Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[pattygreen 5]

"But where do you find a town, city or state with all their bills paid and extra money in the pot? It's rare. The mentality of the liberal fanatic is to spend more than you have every time! "

So what you are saying is that all towns and cities that excessively spend are run by liberals? WOW. Seeing as how it is rare, and according to your premise, towns never have extra money, why is that in your opinion? Why is it most cities, according to you, run in the red? They have run in the red because of the feeding frenzy of the last couple of years, which now dictates the government spending more money to get us out of trouble.

The government is NOT a business. Only businesses spend money to make money.

Under Bush rule, I might add. Where was this socialist crap back then? Half the people shouting about socialism don't even know what it is.

You liberal fanatics seem to think that you are the only ones with brains. It's getting old and very insulting to the rest of the country that doesnn't agree with you. That's another thing about the lot of you, you feel that you have all the answers. Well, you don't.

They hear the words from some idiot on TV and take it as gospel, literally. Let alone the fact that we have socialized programs before. And some programs here are founded on a socialist dynamic before we even kew what protesting government policy was.

There were many programs that were socialistic, but as you know, this kind of thing creeps up on a society slowly. It didn't start off full blown. The people are now starting to realize that this is where we are heading because when Obama started talking about 'change' most thought he meant a reduction in Government interference and growth in society, and a reign on unnecessary spending, not the reverse. And when he got in there he went full force into his definition of change, which was growing the government and the people's dependance upon it, and spending outrageously, which is NOT what the people wanted. If anything, he brought this upon himself by opening our eyes and awakening us to what the feds were slowly doing to us over the years by his speedy gumption to bring this country into socialism.

Here is an idea. Lets all go back to when people had their head in the sand and were running up their credit cards ,having play dates at Starbucks and running to the mall every weekend. We can't. It's too late to turn back. We have to change the country to a new parody and not a comical one. If that means spending money to get to high ground, so be it.

If the people have racked up their credit card debt and have come to the conclusion that it is best for them at this time to cut back on their spending and pay off their debt, If they can figure out that that's the way to fix the economy in their own homes, then why can't the government from the towns and states and all the way up to the top figure it out?

Spending IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!! It's the PROBLEM!!!! The American people have the solution, but congress lives in another world.

And please, please don't give me the bullshit about, "we are leaving our kids in debt". They, like generations before us, will work that shit out. Work it out!!!! Just like we will deal with the here and now.

There comes a time when all that sh-- will hit the fan. You can't keep on spending and believe that it won't affect America. Imagine you owe $200,000. in personal debt. You keep charging because you understand that your never going to be able to pay that off, so what's another $50.00 added to it. Then one day, they come and take the only place you have to live. Your house. That will be America.

[tdslf1 0]

The government is NOT a business. Only businesses spend money to make money.

The government is not a business you say. This argument is over if you can't understand that basic principle.

You liberal fanatics seem to think that you are the only ones with brains. It's getting old and very insulting to the rest of the country that doesnn't agree with you. That's another thing about the lot of you, you feel that you have all the answers. Well, you don't.

I am not a liberal fanatic. A fanatic tries to push their views on other people regardless of the facts. In this case, this is you who wishes to push views on others regardless of the facts. That is our point in all of these conversations. People who know more about our economy is helping to run it and you seem to think you know better. We are all sideline players unless we are in that mix. This I do know, you however keep hitting your head on the wall without having any influence. Stop being a sideline player and run for the Senate. Then your opinions will carry the weight. I however are content to sit on the sideline and take my lead from people who know better. So no, I am not trying to force my view on anyone. My view is what is best for this country to move forward in a practical way regardless if it takes us in a socialist direction.

Spending IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!! It's the PROBLEM!!!! The American people have the solution, but congress lives in another world.

What part of we have to spend money to help that you all just don't get? What part of the cash for cluncker didn't work, what part of the lending cash to wall st. didn't work? Are they or are they not paying this money back? Now they are using that pay back money(which will be a profit for the American people) for jobs. What part is too difficult to uderstand?

The argument that they should not lend money is old and mute. It's been one. It's done. Railing against it is unproductive. The money is spent and the American people will reap those benefits when people start to get back to work. And the debt will go down just as it has in the past.

You railing against it won't change the facts.

[tdslf1 0]

"There comes a time when all that sh-- will hit the fan. You can't keep on spending and believe that it won't affect America. (Just what someone should have said in Bush's term but didn't. )Imagine you owe $200,000. in personal debt. You keep charging because you understand that your never going to be able to pay that off, so what's another $50.00 added to it. Then one day, they come and take the only place you have to live. Your house. That will be America."

You still don't get it. The shit already hit the fan when Bush was in office. Not saying Bush did anything, but we started to see the effects under him. With your way of thinking, all this started when the more spending started under Obama.

This spending is productive, reactive spending. Not the spending to get more and to be better. This is called recovery spending and I am all for a recovery. We can't keep spending but we can't not spend and let it all go to hell. Let all the banks fail, let all the auto industries fail, let all the people go under in their houses. We can't let it happen and thank God we can't. We would be in more trouble.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Bet you're sorry you voted for Bush (twice) now that we are reaping the mess that he sowed, the mess Pres. Obama is trying to clean up.

The bush/repub Years

by jimstaro

Share this on Twitter - The bush/repub Years

Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 06:41:03 AM PST

As the old saying goes, "Read it and Weep!"

• jimstaro's diary :: ::
  
• 
  

ZERO Net Jobs Created Since 1999

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

Snip

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s. ..

>>>>>

There wasn't a month in those eight years that went into positive job creation numbers, for a very short time that was being reported, then it quickly stopped and never mentioned again!

With two occupations started they even kept changing the numbers of recruiting monthly goals to show them as continuing reaching the military numbers needed for National Security and Two Occupations. They also raised the recruitment age and lowered the criminal backrounds!

Will add:

Though many will say the Democrats took over Congress in '08 so maybe they should share any blame for the last couple of years all one would need do is visit the Congressional Records to see that they've been trying to clean up the total mess, in a number of area's, that preceeded them from the No working repubs. Just take the Veterans and Military, i.e. Walter Reed and Base living etc.. They were finally doing oversite and investigative hearings into what wasn't done or didn't concern the previous congresses as they waged two long running occupations with their rubber stamping of that administrations wants!!

Oh ya, they were also telling us that with the new, after 9/11, Homeland Security Agency that intelligence sharing was working better then ever before!! We saw how good on Christmas Day!!

[HappyHomeCC 2]

"There comes a time when all that sh-- will hit the fan. You can't keep on spending and believe that it won't affect America. (Just what someone should have said in Bush's term but didn't. )Imagine you owe $200,000. in personal debt. You keep charging because you understand that your never going to be able to pay that off, so what's another $50.00 added to it. Then one day, they come and take the only place you have to live. Your house. That will be America."

You still don't get it. The shit already hit the fan when Bush was in office. Not saying Bush did anything, but we started to see the effects under him. With your way of thinking, all this started when the more spending started under Obama.

This spending is productive, reactive spending. Not the spending to get more and to be better. This is called recovery spending and I am all for a recovery. We can't keep spending but we can't not spend and let it all go to hell. Let all the banks fail, let all the auto industries fail, let all the people go under in their houses. We can't let it happen and thank God we can't. We would be in more trouble.

Maybe we see the more spending because back alley cronie deals aren't as prevelant and he is telling us what he is doing with our money and what he expects? just a thought

[pattygreen 5]

"There comes a time when all that sh-- will hit the fan. You can't keep on spending and believe that it won't affect America. (Just what someone should have said in Bush's term but didn't. )Imagine you owe $200,000. in personal debt. You keep charging because you understand that your never going to be able to pay that off, so what's another $50.00 added to it. Then one day, they come and take the only place you have to live. Your house. That will be America."

You still don't get it. The shit already hit the fan when Bush was in office. Not saying Bush did anything, but we started to see the effects under him. With your way of thinking, all this started when the more spending started under Obama.

This spending is productive, reactive spending. Not the spending to get more and to be better. This is called recovery spending and I am all for a recovery. We can't keep spending but we can't not spend and let it all go to hell. Let all the banks fail, let all the auto industries fail, let all the people go under in their houses. We can't let it happen and thank God we can't. We would be in more trouble.

Recovery spending? What family houshold do you know that chooses to spend some more to get out of the debt their in up to their ears?! Spending does NOT bring recovery, just MORE debt! I understand that the spending has been getting out of hand for many, many years. Bush did his share as well. But Bush isn't in the office now, and noone can turn back the clock. But Obama is and he can do something about it. But did he? No! he just continued to spend far, far, far more when he got in there. And he's not done yet!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Recovery spending? What family houshold do you know that chooses to spend some more to get out of the debt their in up to their ears?! Spending does NOT bring recovery, just MORE debt! I understand that the spending has been getting out of hand for many, many years. Bush did his share as well. But Bush isn't in the office now, and noone can turn back the clock. But Obama is and he can do something about it. But did he? No! he just continued to spend far, far, far more when he got in there. And he's not done yet!

But spending is exactly what you do to facilitate a recovery. Our economy operates on money - the ability to get it, loan it and spend it. And there was no money before the bailouts and stimulus. The banks weren't loaning, businesses couldn't meet payroll, people couldn't get loans, etc...Everyone was hurting.

Bush ran up the deficit with 2 wars, one unnecessary, at the same time he gave a big tax cut to the rich - which should never happen at the same time. Plus he pushed through deregulation of wall street which fed their greed. All of this resulted in the economic tsunami that we are currently living in. It was bound to come crashing down and it did.

Pres. Obama inherited this economic mess and deficit. Unfortunately the only way to help was to stimulate the economy, which the stimulus did. It was not big enough, however, and too much of it went to tax cuts (to appease the republicans in a show of bipartisanship). People that got the tax cut did not spend that money (which would have helped the economy) they instead paid down debt (which doesn't stimulate the economy and create jobs).

When he took office we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month. We are still losing jobs, but it slowed to 11,000 jobs last month. That's an incredible achievement. Our unemployment dropped .2% last month. Still bad, but an improvement. And the stock market jumped 4000 points since he took office, yes largely because of the bank bailouts, but it's a step in the right direction. If the stock market had fallen 4000 - well we'd be in a depression.

Some of the banks are paying back their bailout money (with interest) - some of that money is going to pay down the debt and some to help with a jobs creation program.

So, all in all, considering the economic mess and deficit that Pres. Obama inherited, he is doing the best he can. Most economists are guardedly optimistic about things improving in 2010 and believing the worst is over. Unfortunately, jobs are the last thing to recover.

Deficits can't just START to matter now. Without the deficit spending the economy, that was in a free fall, would have crashed and we would have been in a full fledged depression. Unemployment would have been 20% and nothing we owned would have any value.

Remember what cheney said about bush's deficit spending when asked? He said: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

I find it interesting that deficit spending under both republican presidents doesn't matter but suddenly under a democratic president it does.

Makes you want to go hmmmmm.

[willowcat 93]

Nope, Don't regret it in the least. Matter-of-fact, I plan on doing it again in 2012! :smile2:

[tdslf1 0]

"Recovery spending? What family houshold do you know that chooses to spend some more to get out of the debt their in up to their ears?! Spending does NOT bring recovery, just MORE debt! I understand that the spending has been getting out of hand for many, many years. Bush did his share as well. But Bush isn't in the office now, and noone can turn back the clock. But Obama is and he can do something about it. But did he? No! he just continued to spend far, far, far more when he got in there. And he's not done yet!"

It's not a family. It's a business. Just like any business, the government spends money to promote an investment or product, and that government is spending money to get a better return on its investment. Pleeze get an understanding of this concept.

Edited January 3, 2010 by tdslf1

[HappyHomeCC 2]

Nope, Don't regret it in the least. Matter-of-fact, I plan on doing it again in 2012!

Me too at this juncture. I am so sorry I voted for Bush the first time... What an Error! and I was Pissed he got office the 2nd time.

Obama is not God, but I am sure he prays a lot and listens. He is a man doing the best he can with what he has .... I admire his is well thought out and makes moves ... and OMG he admits a mistake and says he is sorry. He is not perfect but Honorable.

I would love to see any of you who critizize him do any better. Also you have to remember he is privy to info we do not have so sometimes we will not understand or agree in his actions.

[pattygreen 5]

Me too at this juncture. I am so sorry I voted for Bush the first time... What an Error! and I was Pissed he got office the 2nd time.

Obama is not God, but I am sure he prays a lot and listens. He is a man doing the best he can with what he has .... I admire his is well thought out and makes moves ... and OMG he admits a mistake and says he is sorry. He is not perfect but Honorable.

I would love to see any of you who critizize him do any better. Also you have to remember he is privy to info we do not have so sometimes we will not understand or agree in his actions.

This was true of Bush as well, but that's irrelevent now.

This country has had other times when we were in recession and NO

stimulating' was required to bring us out of it. I understand that this is not a 'family' and that the country is run like a 'business', but the precepts are the same. If you overspend when you are in debt, you only bring yourself into deeper debt and there is no chance to 'recover'.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Yeah, the teabagger movement is about government spending and the deficit and not about hatred of Obama and more importantly that he is black. Yeah, right!! :rolleyes2:

Teabagger Bigwig Had N-Word Sign

The "Tea Party" movement—a frothy mix of angry white populism and well-funded professional political campaigning—is about taking our country back from the socialists, and also about holding up terribly embarrassing signs. Here's one with a really bad word!

And the guy holding the sign? He is Dale Robertson, who is the self-described "President and Founder of the Tea Party." He owns and operates TeaParty.org. So, yes, this is an actual organizer of the movement, and not just some dude. His sign reads, in full: "Congress = Slaveowner / Taxpayer = Niggar." Maybe he thinks he is allowed to use that word if he spells it wrong?

[tdslf1 0]

The only way you are supporting the tea douche movement is if you somehow subscribe to the leaders original racist, agenda. Before someone says, "that is not why I joined" Take a look at your leader. That is why he started it. Racism pure and simple. Which is okay by me. But don't pretend you have a problem with spending, and yet somehow don't understand signs like these. I for one would never be caught supporting such an organization. Since people just jumped on the band wagon of the douche, because they mention amoung other things "take our country back", do they really know what the founders real agenda was?

[pattygreen 5]

This is how you attack the tea party movement. You find a bad act on the part of one of its organizers...and you impute it to every person in the entire movement. It is wholly unnecessary to address any legitimate concerns they offer. It's all about the attack, the game.

This guy was a complete jerk to hold a sign like that. I find it highly insulting. He did that in february and since that time, the movement has grown. Not because of him, but because of the publics outrage over the "Change" that's overtaken America with Obama's policies. The tea party people are not racists. (Oh I'm sure you will find a few crazies in every organization) I'm not a tea partiest, but I believe in what they are fighting for. I am not racist in any way, and the color of Obama's skin means very little to me. He is not a black man, he is a black and white man. But it's not his skin color that people hate, it's his agenda. Liberals like to throw the race thing at conservatives. It's really all they have. To say it's not about race would mean they'd have to actually believe we are not in agreement with all that he is doing at the White House.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This is how you attack the tea party movement. You find a bad act on the part of one of its organizers...and you impute it to every person in the entire movement. It is wholly unnecessary to address any legitimate concerns they offer. It's all about the attack, the game.

This guy was a complete jerk to hold a sign like that. I find it highly insulting. He did that in february and since that time, the movement has grown. Not because of him, but because of the publics outrage over the "Change" that's overtaken America with Obama's policies. The tea party people are not racists. (Oh I'm sure you will find a few crazies in every organization) I'm not a tea partiest, but I believe in what they are fighting for. I am not racist in any way, and the color of Obama's skin means very little to me. He is not a black man, he is a black and white man. But it's not his skin color that people hate, it's his agenda. Liberals like to throw the race thing at conservatives. It's really all they have. To say it's not about race would mean they'd have to actually believe we are not in agreement with all that he is doing at the White House.

Obama is spending and increasing the deficit to get us out of the mess bush left. Unfortunately it is necessary spending.

Reagan ran up the deficit to the highest it had been up to that point. (Same as Obama) So did bush (same as Obama) Both did it with tax cuts to the rich. bush added an unnecessary war.

BUT, AND THIS IS A BIG BUT.. deficit spending didn't matter during those two white, republican presidents, but suddenly it matters with a black, democratic president.

It is the teabaggers, et al, who are hiding behind this phoney rhetoric of "disapproval of spending/deficit". They think if they make it about the agenda rather than the man that they can cover up their hatred for Obama who they never voted for and didn't want as president before he was even elected. And the sign by this organizer says it all. He made the sign before Obama spent any money (Feb. 09) So how could it be about spending/deficits???