He is got a brain alright, but unfortunately it is poisoned with leftist demagoguery.
A hundred or so years ago, when leftism was young and had no track record, his experimentation would have been considered intellectual and forward looking.
Today, with experience aplenty and not a single success to extol, his ideas are simply religiously adhering to the leftist doctrines
But ignoramuses label them as new ideas and ‘hope and change’.
oh please …. let’s go back to the yesteryears of lower taxes and cut government spending - when you lower taxes on the rich there is nothing going IN to pay for anything. When you cut government spending you cut REGULATION and oversight.
Please … I’ll take Obama over Bush ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!
i see people still have to blame bush. he gone get over it. we have way to many problems that are not being addressed,and doubt they ever will be. so much talk and so little being done.
^I’m not sure how accurate this is. For one thing the explosion in the deficit coincidentally happened when Obama started putting the war and other notable expenses to the budget, whereas his predecessor hid most of the charges. Second with the new charges added spending on social programs would add more to the already bloated defecit so naturally it would go up even more. Third, don’t forget the new programs the former created in order to increase the size of government to “keep us safe” and increased costs. Lastly, I see the article takes pot shots on social programs like education, veteran’s benefits, and medicare, making it seem as people don’t need these things.
I also wonder if the conversions between WWII dollars and today’s dollars are accurate. Sure they adjusted for inflation, but a dollar at that time is not the same as a dollar at this time.
Did anyone notice when Bush added 33 new agencies and directors in creating “Homeland Security” and “shrinking government”? Iraq of course paid all costs of that operation. Those tax breaks even GHW realized were too much, weren’t reversed under “W”, but the spending didn’t stop- and those riders and pork were by no means all from Dems.
Reagan added the active military to boost “employment” numbers. The statistic has actually become almost meaningless. Clinton over 8 years held the increase in the National Debt to 24%, even with Republican opposition in Congress, remember Newt? It was 400% under Reagan and Bush 41 and another 100%+ under 43.
While our “sophisticated precision guided missiles” missed not only bin Laden’s camps, but Afghanistan- in Kosovo and other areas, Clinton’s “military policies” succeeded far better than Reagan/41 or 43- taken from the perspective of both percentage of civilian casualties, the numbers we lost, and the end of the engagements. Clinton was far from a “liberal”.
Nixon signed NEPA, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other significant an positive legislation, even if he was a creep, and left Viet Nam to Ford to evacuate.
GHW signed the ADA- a good act, and increased taxes to offset the crash we were heading to. Killing over 600 civilians, and losing a lot of troops to catch one drug dealer, who Ed Meese set up in business, wasn’t exactly a “win” category though. If he’d listened to Saddam, or Thatcher, we never would have had to bail out Kuwait, and spill all that oil either.
Credit where due folks, oh wait- only we “libs” are actually willing to do that. Criticism is based on reason. Condemnation for illegal acts is reasonable. Condemnation, based solely on pissant politics, is ignorance, well, stupidity, and endangers us all.
When Andy and others in the “media” herd, like the limbauciles learn that- we might get somewhere. Maybe they should even think about Boehner and McConnell with a little intellectual observation??
davesmithsit almost 14 years ago
OH, Well that explains it .
Look, ma nothin tween my ears, PRESTO.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
He is got a brain alright, but unfortunately it is poisoned with leftist demagoguery.
A hundred or so years ago, when leftism was young and had no track record, his experimentation would have been considered intellectual and forward looking.
Today, with experience aplenty and not a single success to extol, his ideas are simply religiously adhering to the leftist doctrines
But ignoramuses label them as new ideas and ‘hope and change’.
Doreen Rice Premium Member almost 14 years ago
oh please …. let’s go back to the yesteryears of lower taxes and cut government spending - when you lower taxes on the rich there is nothing going IN to pay for anything. When you cut government spending you cut REGULATION and oversight.
Please … I’ll take Obama over Bush ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!
petergrt almost 14 years ago
” … I’ll take Obama over Bush ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!”
Take him, please, and keep him with you, under whatever rock you live under.
rottenprat almost 14 years ago
4shared? It’s free file hosting right up there with 4chan and 4gifs. If that is unbiased…
halfabug almost 14 years ago
i see people still have to blame bush. he gone get over it. we have way to many problems that are not being addressed,and doubt they ever will be. so much talk and so little being done.
WarBush almost 14 years ago
^I’m not sure how accurate this is. For one thing the explosion in the deficit coincidentally happened when Obama started putting the war and other notable expenses to the budget, whereas his predecessor hid most of the charges. Second with the new charges added spending on social programs would add more to the already bloated defecit so naturally it would go up even more. Third, don’t forget the new programs the former created in order to increase the size of government to “keep us safe” and increased costs. Lastly, I see the article takes pot shots on social programs like education, veteran’s benefits, and medicare, making it seem as people don’t need these things.
I also wonder if the conversions between WWII dollars and today’s dollars are accurate. Sure they adjusted for inflation, but a dollar at that time is not the same as a dollar at this time.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Did anyone notice when Bush added 33 new agencies and directors in creating “Homeland Security” and “shrinking government”? Iraq of course paid all costs of that operation. Those tax breaks even GHW realized were too much, weren’t reversed under “W”, but the spending didn’t stop- and those riders and pork were by no means all from Dems.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
OMG! GWB increased spending on national security?
The audacity of the guy!
Is it too late to impeach the bloke?
MaryWorth Premium Member almost 14 years ago
petergrt, giving work to Halliburton ISN’T spending on national security…
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Reagan added the active military to boost “employment” numbers. The statistic has actually become almost meaningless. Clinton over 8 years held the increase in the National Debt to 24%, even with Republican opposition in Congress, remember Newt? It was 400% under Reagan and Bush 41 and another 100%+ under 43.
While our “sophisticated precision guided missiles” missed not only bin Laden’s camps, but Afghanistan- in Kosovo and other areas, Clinton’s “military policies” succeeded far better than Reagan/41 or 43- taken from the perspective of both percentage of civilian casualties, the numbers we lost, and the end of the engagements. Clinton was far from a “liberal”.
Nixon signed NEPA, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other significant an positive legislation, even if he was a creep, and left Viet Nam to Ford to evacuate.
GHW signed the ADA- a good act, and increased taxes to offset the crash we were heading to. Killing over 600 civilians, and losing a lot of troops to catch one drug dealer, who Ed Meese set up in business, wasn’t exactly a “win” category though. If he’d listened to Saddam, or Thatcher, we never would have had to bail out Kuwait, and spill all that oil either.
Credit where due folks, oh wait- only we “libs” are actually willing to do that. Criticism is based on reason. Condemnation for illegal acts is reasonable. Condemnation, based solely on pissant politics, is ignorance, well, stupidity, and endangers us all.
When Andy and others in the “media” herd, like the limbauciles learn that- we might get somewhere. Maybe they should even think about Boehner and McConnell with a little intellectual observation??
petergrt almost 14 years ago
” … giving work to Halliburton ISN’T spending on national security…”
A few million Dollars to support our troops overseas may, or may not be.
But spending a trillion or so on UAW, SCIU, ACORN and the rest of the Brownshirts, definitely is!!!