by Tina Grazier
Our President made another appearance on Letterman’s show last night and made an ass of himself stating the debt was not a problem in the short term and amazingly that he couldn’t remember what the debt was when he took office even though he called the debt “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible” while campaigning against McCain (Bush) in the ’08 election.
Letterman put in his typical ignorant performance and asked, “Here’s what I found troubling [at the Republicans’ convention]…They had the clock, the debt countdown clock and, I mean, this thing is going like crazy and it’s several trillion dollars. Now, what is that?”
What is that? Does he believe the Republicans were demonstrating something inappropriate or inaccurate?
The set up is Obama’s chance to blame someone else (once again refuse to take responsibility for the past four years of trillion dollar debt increases):
Do you suppose the media will even mention this irresponsible and unpatriotic attitude? So far the Washington Post, Huffington Post, PJ Media, Real Clear Politics, and FOX News are reporting…but I see none of the outrage expressed yesterday when Mitt Romney acknowledged that nearly half of our nation will vote for Obama.
The President not only flip flopped on his debt position, “unpatriotic”, “irresponsible”, he also demonstrated a total lack of concern for every single citizen of this nation now and into the unforeseeable future! What a putz!
The debt clock hit sixteen trillion on the first day of the Democrat national convention.
The debt clock now stands at $16,040,211,000,000…and rising fast. Follow the link and check it out…every moment it goes up in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Another rating agency has recently warned of another downgrade for the United States, see here and here. America has never been downgraded in all of the years before Obama took the helm. The United State of America has “plummeted” to number 18 in the World Economic Freedom ranking:
…the United States, once a “standard bearer” of economic liberty among industrial nations, spiralled 10 spots from the 2011 rankings to 18th place — its lowest position ever, and a huge drop from its second place spot in 2000.
Our debt may not be a big deal to the President but it is a very big deal in terms of the people of the United States of America. Every one of President Obama’s budget proposals have been a trillion dollars. At the rate this man’s spending occurs (addition of Obamacare just one concern) in order to look like a hero to the little guy (free contraception for every woman) the American worker is increasingly unable to produce enough to meet our obligations, see here and here.
The future belongs to our children. What future do you want them to have?
There are two options in this election and for many elections to come:
THE DEMOCRAT VISION: High taxes on business and the rich and redistribution of that wealth by big government bureaucracies that decide who gets what and how much regardless the amount of debt it imposes on future generations or the ability of workers to produce.
THE REPUBLICAN VISION: Low taxes for everyone spurring economic growth in the private sector to create opportunity in the work force, opportunity to save for the future, and opportunity to give to others as we can. Low taxes to increase the tax base and increase revenue flowing to government so that a sustainable path can be created in the nations budget.
The President has demonstrated that he has no sense of fiscal responsibility whatsoever. He confirms it by shrugging off debt as long as he can blame others without being called on it and without being held accountable.
Choose wisely in November America! We can’t take four more years with a popular boob in the White House.
Tina, we can read a graph: from 6 to 12 trillion during who’s eight year term? And for what? Two wars of dubious efficacy, with all the attendant misery and death. Whoopee.
Then we have two years, and another 4 trillion, in a valiant attempt to stave off economic ruin. We could stop the climb, if we could get that top tax rate back to 91 percent, but the House is full of morons, and poor Mr. Obama is not miracle worker.
I hope, I hope, I hope … that Ms. Bachmann loses her job in November. That would be progressive!
Nice try Libby. You conveniently leave out a number of important factors:
Bush inherited a recession from Bill Clinton due to the dot.com bubble. That was quickly followed by 911 which hit Wall Street in the heart and Katrina which hit an already reeling America in the heart and soul. All of it meant devastating personal and financial loss and required a lot of money and effort to repair. Bush took charge and with hands on clarity and commitment addressed each problem. He lowered taxes for everyone to jump start the economy. The result was an increase in productivity in the private sector and greater revenues flowing to government. Letter from CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-taxrevenues.pdf
Lowering taxes kept people working and earning and increased the revenue flowing to government. Republicans in congress did spend to pay for the war, Katrina, and the rising cost of entitlement programs. Our debt to GDP ratio remained in the same range as previous presidents budgets (18-19 percent range) After a sharp spending spike republicans budgets were lowering the debt before they were booted out of congress.
Both republicans and democrats expressed anger over spending and rewarded Bush by shifting control of Congress to the Democrats in 2006. How did the newly elected democrats respond to the outrage expressed by both republican and democrat voters? They spent more… A LOT MORE…and Bush, having been spanked by the electorate went right along with it. this allowed the democrats to blame Bush. It made Bush the perfect patsy for Obama to rail against and blame. Four years later he is still using that as an excuse for his own incredible trillion dollar budget proposals and spending:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
From Oct 1, 2009 to Sept 18, 2012 the debt moved from $11.920 trillion dollars to $16.021 trillion dollars.
Obama kept the Bush tax cuts but worked with the strong majority democrat controlled congress to add another entitlement program, Obamacare, with big new bureaucratic costs. He chose to spend and print money to address the recession from the housing bubble and banking crisis. He has advocated raising taxes on the rich because his spending has not resulted in jobs or recovery in the economy. Business doesn’t respond well to threats of higher taxes and unemployment remains high. The debt to GDP ratio is high and on target to skyrocket:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
Barack Obama has been the “worst steward of the economy” of any President on record:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_worst_steward_of_the_economy_in_american_history.html
“For every $1.00 added to the economy, Obama added $3.00 in debt.” Read it and weep, Libby.
it ain’t working no matter which way you slice it.
Socialist redistribution policies don’t work. They punish job creators and wealth builders and spend us into massive debt. Bernanke is artificially keeping interest rates low allowing the illusion of low inflation. Prices at the grocery store show the lie.
Poor Mr. Obama is an economic moron! 91% tax rates would cause a total collapse of our economy and the people you pretend to care about would be hurt the most.
Your ignorance on this subject is unbecoming a woman with the benefit of a college education…or was that the problem!
Tina, you need to look at the graph again. The 90s are right leveled off, after another stupendous leap, from 1 to 5 trillion commencing in 80, when Reagan took office and on thru Bush I.
“Tax and spend” is really just the right way to go. You do 12 years of “not tax and spend anyway” and you get one right, big, fat mess.
You need to get some glasses. the nineties are a picture of steady increase until 95 after the Republicans took control mof the House and Clinton decalred, “the era of big government is over”. Had he and Hillary prevailed with Hillary care his record would have looked more like Obummers.
About the time my parents generation applied for Medicare 80-85 the chart starts a steady increase.
Reagan got tax cuts that improved the economy and allowed people to keep more of what they earned…his legislature was still controlled by big spending Tip O’Neill who promised $3.00 in cuts for every dollar in raised taxes…Tip lied! The Reagan strong economy meant that the debt was still manageable (Like a house and car payment for someone who works). Obama has us on maxed out credit cards on top of those payments and he’s added promissory notes that will kick in well into the future and printed money making the value of the dollar slide. Because his economy hasn’t recovered debt to GDP is way too high.
We aren’t in a mess because of tax policy…we are in a mess because of years of socialist programs that cannot be sustained, pork spending and losy management of the peoples money!
A good many of us are tired of it.
“Reagan got tax cuts that improved the economy and allowed people to keep more of what they earned….”
… but did not reduce spending, which acccounted for the first big leap … 1 to 5 trillion.
“Republicans took control mof the House and Clinton decalred, “the era of big government is over”.
Whatever. The fact is he brought spending into line with revenue, and then you handed the keys to the Shrub … and we were off again.
There was nothing “socialist” about Reagan through Bush I, or the reign of Bush II … during which the bulk of the deficit accumulated. The graph don’t lie … twist it how you may. And now you can explain this to us.
Read the wisdom of economist Dr. Thomas Sowell:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/091912-626275-obama-redistribution-fallacy-has-grave-consequences.htm
Tina, I’ve read through the comments, and I still don’t understand how you explain away the fact that the debt grew over six trillion under President Bush, and only 4 trillion under President Obama.
Chris I have not “explained away” six trillion under Bush. I complained about the spending under Bush and I was greatly disappointed that he wasn’t able to work on , for instance, social security reform and other economic issues because when we were attacked on 911 he became a war president. I was also defensive because Bush was widely criticized (form everything) by a leftist press, and by people like you, for an economy that was, if lackluster, was still strong even with so many disastrous events.
At the same time Bush’s economy after the recession, 911, the war, and Katrina and other natural disasters was still within the (for wont of a better word) normal range of debt to GDP. Also that is five trillion (not six according to my source) over eight years while Obama’s debt has accrued in less than four with future debt assured under a new entitlement program and the boomers retiring, a lousy economy with unemployment over 8% (real figure somewhere in the 15%-25% range), and a debt to GDP ratio that according to Forbes (see below) hit 101.5% in 2011.
The Forbes article explains how Canada is recovering and better off than we are due to conservative policy. You might also find the Commentary article of interest.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/07/24/what-president-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-canada/
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/20/obamas-debt-more-than-bush/
The healthcare law is going to impact the budget much more in the out years as it is fully implemented. Today on FOX Business they reported that CBO underestimated federal payments in the healthcare law by $50 billion. PJ Media explains:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/09/cbo-underestimated-obamacares-cost-by-as-much-as-50-billion-per-year/
FOX Business also reported that although the President promised no tax hikes for those making less than $200-250 the mandate will hit 6 million people in that category at a cost of $1200 a year…that’s a significant tax hike.
We know what works. We have examples from our own history and from examples in history from all across the world and we are doing the exact opposite of what works. It’s a travesty! Incredibly almost half of the electorate is clueless. I blame our educational system and ‘biased reporting over decades by a media that has lost its way.
Does any of that make it easier for you to understand my position…and my frustration?
Libby: “Whatever. The fact is he brought spending into line with revenue, and then you handed the keys to the Shrub … and we were off again.”
Your sense of history is warped. Bush managed to keep our economy strong and bring us out of Clinton’s recession, the 911 hit on Wall Street, and devastating natural disasters. the Housing bubble seeds were planted by Democrats…greedy democrats running feel good campaign gigs to help low income people buy houses and greedy investors who joined them in the cash cow they created.
“And now you can explain this to us.”
Most of the debt is due to growing entitlement spending:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/05/news/economy/national_debt_spending/index.htm
Which is why republicans have been trying, since Reagan, to reform the programs. Democrats have fought them all the way!
We need a strong broad tax base but we also need to reform the systems by introducing free market principles, cutting waste and abuse, and giving the individual more control
Tina, Mr. Sowell’s propaganda notwithstanding, nobody’s talkin’ about confiscating anything.
This is what we’re talking about, hypothetically: your gross earned income for 2012 is 250k. You hand 100k over to your favorite venture capitalists and, alas, they lose it all. You pay the same 18 percent that I do, on the remaining 150k.
This is all we’re talking about.
And I would speculate that your candidate has never … ever … done this. If he were a strong and competent candidate, he would have handed his returns over to some wildly competent tax policy wonks to construct a detailed defense of same … and then released them. But he didn’t. And we all know why … because they are indefensible.
You just called a highly educated and respected BLACK economist a propagandist because his perspective doesn’t fit your narrow simplistic explanation for the impact this rate will have on the economy and small business. percent of them are not wealthy. I could call you a racist but that would be dumb.
You are hopelessly ignorant and closed minded; impossible to educate.
Your cynical, snide, hateful opinion of Romney’s reasoning also has no basis!
He turned over all material having to do with his records that the law requires of him. His experience, abilities and achievement are a matter of public record and this is much more important for voters than are the private records that our federal government has accepted as accurate reporting. Your demand is nothing more than partisan SNOOPING!
Meanwhile, the President has been propped up as brilliant by a fawning, cheer leading press while his school and college grades and records remain hidden…locked away. He has gotten zero political blow back for his secretive past from media. His grades and records would legitimize this so-called brilliance (unless they don’t) and give him and the press real bragging rights and cred. What he is hiding? What are they afraid it would reveal? This information is more to the point since it relates to whether or not he is up for the position he holds. Keeping it secret makes him highly suspect because he has no record of achievement and little record to qualify him for the position he holds. the people were sold a pig in a poke.
“Your cynical, snide, hateful opinion of Romney’s reasoning also has no basis!” (All right, maybe a little snide.)
On the contrary, it’s based on a precedent set by Romney’s father. Junior’s unwillingness to match his father’s or his opponent’s candor invites all manner of spectulation, little of it favorable to his competence, his integrity or his candidacy.
And all this confabulation about Obama, trying to make out that he’s some sort of “affirmative action” President, well, I would have to say that his job performance to date, as constitutional lawyer, Senator and President, not to mention author and all-around-citizen, would prove that any affirmative action has been damned successful. We should do more of it!
Romney’s father didn’t have to run against his opponent AND a media that is in the tank for his opponent.
Obama gets a pass on his terrible economy, his horrible record on unemployment, the massive debt he’s added, the war, the screw up in Libya with our ambassador having less security than the presidents aid, Valerie Jarret, get when on vacation. He has gotten a pass on the Fast and Furious scandal, the leaked name of the doctor that helped us get bin Laden, who is now in prison (and was probably tortured). He has gotten a pass for a ton of wasteful spending (he laughingly calls it investment) for people who gave him big donations:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/31/obama-energy-officials-funded-solar-firms-despite-junk-bond-ratings-from-sp-fitch/
If Obama were George Bush he would be tarred and feathered and dumped in a pit by now over this stuff. Instead he is riding high on a red carpet ride courtesy of an unprincipled, duplicitous, media.
You either buy this crap or you are as phony and hypocritical as they are.
I’m going with phony.
“You just called a highly educated and respected BLACK economist a propagandist”
I am not sure why the word “black” is in caps lock. Are you saying that Thomas Sowell should not be criticized because of his race?
“Romney’s father didn’t have to run against his opponent AND a media that is in the tank for his opponent.”
Even granting this premise, that’s no excuse for Romney not turning over as much of his tax returns as his father, and every other major presidential candidate for the past few decades. “The media will use it to make me look bad” is no excuse, because that means that there is something in there to make him look bad.
“I could call you a racist but that would be dumb.”
…Honestly, when has that ever stopped you?
Chris: “Are you saying that Thomas Sowell should not be criticized because of his race?”
Mocking: Nobody would do that, would they? Not anyone who posts here.
Nobody would vote for a man because of his race either! Nor would they refuse to criticize a man because of his race…or accuse others of racism when they criticize a black man. No…I wouldn’t do that but I would return a favor to make a point.
“that’s no excuse for Romney not turning over as much of his tax returns as his father, and every other major presidential candidate”
Too bad.
I suspect that those who are bothered by it aren’t going to vote for him anyway.
“Honestly, when has that ever stopped you?”
Honestly?
Like when?
“If Obama were George Bush he would be tarred and feathered and dumped in a pit by now over this stuff.”
Alas, none of this compares to the 3 trillion evaporated under the stewardship of Halliburton and associated contractors of the Iraq debacle. But you go ahead and take another shot. (And the Shrub will roast.)
Tina: “Mocking: Nobody would do that, would they? Not anyone who posts here.
Nobody would vote for a man because of his race either! Nor would they refuse to criticize a man because of his race…or accuse others of racism when they criticize a black man.”
I don’t know why this is “mocking,” because you’re right. I have never called anyone here racist simply for criticizing President Obama. I have criticized Obama here myself, as has Libby, if I recall. I have pointed out that certain lines of attack against Obama ARE racist–for example, birtherism, Dinesh D’Souza’s “Kenyan anti-colonialist” mumbo jumbo, some of Rush’s ranting, etc. But I have not called anyone racist simply for criticizing Obama.
Also, it doesn’t help that when prominent Republicans do say blatantly racist things, you defend them and refuse to admit what they said was racist, then try to paint those who criticize them as the *real* bullies. For example, when Ann Coulter said that Arab-Americans should take magic carpets instead of flying by plane like normal people do, and then followed up by telling a 17-year-old girl–to her face–to take a camel, you not only defended Coulter, you tried to make the girl out to be the bully in the situation!
And yet you think pointing out that Thomas Sowell is “BLACK” makes any point that is favorable to you?
“I suspect that those who are bothered by it aren’t going to vote for him anyway.”
If you had any sense of consistency at all, it would bother you. You have spent the past four years harping on Obama’s college records from decades ago. Now, in a desperate bid to not look like a gigantic hypocrite, you make the ludicrous case that college grades are more relevant to the election than tax returns. That is laughable. One of the primary issues in this election is taxation, specifically on wealthy earners. We need to see how Romney has benefited from our unequal taxation system, because that is relevant to what he is likely to advocate for as president.
“Honestly?
Like when?”
Other than what I’ve already gone through here? Where would you like to start?
How about your defense of Dr. Jill Vecchio, who lied about the healthcare law’s impact on mammograms? She falsely claimed that under the law, she would be fined and could even be arrested simply for recommending mammograms to women under 50. You said she was right, even though there was no basis for this claim, and even though I showed you that the law actually pays for women to have mammograms as early as 40 years old–meaning Vecchio’s claim couldn’t possibly be correct. Still you refused to admit she was wrong. Would you like to do so now? Or is it just so important to you that she said something bad about Obama and the healthcare law, that you don’t care whether it is actually true or not?
Libby not only are you full of **it you are delusional if you think the administration of George Bush was as rife with corruption and wasteful spending as the Obama administration. Obama has continued the use of Halliburton:
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/05/remember-when-halliburton-was-a-dirty-word-obama-admin-gives-no-bid-contract-to-halliburton/
I told you before they are the only contractor with the capability to do this kind of work; with the resources to do this kind of work…continuing…
Obama has presided over the near total destruction of the US economy having failed to bring us out of recession which means our citizens continue in their plight of worsening losses in personal wealth. He has presided over the exteme increase and growth of people now living in poverty.
In fact he is the epitome of everything the Democrat Party stands for and all of it has brought us to this disastrous mess
Look at the evidence:
1. Creation of the entitlement society…all democrat sponsored social programs unsustainable and causing generational welfare and inflated pricing and shortages in healthcare…soon to get much worse with the passage of Obamacare.
2. The creation and expansion of a housing scheme forcing lenders to give housing loans to “folks” that couldn’t really qualify or meet the payments through intimidation of banks and stupid lending regulation.
3. Influence in the educational system with the result that our children are less educated and prepared for adulthood with many of them unfit for even menial labor and even more in the black and Hispanic community disproportionately jailed.
4. A general dismissal of traditional religion and morals and embrace of pop culture as elements for young people to admire and emulate and an open disdain for serious traditional study and wisdom of elders.
5. Influence in the courts that uphold socialist thinking behind laws over the constitutional principles of our republic. Undermining of the republic in favor of democracy (mob rule).
6. Pushing the pretense of security in the collective and the free lunch as a virtuous model over self-reliance and personal responsibility for both security and community contribution.
As we move beyond the entitlement mentality of the last century historians will write about the dog doo policies that nearly brought down the greates nation the earth had ever witnessed.
Oh, and by the way …
(I don’t know why I bother, but ….)
Tina: “You just called a highly educated and respected BLACK economist a propagandist.”
As propaganidists come in all the colors, I fail to take your point. Unless, you mean that his color determines the nature of the propaganda. If his opinions are his own and validated merely by his human right to have them, why do you bring up his race … at all? Unless, it’s you who are affected by the fact of his race … making you the racist.
It’s not an easy concept, I grant you, but you gotta work on it.
As far as I’m concerned, he’s a conservative propaganda spewer, misrepresenting other people’ political positions to advance his own, and that’s the beginning and the end of that.
“Obama has presided over the near total destruction of the US economy.”
Hardly. Especially irritating has been the been the rise of the stock market to nearly bubble levels, 12000-something … making whole again all those affluent boogers sobbing over the market at 7000 in 2009.
And if you are wondering why all this restored wealth has not manifested in jobs, well, you will have to go ask the privateers.
Libby if I criticize a black leftist, even the black (half black) president, you call me racist no matter what the subject. I was merely suggesting that returning the favor was one option open to me and then acknowledging the stupidity of it. That you took it seriously says a lot about your own prejudices.
Let’s see, if our roles were reversed you would now say something like, “Stinks don’t it” and then you’d make some other dismissive remark without addressing the ridiculous charge at all.
Re. Dr. Sowell, you are entitled to your opinion and that’s about all there is to say about the merits of your opinion.
“Especially irritating has been the been the rise of the stock market to nearly bubble levels, 12000-something … making whole again all those affluent boogers sobbing over the market at 7000 in 2009.”
It was 1300+ last time I looked and I hate to tell you dearie but Obama built that.
The market has been kept high with only a few big investors and very shallow trading. It’s like an illusion to make us think things are A-OK.
I understand that Warren Buffet, George Soros, and some other billionaire investor just took their money OUT of big US stocks:
MONEY NEWS: http://www.moneynews.com/Outbrain/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=FE8A-1
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of disappointing performance in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffetts holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in consumer product stocks by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffetts apparent lack of faith in these companies future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isnt alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulsons hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
Some predict a 90% correction and a depression no matter who gets elected. I pray the QE spending spree hasn’t killed this country off. The entire world had better hope that this, the last best hope, hasn’t been brought to her knees. Obama’s transformation is nothing more than socialist poison. Can this patient be cured?
We have hell of a lot better chance with Romney and the republicans, democrats, and independents that still believe in freedom and free markets.
Reading Tina’s six-point list about how Obama and the Democrats are ushering in a New World Order of secular communism is like peering into a window to an alternate universe. It just bears no resemblance to reality as most people experience it.
“Look at the evidence:
1. Creation of the entitlement society…all democrat sponsored social programs unsustainable and causing generational welfare and inflated pricing and shortages in healthcare…soon to get much worse with the passage of Obamacare.”
As I’ve said before, welfare programs don’t cause generational welfare. The lack of decent jobs does that. Other countries with stronger welfare programs, such as Sweden and Denmark, have greater social mobility than the U.S. currently does. More people are “moving on up” in those countries right now than people in America. In other words, the American Dream has migrated across the pond. Getting rid of welfare will simply take away support for those who are trying to achieve their American Dream.
“2. The creation and expansion of a housing scheme forcing lenders to give housing loans to “folks” that couldn’t really qualify or meet the payments through intimidation of banks and stupid lending regulation.”
As has been proven to you dozens of times, the global housing crisis was not caused by government regulation in the U.S. Those regulations did not apply to most of the firms responsible for subprime loans. In fact, only 1 of the top 25 subprime lenders was subject to regulations such as the CRA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/barney-frank-didnt-cause-the-housing-crisis/2011/11/28/gIQANqLH5N_blog.html
“3. Influence in the educational system with the result that our children are less educated and prepared for adulthood with many of them unfit for even menial labor and even more in the black and Hispanic community disproportionately jailed.”
There are too many factors involved in this to even get into it. Blaming it all on liberals is reductive and stupid. A big problem in education right now is the emphasis on standardized testing, which was strengthened by No Child Left Behind. The preparation it takes to teach kids how to take tests (which is a skill separate from and possibly antithetical to any kind of real knowledge-building) eats up time that could be used for real learning.
Also, you could help these children by calling for stronger social welfare programs, or an end to the war on drugs (which has admittedly been a bipartisan war). You could also support teachers instead of constantly disparaging them.
“4. A general dismissal of traditional religion and morals and embrace of pop culture as elements for young people to admire and emulate and an open disdain for serious traditional study and wisdom of elders.”
I don’t even know what to do with this one.
“5. Influence in the courts that uphold socialist thinking behind laws over the constitutional principles of our republic. Undermining of the republic in favor of democracy (mob rule).”
I don’t really know what you mean by this, but favoring “mob rule” over the principles of a constitutional republic seems to describe Prop 8 voters more than anyone else. You believed that you should vote to deprive a minority group of civil rights, and when the courts stepped in and pointed out that was unconstitutional, you accused them of being tyrants.
“6. Pushing the pretense of security in the collective and the free lunch as a virtuous model over self-reliance and personal responsibility for both security and community contribution.”
These are just buzzwords; what you really mean is that you don’t like your tax dollars going to help poor people. Tough. Stop trying to make this a false dichotomy between “personal responsibility” and welfare. We can and do enjoy both in this country.
“As we move beyond the entitlement mentality of the last century historians will write about the dog doo policies that nearly brought down the greates nation the earth had ever witnessed.”
You really think you will be on the right side of history? Well, I guess there is a first time for everything…
“Libby if I criticize a black leftist, even the black (half black) president, you call me racist no matter what the subject.”
No … if you imply, infer, or state baldly that a person’s political position is determined by his race … I call you a racist. This situation here is, as I say, a little convoluted, but your position would seem to be that, because he’s black and holds conservative beliefs, he is somehow immune from criticism for the conservative beliefs … because he’s black. This is bogus, and, while it is a kindlier version of racism, it still counts.
“Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of disappointing performance in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.”
Dyed-in-the-wool American?! My Aunt Fanny! … and in name only! Tina, all three of companies do virtually all their production for the American market off shore, mostly down south … and I’m not talking Texas. Geez!
“Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.”
And the Armagedondist in me likes the sound of this very much. Don’t you just want it to implode and be over with?!
However … to carry on … what you’re telling me is that a passel of billionaires are selling up “American” companies because, even though values have risen to near pre-bubble levels, these companies are STILL not making the billionaires ENOUGH MONEY! Is it dawning on you? … the origins of my disdain for the capitalist class, and fervently held belief that they should all be taxed into next Tuesday … after which, they can go corporate raiding with the remains to their rapacious hearts’ content.
Your Aunt Fannie needs to turn off Oprah and tune in to some business news Libby. The companies in question are all headquartered in America:
Procter & Gamble has dramatically expanded throughout its history, but its headquarters still remains in Cincinnati…Procter & Gamble (P&G) is an American multinational consumer goods company headquartered in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Its products include foods, beverages, cleaning agents and personal care products.[2]…Manufacturing operations are based in the following regions: United States, Canada, Philippines, Mexico, Latin America, Europe, China, Africa, Australia.
In 2011, P&G recorded $82.6 billion dollars in sales. Fortune magazine ranked P&G at fifth place of the “World’s Most Admired Companies” list, which was up from sixth place in 2010.[3]
Kraft Foods Inc. (NASDAQ: KFT) is an American multinational confectionery, food and beverage conglomerate.[2] The company is headquartered in Northfield, Illinois, a Chicago suburb…Nabisco (Just one of many Kraft companies)…is an American manufacturer of cookies and snacks. Headquartered in East Hanover, New Jersey.
Johnson and Johnson USA Corporate Office Headquarters HQ Address: One Johnson & Johnson Plaza New Brunswick, NJ 08933…with more than 250 operating companies in 60 countries employing approximately 128,000 people. Ethicon (a J7J subsidiary) has been the world leader in manufacturing of surgical sutures and wound closure devices for over a century…Ethicon is headquartered in Somerville, New Jersey. It currently conducts business in 52 countries and employs approximately 11,000 people…The Gatorade Sports Science Institute (GSSI) is a research facility operated in Barrington, Illinois that has been featured in a number of the company’s commercials.[42] Established in 1985,[3] this organization consists of scientists studying the correlation and effects of exercise, environmental variables, and nutrition on the human body.
Now you are bitching because these rich guys are creating too many jibs for poor brown people as well as American of all colors…geez are you never satisfied!
Libby…is it dawning on YOU…the rich will always make money…BUCKETS OF IT! When they can make more they invest…and JOBS are created in the process…and Revenues flow to government.
When we make making money too hard for them…when we screw up the economy so it’s about to go over the cliff…the rich take their investment money and look for opportunities to make BUCKETS of money elsewhere. DUH! You would do the exact same thing!
We want them investing in America! In American companies that employ Americans. We don’t care that they also employ brown, or yellow people in other countries…it is good to put people to work all over the world!!!
And, it isn’t a zero sum game.
Government needs to get out of the way and encourage these investors.
Yes, Tina. The fat cats have apartments in Manhattan. The folk on the factory floor do not live in this country, and do not live very comfortably, either.
The fat cats have arranged all this entirely to their liking and with no government interference. The only thing I can see that might persuade them to bring to work back voluntarily would be if folk here agreed to work for a dollar a day … but I just can’t see that happening.
No, were gonna start taxing the bejeebers out of off-shore production for the American market and subsidizing on-shore production, and NAFTA be damned.