ONE EFFIN month.

At least Brucey has a 3 year history I can pick on....

revefsreleets
02-18-2009, 11:01 AM
This housing bubble started in the early 90's under Clinton. He oipened up credit so he could "pad his stats" and create a legacy of increased homeownership. Bush was not a great steward and let it continue, but he DID at least a address it a few years ago.

Blaming Bush for the housing bubble is wrong. It was a completely bipartisan eff up, and it was 15 years in the making...

HometownGal
02-18-2009, 11:25 AM
WTF? Its people like you that drive me insane. Bush is the jackass that did this us and you want another 4 years of this shit?

I can't wait to see what you idiots say when Obama turns everything around. Its not going to happen overnight. I find it so funny that the right wingers are so far up Obama's ass with criticism and they are the idiots that put here in the first place.

Some of you are jokes really.... you get all pissy and bent out shape when I talk about how much I hate B.A. and how bad he sucks as a O.C. but feel its perfectly fine to talk smack about our president who I might add has ONLY been in office for ONE EFFIN month.

At least Brucey has a 3 year history I can pick on....

Hey drizze - no need for name-calling here, so please cease with it, k?

As revs so clearly points out, Bush is NOT the one "who did this to us". The dye was cast under Clinton's watch and snowballed from there for a variety of reasons that have already been stated in this thread and numerous others. I'm not saying Bush is without fault - I'm simply saying that the economy being where it is at this point in time doesn't ALL fall on GWB's shoulders.

Hey - you aren't pleased with BA and some of us aren't pleased with Obama - it's the way the cookie crumbles. At least BA's playcalls aren't going to adversely affect future generations, namely our grandkids and their children, like this brainstorm of the Dems and Obama is most surely going to do. I don't like the fact that my grandchildren are going to be saddled paying back an enormous debt (smothered in so much pork that the pig can't see its snout) that irresponsible and selfish people a generation or two before them caused.

Godfather
02-18-2009, 11:51 AM
At least BA's playcalls aren't going to adversely affect future generations, namely our grandkids and their children, like this brainstorm of the Dems and Obama is most surely going to do.

BA's sucky offensive calls keep Ben from getting the respect he deserves. That in turn teaches our children not to take risks and will create a future America that always plays it safe. That will be a dark day because America's greatness came from taking chances. BA must be fired!!!!!!!!!! :sofunny::sofunny:

HometownGal
02-18-2009, 11:56 AM
BA's sucky offensive calls keep Ben from getting the respect he deserves. That in turn teaches our children not to take risks and will create a future America that always plays it safe. That will be a dark day because America's greatness came from taking chances. BA must be fired!!!!!!!!!! :sofunny::sofunny:

:chuckle: :buttkick:

Smart azz. :flap:

drizze99
02-18-2009, 12:02 PM
HTG - I'm not going to say Clinton was perfect but he handed over the country to DUBYA in the green. DUBYA is by far the worst president this country has ever had and yes I put a majority of the blame on him and Dick. They were in it together for themselves and screwed the middle class.

revefsreleets
02-18-2009, 12:39 PM
There was a recession that started two months after Bush took office.

Now you aren't gonna REALLY blame Bush for that, are you?

Fact is, the bubble burst and Clinton got out just in time. Bush just happened to be the guy in office when it hit...

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2009, 01:02 PM
WTF? Its people like you that drive me insane. Bush is the jackass that did this us and you want another 4 years of this shit?

I can't wait to see what you idiots say when Obama turns everything around. Its not going to happen overnight. I find it so funny that the right wingers are so far up Obama's ass with criticism and they are the idiots that put here in the first place.

Some of you are jokes really.... you get all pissy and bent out shape when I talk about how much I hate B.A. and how bad he sucks as a O.C. but feel its perfectly fine to talk smack about our president who I might add has ONLY been in office for ONE EFFIN month.

At least Brucey has a 3 year history I can pick on....

Awww...someone is cranky this morning.

Fact, In 2005 there were hearings in front of the Dem controlled committee in regards to the accounting problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Instead of actually doing something, the Dems turned around and basically called the people questioning the accounting problems racists. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/video-democrats-insist-nothing-wrong-at-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2004/

That is a FACT. Dems could have done something to prevent the entire collapse of the housing market which in turn lead to the economic mess we are in now. Instead, what did they do? Ignored the problem. Why? Some would suggest, so they had an issue to run on in 08 in order to get the GOP out of the Congress.

Now, when you stop drinking up the "Hope and Change" Koolaid and grow up into a real adult, let me know and we can discuss other things wrong with the Amateur Hour taking place in our White House. Besides the Tax Cheats, and the Pay to Play politics and the Admins reversal on Durbin, there are plenty more Wrong with this current Administration, its line of thinking and its goals for this country.

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2009, 01:05 PM
HTG - I'm not going to say Clinton was perfect but he handed over the country to DUBYA in the green. DUBYA is by far the worst president this country has ever had and yes I put a majority of the blame on him and Dick. They were in it together for themselves and screwed the middle class.

Some would argue that Clinton wasn't responsible for any economic growth in the 90s.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm

Godfather
02-18-2009, 01:11 PM
Awww...someone is cranky this morning.

Fact, In 2005 there were hearings in front of the Dem controlled committee in regards to the accounting problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Instead of actually doing something, the Dems turned around and basically called the people questioning the accounting problems racists. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/video-democrats-insist-nothing-wrong-at-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2004/

That is a FACT. Dems could have done something to prevent the entire collapse of the housing market which in turn lead to the economic mess we are in now. Instead, what did they do? Ignored the problem. Why? Some would suggest, so they had an issue to run on in 08 in order to get the GOP out of the Congress.

Now, when you stop drinking up the "Hope and Change" Koolaid and grow up into a real adult, let me know and we can discuss other things wrong with the Amateur Hour taking place in our White House. Besides the Tax Cheats, and the Pay to Play politics and the Admins reversal on Durbin, there are plenty more Wrong with this current Administration, its line of thinking and its goals for this country.

Not exactly.

1) The Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and therefore the committees, in 2005. Amazing how the party of personal responsibility can't even accept responsibility for things that happen when they control the Presidency and Congress.

2) The collapse of the housing market was inevitable. Housing was grossly overpriced, especially in California, Nevada and Florida. There inevitably had to be a correction.

3) There have been housing crashes before. The difference this time is derivatives caused the problem to spill over into the rest of the economy.

4) Bush didn't think anything needed to be done. Cheney even defended the Bush Administration on the grounds that nobody could have foreseen the economic meltdown, even though John McCain and Ron Paul both warned about it years in advance.

Face it, the Republicans get plenty of blame. (And since Obama and Bush have had the same position on all these issues since 2005, Obama doesn't deserve any slack for inheriting a crappy economy.)

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2009, 01:17 PM
Here you go Godfather

Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html


Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Godfather
02-18-2009, 01:21 PM
Some would argue that Clinton wasn't responsible for any economic growth in the 90s.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm

You linked to Communist Dreams??

Balancing the budget had a lot of benefits. And the GOP Congress gets to share the credit, just so nobody calls me a partisan hack.

One reason for the boom of the 1990s is that when Clinton first took office it looked like deficits would never be brought under control, thus undermining confidence in our long-term economic prospects. We managed to balance the budget and were poised to pay off the national debt by 2010, which would have defused the Social Security/Medicare time bomb.

Businesses benefited from the revolution in communications which the Clinton administration actively supported. Being able to communicate and transfer documents electronically is HUGE. It saves businesses a fortune on mailing and telephone costs, and that money can be redirected into improving goods and services elsewhere.

That's a couple of points Commie Dreams is missing.

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2009, 01:25 PM
I link whatever I happen to find man, I read all sides of all issues on every website possible. I've heard others say that the budget the GOP forced down Clinton's throat that included the welfare reform that commondreams rallies against is what helped balance the budget and put the country into the green.

Also, adding Social Security to the common fund helped balance the sheets. And gutting the military, that had part of it too.

But the biggest contributor was the Dot Com boom. Google, Yahoo, all those other Dot.coms, MSN, AOL, any wireless services,cell phones exploded, lots of jobs from all of that Technology.

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2009, 01:27 PM
Now as for the "Goodbye America" comment that starts this thread...here is my point of view.

No matter what the Federal Government tries to do, eventually, it will go to far and the Courts will squash it. The People won't allow it to go too far.

the Bill of Rights will be upheld at all times. Even if it means people Rally on the Washington mall and call for "re-call" or "no cofidence" or even "impeachment" eventually the People will keep this country Free, Economically Sound and the Greatest Nation on the Planet.

SteelTalons
02-18-2009, 01:31 PM
Nope - not being negative here at all. As I said - I'm not an Ann Coulter groupie, but she's right on the money with most of what she penned.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket, sadly and when all is said and done, there are going to be a LOT of people wearing :egg: on their faces.

As revs' signature sez - "Don't Blame Me - I Voted McCain".

I doubt McCain was going to fix it ether... Basically we were heading toward this day regardless of who was elected it just comes sooner now that Obama is in. Well comrades I guess we will have to learn to love Mother America... That or completely abolish it. Which might be sooner than any expect.

The Economy is gone. And yet they want to put in place socialism(which leads to communism)... The end result is a bankrupt country and when the government runs out of money the reconstruction can begin because with out money the devils cant keep control.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b344/jediryan22/Obama-Communism.jpg

Godfather
02-18-2009, 01:31 PM
Here you go Godfather

Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html


Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

If they really wanted to pass the reforms they could have. They even could have claimed their intent was to slow down the housing bubble and pointed to the fact that housing prices were getting too far ahead of wages. It's not fair to working people to have to take on ever more exotic mortgages just to put a roof over their heads, etc.

Unfortunately they were a cross between the Scarecrow and the Lion--no brains and no courage. If the GOP didn't have the balls to fight when they were in charge, they're useless and there's no point in giving them control.

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2009, 01:33 PM
If they really wanted to pass the reforms they could have. They even could have claimed their intent was to slow down the housing bubble and pointed to the fact that housing prices were getting too far ahead of wages. It's not fair to working people to have to take on ever more exotic mortgages just to put a roof over their heads, etc.

Unfortunately they were a cross between the Scarecrow and the Lion--no brains and no courage. If the GOP didn't have the balls to fight when they were in charge, they're useless and there's no point in giving them control.

So give the Power to the Witch and let her Run Oz?

Cause that's what's happening now my friend.

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2009, 01:37 PM
By the way, great site for pictures of the ANTI-PORK bill that Obama signed yesterday in Colorado...

yes, there was a protest against it.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/02/no-to-obamas-pork/

Indo
02-18-2009, 01:37 PM
Indo, you think more government involvement in healthcare will, be a good thing, or a bad thing?

(I already know the answer, but it will carry a TON more weight coming from you)


Sleestak Dude-------you know the answer....govt involvement in healthcare will be a VERY BAD THING. Just ask all of the Canadians (who "enjoy" Govt-run healthcare why they "cross the border" into the US to get their care).

I can hear it now...some of you are thinking, "well, what about the citizens that can't afford private health insurance?" .
Here is my answer:
The VAST MAJORITY of people who don't have health insurance don't have health insurance because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE IT
(read that again...)

People decide what they want to spend their $$$ on. Period.
Some choose to spend some of their money on healthcare because one of the truths in life is that your health will eventually become an issue. Everybody gets sick. Everybody dies. (the other truth in life is that you WILL pay taxes!) People just decide to gamble on when "EVENTUALLY" will arrive. Some think that they are young and that their health will be good for many years to come (then they drink and drive and get into an accident and their good health comes to an abrupt halt).

Some people choose to spend their money on other things instead of health insurance....like...cigarettes, for example. How much are they a pack? Around $5?
Figure on a person who chooses to spend his/her money on cigarettes instead of health insurance. Let's assume that person smokes 1 pack per day at $5/pack X 365 days a year = nearly $2000/year for cigarettes. I think you could probably get some decent healthcare insurance for that kind of money. (and do wonders to improve your health by quitting smoking!).
I'm not trying to get on the "quit smoking" soapbox---just trying to illustrate a point that people choose to not have insurance...why should the rest of us pay for it (thru increased taxes) so that the govt can tell us exactly what doctors we are allowed to see; exactly which antibiotics those docs can prescribe; exactly which operations will be approved and when you can have them....etc,etc. I have a Real Problem with all of this...

Oh, by the way, the economic meltdown is NOT the fault of Bush...it goes back to Carter's admin which made it Law that banks had to offer mortgages for sub-prime interest rates in order to "stimulate" the economy. It served to help people live way beyond their means so that they eventually would default on those loans. The Clintons perpetuated it. The Bush admin tried to stop it, but the attempt was blocked by the Dems in Congress. Bush was handed the problem. He tried to fix it. Now Obama gets to whine and blame it on Bush, when it was a Dem thing as far back as Carter. I will try to find the link that references all of this....

Oh....and the Bengals STILL suck :tt02:

Godfather
02-18-2009, 02:00 PM
So give the Power to the Witch and let her Run Oz?

Cause that's what's happening now my friend.

Well, that's certainly a disaster. But sadly, given Hastert's record I don't expect any better from the GOP.

Let's not forget that the GOP Congress created the biggest entitlement program in 40 years, added about $4T to the national debt, and was guilty of its own bailouts which signaled executives everywhere that irresponsible management would be rewarded.

Too bad my candidate (Badnarik) didn't win in 2004 :flap: