Horse Thieves

Why do words matter?  I have corrected people several times about Nero fiddling while Rome burned.  False statement in all aspects, fiddle was invented a thousand years later, Nero was not in Rome during the fire, even rushed back and was the driving force behind the recovery. He housed and fed the homeless at his personal expense, and required brick homes to be built as part of a fire prevention policy from that day forward.

Seems funny to me that Nero, who should be given the highest praise, is remembered as an un-caring elitist.  So why does it matter today?  A hero from a thousand years ago is commonly believed to have been an uncaring scumbag.

“Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” (Winston Churchill)

In school, I was taught that presidents Woodrow Wilson and FDR were among our greatest presidents.  It came as a shock to discover Wilson had US citizens imprisoned illegally.

“The Sedition Act forbade Americans from criticizing their own government in a time of war. Citizens could not “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military. The Postmaster General was given the authority to revoke the mailing privileges of those who disobeyed. About 75 periodicals were shut down by the government in this way and many others were given warnings.

In the fashion of a police state, the Department of Justice arrested tens of thousands of individuals without just cause. One was not safe even within the walls of one’s own home to criticize the Wilson administration. All in all it is estimated that about 175,000 Americans were arrested for failing to demonstrate their patriotism in one way or another.“(1)

FDR did the same, but while that was actually taught, it kinda made excuses for him, Japan had just attacked, national defense, etc…  So why didn’t he have the German and Italians arrested also?  Why was FDR’s handling of the depression given such praise when it made things worse? Harding and Calvin Coolidge faced a similar economic event a decade earlier and let market forces adjust.  A two-year recovery compared to a permanent depression only escaped due to war.  And yet, who is remembered as “great”?

“On March 4, 1921, President Woodrow Wilson relinquished the office of the presidency to Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding. The state of the union was poor. “With the exception of Lincoln, probably no president in our national history has taken office with as pressing a burden of unresolved questions.” Those were the words of the Nation of February 1921. The national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% after a runaway inflation.

On April 12,1921, President Harding went before a contentious Congress and presented his program for economic recovery which he called “A Return to Normalcy”. Harding’s normalcy program consisted of the following measures.

1) A call for a national budget program (which was vetoed by his predecessor).
2) National debt reduction
3) Tax reduction
4) An emergency tariff to protect American industry and farm commodities.
5) Farm relief legislation (farm bankruptcies were up 20% from 1914).
6) Immigration restrictions to protect American jobs.

President Harding pushed hard for his program and got it passed by Congress in 1921. By late 1922, the economy began to turn around. Harding did not live to see it, but his normalcy program proved to be the foundation that Coolidge prosperity was built on. Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge had the wisdom to stay the course and build on Harding’s program. The American people were the beneficiaries of the unprecedented prosperity of the 1920’s. Unemployment was pared from its high in 1921 of 20% to an average of 3.3% for the remainder of the decade.

The misery index which is a combination of unemployment and inflation had its sharpest decline in U.S. history under President Harding. The Gross National Product averaged 7% from 1924 to 1929. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920’s. Harding slashed federal spending by two billion from Wilson’s last year and Coolidge maintained that spending level of 3.3 billion per  year for the rest of the decade. The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts produced increased revenue that went to cut the  national debt left by Wilson by one-third.”(2)

So after Wilson, our second socialist president, two small government presidents cut spending and let the mostly then free market fix itself.  Why does modern culture credit FDR with “saving” us from the depression, especially following so close after Harding and Coolidge?  I think the media has always picked the winners much more than they have “reported”.  Add to that, academics who study, publish and teach at our universities also favor the liberal/progressive viewpoint.  There are studies that counter the historically correct version of what FDR’s policies accomplished, but don’t expect them to gain much attention.

FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004 Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach:

President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.”(3)

And today, history seems to be repeating itself, with Obama following an updated FDR policy, but with the same results.  How can Nancy Pelosi make any claims that they will fix the economy without being outed as an absolute loon?  History is written by the victors, and the Progressives have won a few battles, especially in America’s classrooms.  We are all victims of government and media propaganda or brainwashing.  Think I’m wrong?  Maybe just overstating things?

Consider Joseph McCarthy.  He  was right after all!

Joseph McCarthy said in the early 1950s that he suspected there were over 50 Soviet/ communist sympathisers in the FDR and Truman White House. He was laughed at and scorned to an early death. The media still talks about McCarthy in a negative way.

In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. released secret documents it didn’t want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Vinona Accords. The Vinona Accords showed — proved — that not only was McCarthy right about their being 50 soviet spies working for the FDR/ Truman administrations, there were over 300 spies.

Still, you don’t hear much about this outside the conservative sphere. This is just more proof of how powerful the liberal media was before the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

One can only wonder how many communist sympathizers are working in Washington in 2009. The way our government is headed, it appears there may be lot more than 300.  And maybe our arrogance makes us take for granted the truth as we know it, after all, we live in the greatest nation in the world, with the most freedom.

And where are we today?  A double dip recession seems unavoidable.  And why?  Allow me to play the blame game for a minute.  Clinton left us with a surplus, then came Bush with his tax cuts, so Bush clearly deserves some blame, but how much?  I don’t think 9/11 was because of him, and it had an impact on our economy.  The housing bubble, if it can be blamed on an elected official, I think Franks and Dobbs have more responsibility than Bush.  The Republicans had control of congress, and Gingrich went on a spending spree.  I blame Bush and Gingrich equally for this.

The dot-com bubble was the result of President Clinton’s economic incompetence.  Chairman Greenspan’s warning about “irrational exuberance” in the markets occurred when the Dow was at 6,000 in 1996, but nothing was done until January 2000, when the Dow was at 12,000.  At that point, the NASDAQ crashed, soon followed by the Dow.  The NASDAQ lost $2.5 trillion before Clinton left office, and a recession was assured even if the main effects of the recession trailed out for a couple of years, as those recessionary effects always do.

Every economic bubble soon crashes.  The dot-com bubble was the third-largest economic bubble in history, following the Roaring Twenties before the Great Depression and the Japanese bubble and subsequent crash in 1991.  We should have been trying to limit the coming economic damage rather than bragging about the ephemeral and two-bit “Clinton surplus,” which, in any event, turned into a $3-trillion addition to the national debt.
The housing bubble, similar to the War on Poverty, was wholly the creation of Democrats.  President Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 with little ill effect.  The CRA required that lending institutions had to provide loans to qualified borrowers, with an emphasis on qualified.  President Clinton adopted the FRB Boston “Closing the Gap” policy, which officially required lending institutions to give mortgage loans to borrowers who were patently unqualified and unable to repay them, in 1998.
This was government policy when Bush became president, but Bush soon realized that the whole mortgage structure was a house of cards.  From 2003 on, Bush, Senators McCain and Hagel, and all the Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be voted down in the Banking Committee by party-line Democrats.  The rest is history: a huge Dow collapse and an even larger worldwide markets collapse, complete with destruction of the nation’s wealth and citizens’ retirement accounts.(4)

Then the Democrats had control of both houses with a super majority, needing not a single Republican vote to pass a law for the most partisan president in history to sign.  I blame Pelosi, Reed and Obama for their spend and tax spree.  The Spendulous did not work as they promised.

The “shovel ready” jobs were not there, which didn’t matter.  They got their blank checks to advance their agenda.  If anything, Pelosi learned Gingrich thought too small.  They cheerfully lied about the costs of ObamaCare, and what was in it.  And before loosing their majority, they deliberately ignored their job of passing a budget, knowing it would cause a crisis this spring they could exploit.  Obama has stated he would reduce the deficit with a budget that calls for spending increases.  He even “forgot” to count the interest when he published the numbers.  Is China giving interest free loans now?

And the media continues to make excuses for the liberals in an endless spin cycle.  When logic is against them, they cloud the issue with emotional appeals:

Dire Consequences of Shutdown: ABC Invokes Washington Monument, Liberty Bell and Kids with Cancer, But Cheetahs Will Be Fed(5)

I think about 30% of our voters are hard-core Democrats.  Slightly less are hard-core Republicans.  It amazes me that so many people can put an agenda ahead of reality. We all agree high unemployment is bad.  But if we use the government to create jobs, they are still payed for by taxes paid primarily by private sector workers.  Economically, it would be like giving your poor, out-of-work,  neighbor $20 a week to hire you kid to mow his lawn.
And now the government shutdown has been avoided.  That very weekend the WH started it’s spin.

4/11/2011 by John Lott

None of the hosts on the Sunday Morning talk shows called White House senior adviser on his false claims about Obama’s deficit plans

Besides the expected attacks on Republicans wanting to help high income individuals with tax cuts, David Plouffe pretty much gave the same incorrect statement to all the Sunday morning talk show hosts yesterday. From Fox News Sunday:

PLOUFFE: Well, first, on the 2012 budget, that would be $1 trillion of deficit reduction over the next decade and lowest level of domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower. And he said it in the State of the Union, that was just a start. We’re going to have to do more.

From Meet the Press:

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, let me say what the president has done and, and will say. His budget he just put out for next year would reduce $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It would bring domestic spending to the lowest level since President Eisenhower . Many of the debt commission ‘s and deficit commission ‘s suggestions were in the president’s budget. . . . [The Republican proposal] cuts our energy investments at a time we’re dealing with high gas prices by 70 percent. So we’re obviously not going to sign on with that approach. But what’s clear is, like on any issue in Washington, we have divided government. So we’re going to have to bring leaders together and figure out where we can find compromise.

From This Week with Christiane Amanpour:

PLOUFFE: If you look at his budget for 2012, which he announced around the state of the union. It would actually reduce the deficit a trillion dollars in the next 12 year, it would bring ,spending down to the lowest since dwight eisenhower. The president’s commitment to spending reduction is absolutely firm. But how we do that, we’ve got to make sure that we are not hurting our ability for our people to get the education they need to compete with people in beijing and bangalore that we’re investing in research and , development, that we’re investing in infrastructure, so that’s going to be his approach going forward.

OK, so what is the truth? The Congressional Budget Office already reported that Obama’s newest budget plans will increase debt by $1.2 trillion, not cut it by $1.1 trillion as the president claims. (6)

I think GMan posted a joke about a guy saying Obama was nothing but a horse thief in a bar, and he kept getting punched for insulting horse thieves. FDR did not save us from a depression, he made it worse.  Obama says he’s reducing the deficit by a trillion with a budget the CBO says increases it by $1.2 trillion.  How can the Wilson’s, FDR’s and Obama be idolized, except through blatant propoganda.  Maybe someday, truth will win.

Until then, I propose a toast to Coolidge and Nero,  the unsung.





Read more:


  1. Consider Joseph McCarthy. He was right after all!

    You just spent a few paras showing how two presidents from what you insist are the left/socialists suspended right during war time for some and not others … and then you point to a psycho like McCarthy who blacklisted people …

    life of illusion, are you seeing a basic contradiction there or is it okay to blacklist those you don’t like so long as it’s for your cause? Because that seems kind of counter to your freedom loving philosphy.

    “mostly free market back then” … was that for BF’s sake or are you reserving some blame for the government for whenever things didn’t go so well for the free market?

    • Charlie,

      “are you seeing a basic contradiction there or is it okay to blacklist those you don’t like so long as it’s for your cause?”

      I hope not. I could be right or wrong, but my “cause” in this is truth. ” The Vinona Accords showed — proved — that not only was McCarthy right about their being 50 soviet spies working for the FDR/ Truman administrations, there were over 300 spies.”

      “and then you (ignore the points in my article and maintain the popular myth) a psycho like McCarthy who blacklisted people … ”

      Mostly free market is a reference to the economy, that was in shambles when Harding and Coolidge took office. They withstood great pressure to “do something” to fix or control the problem. Follow the links! The information is there that shows how reducing taxes and letting the free market fix itself was much more successful than FDR’s attempts to regulate and control the economy.

      Go talk to a farmer(yes, I have on several occasions) and ask them why we have farm subsidies? It’s what happens when big business asks government to tip the scales a little more in their favor. Most will tell you they can do Ok without subsidies, if you reduce all the government regulations that are such a large cost driver in their industry.

      Charlie, do me one favor, be honest with yourself. Examine what I have written and show me where I have made a false statement. I’m human, so it would not surprise me to be shown to be wrong. But you have to consider you are possibly in the wrong. Right now, you are saying “Charlie says” you are wrong, LOI. How about you show me some proof other than how you remember your icons of history?
      Could be, someone lied to you……

      • The point wasn’t whether McCarthy was right or wrong (although I’d say he was a lunatic at the least) … it was about the idea of blacklisting (from a gov’t position) as compared to internment camps, etc.; the idea that both are pretty opposite the concept of freedom. If the free market concept is to work, it has to permit communists their free activity.

        No big deal … I wasn’t attacking you. Just didn’t see how one can be justified (McCarthyism — it seemed you were okay with that although you didn’t specifically say that, so I might’ve been wrong to harp on it) vs. internment camps, etc.

        Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus … but I’m not sure which side of that argument you stand.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Good Morning Charlie 🙂

          I think you equated “free market concept” and “governance” to be somehow one and the same. You stated: “If the free market concept is to work, it has to permit communists their free activity.”

          I would agree that in a free market economy (no government interference) everyone should be free start a business and prosper. What McCarthy was doing was exposing Communists within government, which, has nothing to do with anything free market. Equating Commies in government during the Cold War and Commies working withing the free market concept as being one and the same is silly.

          • silly? Tell that to BF. Do you want Freedom or not, Gman?

            Or is it just profit and power to those who have and then rule by the rich because you can’t tolerate discourse?

            Yous guys are soooooo predictable. 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I think you misunderstood my point 🙂

            • USWeapon says:

              On the contrary… what is predictable is that you will use a statement that says either x is true or x is false (either McCarthy was correct that their were spies in the government or he was on a witch hunt for something that didn’t exist) as an excuse to attack the free market. LOI did not endorse McCarthyism. He simply pointed out that history paints him as on a witch hunt while the facts say he was correct.

              This is becoming a somewhat regular theme in your bashing of us “crazy right wingers”. You completely ignore the point of the article and the premise of the discussion to somehow turn the argument into an emotional debate over something entirely different. Just sayin, buddy, it is becoming a regular occurrence 🙂

        • I took LOI comments on McCarthy to only be speaking to the fact of communists being inside the government – not that McCarthyism was good in any way. But maybe that’s just me.

          Also, I find a big difference between the blacklists of that era and the internment of the Japanese by FDR (I would also like to say that from my readings about WW2 there were some internments in the US of German and Italian Americans – no, I do not mean POWs. It was a much smaller number of them but it did occur). The blacklists were an oppressive act of political pressure. While people had their ability to earn a living affected they weren’t dispossessed of everything they owned and forcibly imprisioned in a camp by the government.

          • Nobody is comparing the two, although it is interesting that you seem to find one okay (something directly opposed to freedom of speech), but many of those blacklisted in fact lost their ability to earn and either had to become rats, go broke, or find something else to do (with a mark against them).

            Once again, the freedom loves seem to not mind it when curtailing freedom against those they oppose works to their benefit.

            • Charlie, your intended stupidity in order to aggravate gets a bit tiring sir.

              I did not say, nor imply, that either was,or would ever be okay. It isn’t. McCarthy was a twisted man and what he brought forth was abhorrent and disgusting in my opinion.

              So quit the BS of trying to always ascribe a position to a person unjustly when they comment.

              • I took LOI comments on McCarthy to only be speaking to the fact of communists being inside the government

                Okay, so what part of that sentence suggests it shouldn’t make a damn bit of difference whether communists were inside the government or not? What difference would it make if there were (the point being, why bring up McCarthy in the first place?), especially if LOI was posing him against internment camps?

                As for always ascribing a position, did you ever count the times most people here use terms like “lefties, reds, etc.” in your original posts? Try avoiding your own intended stupidy and I’ll follow suit gladly. I stir the pot when I see bold generalizations … that’s how I deal with statements i find tiring.

                But peace anyway … seriously … no harm intended.

              • lol….I’ll give you 1/2 point for consistence.

                I also love it when you only are willing to follow your own BS beliefs after everyone else will.

                Great leadership there Charlie.

            • USWeapon says:

              I think that you will find that the vast majority of those here at SUFA do not support the suspension of someone’s liberty regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

              • That was the point … but alas it was too difficult to make (you guys often read with blinders) … if you are for liberty and freedom, how (and why) would anyone bring up McCarthy (unless you believe he was doing some great service to America and in that case you don’t have a problem with him ruining others freedoms with his blacklisting. That’s about the 5th time I’ve explained it now.

                crazy right wingers is me being funny; didn’t think it needed an explanation every time I wrote it (or a smiley face).

              • USWeapon says:

                Yes I get what you are trying to say. And I think for about the fifth time I will explain to you that no one, especially not LOI in his article, supported what McCarthy DID. What he did what provide you with an example of where the popular belief is inaccurate to reality. THAT is why you bring it up. What you are doing here is attempting to change the topic. This is like me pointing to Hitler’s persecution of Jews as proof that the man was evil, and you saying why would I bring up this example if I didn’t support Hitler putting Jews in ovens.

                I don’t take the crazy right wingers personally Charlie… I am well aware that I don’t fit into that mold, regardless of what anyone else may believe. I don’t like the right wing arguments any more than the left wing ones.

          • I was not trying to take any side on McCarthy except that we were taught he was making false claims on communists, and it turns out he was correct. But I am willing to put myself out there and say he was morally correct as well. During the cold war, the US/USSR struggle was of worldwide importance. Had the US failed to contain Russia, I think they would have continued to take over countries across the world.

            To put it in modern perspective, what if a US senator had reason to believe, ___________(name your terrorist organization had infiltrated our government, with access to
            military secrets. And said senator could not get anybody to check this out or pay attention?

            • LOI,
              So that means FDR was morally correct as well:

              During WWII, the US/Japan struggle was of worldwide importance. Had the US failed to contain Japan, I think they would have continued to take over countries across the world.

              Gee, your logic/justification fits real nice…

              • On the war, sure. He was just wrong on his economic policies.
                I also think having a live-in mistress is a no-no.

                “Gee, your logic/justification fits real nice…”
                Thanks Todd, coming from you that means a lot….

  2. Good morning SUFA….been away for awhile.

    President Obama will go down in history as being the biggest liar (already proven), worse economic policies that Jimmy Carter ( I did not think it possible), more devastating than FDR for by passing Congress with czars (far worse than McCarthyism (which I did not think possible) , trampling the Constitution worse than the Patriot Act (which I did not think possible)…the list goes on.

    Conspiracy theory…..spending the country purposely into debt to where there is no other way out than to confiscate everything…..or is it just a theory.

    Taxing the rich? Give me a break…the middle class is going to get hosed. Obama has given more waivers to tax avoidance than any Peesident that I have known….and that includes that Debacle called President Johnson, which I am ashamed to say, came from Texas….probably a carpet bagger in disguise.

    • Good Morning Colonel,

      I don’t think you have missed much. The government keeps talking and playing the blame game while fuel and all other cost continue to climb. NATO has tanked the Libya effort and is starting to squeal for help. You probably know what the weather’s been like… And about the czars….

      In marked contrast to vows as a candidate not to use presidential signing statements as “an end run around Congress,” President Obama released a statement on the just-signed spending bill saying despite the law’s restrictions on “czars,” he will “construe” the law not to interfere with “presidential prerogatives.”

      Read more:

      • LOI, it amazes me with all of the proof from the past that folks don’t see through the liberal BS. I have really tried to understand where the left is coming from, but I suppose my upbringing doesn’t allow it…I just don’t get it.

        • I think it’s a mindset. Coke makes their commercials showing how “cute” polar bears are, reality is very different. (hey, lets get a PETA advocate to give a bear a coke! It’s really thirsty)

          A lot of our history is written by people with an agenda to defend, not about truth or accuracy. Same goes for the news today, that will become the historic record of the future. Bush will be demonized for leaving us with a quarter billion deficit.
          Obama will be praised for keeping it below whatever trillion.

          • Bush will be demonized for leaving us with a quarter billion deficit.

            Bush will be demonized for, among other reasons, starting two wars and not paying for either with a shared sacrifice tax. “Go spend, everything’s fine,” the genius was saying.

            Obama is no better, make no mistake … he just doesn’t need Mike Tyson to teach him how to speak.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, At least Bush followed the Constitution and got Congress’s approval for both. Afghanistan was due to 9/11, so how did he start that? Iraq was stupid and a big mistake, but, Congress OK’d it. Obama did not follow our laws when he ordered the attack on Libya. Despite the left leaning bulldookie, Bush could not have started anything without Congressional approval, which Democrats also voted for. The Government started the Iraq war. If anyone on the Left would read the Constitution they would know what power a president actually has, which ain’t that much.

            • USWeapon says:

              Charlie Stella…. thank you:

              Bush will be demonized for, among other reasons, starting two wars…

              You point out yet another point for LOI’s article. Another instance where what the mainstream message is, really isn’t all that accurate at all. Some other points of reference. Bush will be remembered as a dumb person (which you so kindly pointed out) despite the fact that he was Ivy League educated. Bush will be remembered for trashing the economy, despite the fact that Franks and Dodd had more to do with it. Bush will be remembered as putting the government into a financial hole, despite the fact that Obama has done so far, far more effectively.

              • despite the fact that he was Ivy League educated.

                This actually SCARES me … that you think for a second that George W. Bush “earned” his way into Yale (based on his school records vs. others who applied). This had nothing to do with his daddy or his daddy’s money. George Bush applied like you or I would and was accepted to Yale. Frightening that you’d believe that.

              • USWeapon says:

                Where in any part of what I said did I mention anything about how he gained acceptance at Yale? I don’t care how he got in. The fact remains that he got in and graduated from Yale. While I believe that he got in based on his name, I don’t believe that he paid for his grades. Talk about completely changing the premise of the argument. I say he graduated from Yale and you go on some odd tangent discussing how he got into Yale. FOCUS, Charlie, FOCUS. Oy Vey indeed….

      • The time away did me some good on one aspect… third and final article on Iran will be submitted tonight and the extra time has proben me correct.

        I am so glad to know that our Southern border is more secure now than ever before….I never would have believed it if Obama and Napolipoopoo did not say so…..I need to inform the ranchers, school kids, the Naional Guard and so on that those are not real bullets and the kidnappings are not that at all but friendly overtures….and the 3700 weapons in 2011 so far are not real and the 12,500 rounds of ammunition are just blanks not intended to hurt anybody. That the Russian made night vision goggles we have found are not real either…just mock up kid’s toys….the underwater bridges are figments of our imagination and the MExican Government is really trying to help us… could I be so crass.

    • gmanfortruth says:


  3. The mean Obama
    I never thought that Obama was a nice guy when I knew him at the University of Chicago Law School. Possibly other Americans are beginning to see the same person that I knew. Some points:

    House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin accepted Obama’s offer to attend Obama’s budget speech at George Washington University last Wednesday.
    With Ryan in the audience, Obama made “false claims [that will] poison the debate and make serious budget cutting very difficult to accomplish.” Obama attacked George Bush, congressional Republicans, and businesses and taxpayers.
    On Thursday, Obama attacked Ryan personally this way: “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he’s just being America’s accountant, that he’s being responsible, I mean this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill — but wasn’t paid for. So it’s not on the level.”
    Of course, all of Obama’s claims here were false. The deficit during 2007, the last year that Republicans had control of the Congress and the presidency was less than $170 billion. The prescription drug plan Ryan supported cost half as much as the Democratic alternative then on the table. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars under President Bush were regularly funded by Congress.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “All of Obama’s claims here were false”

      Did Ryan vote for the two wars and to continually fund the wars?

      Did Ryan vote for Bush’s tax cuts?

      Did Ryan vote for the prescription drug plan?

      • Buck,

        Did Ryan vote for the two wars and to continually fund the wars? Did Ryan vote for Bush’s tax cuts?
        Did Ryan vote for the prescription drug plan?

        I think it’s yes to all, but do you still believe all our economic problems are still because of Bush? Everything I have read says Obama’s plan to tax the rich will not make much difference on the deficit. The problem is spending. Lott also has said just returning to 2007 spending levels would solve the deficit issue.

        How about that for a one year solution? Throw out Ryan, Obama and every other plan and pass the same budget as 2007 for 2012?

        Another problem, Obama is not trying to solve the budget problem, his “plan” is vague talking points. He is focused on re-election while we pay $4 for gas and all our costs are skyrocketing.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          My only point above is that Lott is so quick to simply say Obama lied – when in fact, everything Obama said on Ryan’s voting record is accurate.

          • I would contend that harping on the fact of truth of Ryan’s voting record is beside the issue – who cares? Only one who wishes to divert thinking or discussion of the real issues.

            Is that like a separate class in law school or something they harp on all through it? 😉

            • Buck the Wala says:

              No – that is precisely the issue.

              You decry the use of such tactics by the left, but give a pass to the same garbage on the right. Lott made the statement: “Obama’s claims were false”. Lott himself failed to address the real issues, instead deciding to use a false statement to draw people to the conclusion that Obama lied about Ryan’s record/position.

              You want to have a debate over which proposal is better? Which one would do more to address the deficit? Fine by me. But why post an article denouncing Obama’s character for accurately describing Ryan’s past positions?? What purpose does that serve? Let’s focus on the real issues.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Missed that last question — no separate class; its pretty much a sticking point in every law school class! 🙂

          • USWeapon says:

            What is missed by you, Buck, is the inherently dishonest spin placed upon Obama’s claims Missed or perhaps intentionally ignored). As a litigator, you know this tactic all too well. Say what you want, if there is a modicum of truth to it, you can’t be called a liar. Take the entire statements on the other hand:

            1. that voted for two wars that were unpaid for – False. The wars were funded by Congress, and therefore, paid for.

            2. voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill – False, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517, making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 Billion. Far less than Obama’s health care bill.

            3. voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for – The Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. The deficits resulting from that period came as a result of increased government spending, not the tax cuts.

            So Obama is 0 for 3 in being honest.

            • Buck the Wala says:


              Do you think for a minute that the two wars were paid for in full? That they didn’t add one cent to the deficit? I didn’t think so. You are trying to argue that since Congress appropriated the money, the wars were magically paid for. By that token, everything in the budget is paid for since the budget is approved by Congress and money (although borrowed) is appropriated.

              “Making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 Billion.” So where did that money come from? You don’t think this was simply added to the deficit? Not sure what Obamacare has to do with this — the only question here is whether this program added to the deficit. It did.

              Lastly the tax cuts — again, cutting revenue while increasing spending adds to the deficit. Simple math. I understand the appeal of only looking at spending, but it can’t be done – there are two sides to any ledger: money coming in and money going out. Try to balance your own checkbook by reducing income and increasing spending and tell me how that works out for you.

              So that leaves Obama 3 for 3 on these particular statements.

              • USWeapon says:


                So what you are saying is that nothing was paid for. Which makes his statement not accurate. He didn’t have two wars that were not paid for. He simply had poor fiscal policy that spent more than was brought in. THAT is a statement that is true. Obama’s statement was not.

                You aren’t sure what Obamacare has to do with it? That was the President’s statement. He said ” voted for a prescription drug plan that cost as much as my health care plan”, THAT is his statement. So the real question is what does asking where the money came from have to do with it? We were debating the truth of Obama’s statements.

                The tax cuts would take all day to argue out, but the line of debate is that tax revenues actually increased overall because of the tax cuts. When you simply say less money coming in and more going out you are oversimplifying it.

                As I said, I say 0 for 3. Does it mean that I support any of the things there? No, but it wasn’t about whether I felt Bush has good fiscal policy. It was about whether Obama was being accurate in his slander….

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I guess we are both approaching this with some bias. I would rate those 3 statements as mostly true.

                In the end it doesn’t really matter — much more useful to debate the actual issues as opposed to how true a politician’s statement is.

        • The problem is spending.

          So when Bush started two wars without having a game plan to pay for them, whose fault was that? Don’t get me wrong, the imbeciles in the other party (Dems) went right along with him for the most part (very few rejected the wars) but it was Bush who didn’t push for a war tax … and those wars are costing us a lot more than any public workers unions …

          • So why has Obama continued Bushes war policies? And why did he start another war with Libya? You think more taxes are the answer?


            And did you ever look back at how silent Cal’s recovery compares to FDR’s.

            • Once again (for the 1,000dth time here at SUFA), somebody decries Obama to me … I could care less about Obama … he IS BUSH in my opinion. The Democrats and Republicans have an unwashed pubic hair between them. I wouldn’t vote for either with a gun to my head and I have voted for both (in fact, the biggest blemish on my voting record, in my opinion, is having voted for Bush twice–because I was completely fooled by the war rhetoric and outraged at 9-11 and because I was fed up with the Dems after Clinton’s first term (didn’t vote at all his 2nd term). You’re barking up the wrong tree comparing Bush and Obama to me — I agree. All three wars are INSANE at this point (have been since 20060–when I finall turned on Bush–because it was apparently even to me (thick headed guy that I am) that he was CLUELESS (his ever changing “reasons” for war). I keep telling yous, you can line up both parties and shoot them for all I care (except for Bernie in Vermont) …

          • Will you get off the war thing, please….it is on record Obama has outspent Bush bu trillions….TRILLIONS….and you justify it by saying that he fought unfunded wars? Give me a break……nice misdirection from you and the esteemed counselor but way off base…and I mean waaaaay off. But to answer your question Charlie??????? Congress could have stopped him cold. The Democrats could have blocked him more efficiently that anything else. Bush can push all he wants but it takes Congress to fund it. So get off the war tax does not fly. I like you, friend Charlie, but you do get sideways a lot…..perhaps it is the red colored glasses…..I know Obama has a lock on the rose colored ones. (Can I use the term “colored” around you or is that politically incorrect now as well)….but you do start my day off with humor.

            • But to answer your question Charlie??????? Congress could have stopped him cold. The Democrats could have blocked him more efficiently that anything else.

              Oh, Colonel, someone drank too much Red Bull this morning (I won’t put it in my meatballs) … I made a point (read all my comments) of blaming the Dems. What happens here is yous guys (Most of yous) assume when I blame a Republican for anything that I am somehow implying that the Dems are innocent. 4,001st time … both parties SUCK. Yes, the Dems could’ve stopped Bush … and they didn’t. Nor did they do anything for the worker once they had full majorities Obama’s first 2 years. My point exactly (so thank you), both parties are USELESS to the American worker and only there for Wall Street, big business. They are OWNED by them.

              Okay, now that that’s clear … frustration is what I find here (sometimes humor too …) I have to repeat myself over and over again … carpal tunnel … but BUSH started the wars, Colonel (no ignoring that FACT) … Obama is still there and should be tried for war crimes too (as in both of them) … but are you willing to really cut the deficit and pull out right now? That would sure go a long way to cutting the deficit …

              Please, no more Red Bull … 🙂

    • OK Buck, lets break it down.

      On Thursday, Obama attacked Ryan personally this way: “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he’s just being America’s accountant, that he’s being responsible, I mean this is the same guy (this makes it a personal attack)
      that voted for two wars(yes) that were unpaid for(no),

      voted for the Bush tax cuts(yes) that were unpaid for,
      (how do you “pay” for taking less of people’s money? The tax cuts were intended to enable economic growth, as did Silent Cal. This also has been shown to increase Gov. revenue.)
      voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill (yes, not happy about that one)
      but wasn’t paid for(sorry, but has Obamacare been “paid” for? Everything Obama has singled out is “paid for”)

      I can see some bias in Lott’s comments, or maybe he should have clarified that only half of what Obama said were lies? Is that really much better? And this from the guy that was going to end the partisan bickering.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        1) The wars were unpaid for – sure funding was diverted to ‘pay’ for the wars, but the cost of the wars only added to our deficit.

        2) The tax cuts were unpaid for — its simple arithmetic. Try this with your household budget — take in less money, but continue to spend the same amount (or, in the government’ case, spend more). What do you think will happen?

        3) The prescription drug plan — we agree on this one it seems.

        4) Obamacare — was it paid for? Only time will tell – based on the projections yes, Obamacare will pay for itself and work to reduce spending going forward. Will this be borne out? Too early to tell.

        5) Personal attack on Ryan — yea, alright, there was a personal attack there. I’m not saying Obama is innocent in all this – both sides are guilty of the same bullcrap. Again, my only point is rather than debate the merits of the proposals, Lott decided to instead engage in a character attack on Obama for his truthful claims. Odd indeed.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    Post for comments. 🙂

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    Liberals in the office…Beware!

    Actual dialogue of a former WordPerfect Customer Support employee.
    (Now I know why they record these conversations!):

    Operator: ‘Ridge Hall, computer assistance; may I help you?’
    Caller: ‘Yes, well, I’m having trouble with WordPerfect .’
    Operator: ‘What sort of trouble?’
    Caller: ‘Well, I was just typing along, and all of a sudden the words went away.’
    Operator: ‘Went away?’
    Caller: ‘They disappeared’
    Operator: ‘Hmm. So what does your screen look like now?’
    Caller: ‘Nothing.’
    Operator: ‘Nothing??’
    Caller: ‘It’s blank; it won’t accept anything when I type.’
    Operator: ‘Are you still in WordPerfect, or did you get out?’
    Caller: ‘How do I tell?’
    Operator: ‘Can you see the ‘C: prompt’ on the screen?’
    Caller: ‘What’s a sea-prompt?’
    Operator: ‘Never mind, can you move your cursor around the screen?’
    Caller: ‘There isn’t any cursor; I told you, it won’t accept anything I type..’
    Operator: ‘Does your monitor have a power indicator?’
    Caller: ‘What’s a monitor?’
    Operator: ‘It’s the thing with the screen on it that looks like a TV.
    Does it have a little light that tells you when it’s on?’
    Caller: ‘I don’t know.’
    Operator: ‘Well, then look on the back of the monitor and find where
    the power cord goes into it. Can you see that??’
    Caller: ‘Yes, I think so.’
    Opera tor: ‘Great. Follow the cord to the plug, and tell me if it’s
    plugged into the wall..
    Caller: ‘Yes, it is.’
    Operator: ‘When you were behind the monitor, did you notice that
    there were two cables plugged into the back of it, not just one? ‘
    Caller: ‘No.’
    Operator: ‘Well, there are. I need you to look back there again and
    find the other cable.’
    Caller: ‘Okay, here it is.’
    Operator: ‘Follow it for me, and tell me if it’s plugged securely into
    the back of your computer..’
    Caller: ‘I can’t reach.’
    Operator: ‘OK. Well, can you see if it is?’
    Caller: ‘No..’
    Operator: ‘Even if you maybe put your knee on something and lean way over?’
    Caller: ‘Well, it’s not because I don’t have the right angle — it’s because it’s dark.’
    Operator: ‘Dark?’
    Caller: ‘Yes – the office light is off, and the only light I have is
    coming in from the window.’
    Operator: ‘Well, turn on the office light then.’
    Caller: ‘I can’t.’
    Operator: ‘No? Why not?’
    Caller: ‘Because there’s a power failure.’
    Operator: ‘A power …. A power failure? Aha. Okay, we’ve got it
    licked now. Do you still have the boxes and manuals and
    packing stuff that your computer came in?’
    Caller: ‘Well, yes, I keep them in the closet..’
    Operator: ‘Good. Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it
    up just like it was when you got it. Then take it back to
    the store you bought it from.’
    Caller: ‘Really? Is it that bad?’
    Operator: ‘Yes, I’m afraid it is.’
    Caller: ‘Well, all right then, I suppose. What do I tell them?’
    Operator: ‘Tell them you’re too damned stupid to own a computer!’

  6. LOI,
    I started going thru this point-by-point, but the real point seems to be you get upset whenever anything is reported from a view point different from yours.

    You find some right-wing version of history and suddenly everything taught in school is blatant left-wing propaganda.

    You certainly do play the blame game well.

    • Todd,

      I was not upset until I read this personal attack. By all means, go back and find a left-wing version of history and show me where I am wrong.

      It’s not hard to find FDR being praised for “saving” us from the depression. Point, none of us can “prove” he saved us or prolonged the depression. There are many educated people out there that argue both sides of that. What makes the most sense to me was a similar economic event that was handled differently, being Silent Cal.

      I await you to offer your “proof”. Please, please, enlighten me.

      Blame game? It’s Black flags fault gold hit $1,500 an ounce.
      The Obama/Ryan budget battle had nothing to do with it…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Blame game: It’ alway’s Mathius’s fault, for everything 😆

      • LOI,
        My “personal attack” upset you? Do I need to be more Politically Correct so I don’t hurt your feelings?

        By all means, go back and find a left-wing version of history and show me where I am wrong.

        Right – exactly what I said before – anything that disagrees with you is blatant left-wing propaganda.

        Point, none of us can “prove” he saved us or prolonged the depression.

        Right – except you used the word “prove” or “proof” several times in your article, when it really was “opinion”.

        One example of your “proof”:

        Joseph McCarthy said in the early 1950s that he suspected there were over 50 Soviet/ communist sympathisers in the FDR and Truman White House. He was laughed at and scorned to an early death. The media still talks about McCarthy in a negative way.

        In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. released secret documents it didn’t want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Vinona Accords. The Vinona Accords showed — proved — that not only was McCarthy right about their being 50 soviet spies working for the FDR/ Truman administrations, there were over 300 spies.

        Still, you don’t hear much about this outside the conservative sphere. This is just more proof of how powerful the liberal media was before the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

        This isn’t proof of anything. A “sympathizer” is not necessarily a “spy”, and there are plenty of opinions on the Vinona Accords:

        To what extent the various individuals were involved with Soviet intelligence is a topic of dispute. While a number of academic people and historians assert that most of the individuals mentioned in the Venona decrypts were most likely either clandestine assets and/or contacts of Soviet intelligence agents, others argue that many of those people probably had no malicious intentions and committed no crimes.

        Here’s a little exercise for you – compare President Harding’s economic policies and their result, to President GW Bush’s economic policies and their result. What do you find?

        • Todd,

          “My “personal attack” upset you?” No, I lied about that, meant it to be funny.

          “Do I need to be more Politically Correct so I don’t hurt your feelings?”

          “By all means, go back and find a left-wing version of history and show me where I am wrong. ”
          Sorry, withdrawn. Go find another historic account and show me where I am wrong.

          “Right – exactly what I said before – anything that disagrees with you is blatant left-wing propaganda.”
          That’s your opinion and you are welcome to believe what you want about me. My own viewpoint, I like truth in history and reporting. I may not like or agree with it, but I do want to know about things as they really are, not spun for a left or right agenda.

          “Right – except you used the word “prove” or “proof” several times in your article, when it really was “opinion”.”
          Correct! And…..
          This “article is all opinion, mine. I backed it with some references but it is still my opinion. Do you want a refund?
          I’ll have USW hold it out of my pay for writing this.

          “Here’s a little exercise for you –” No thanks, I’m about to go do a few, bench press & bicycle. If you want to refute me, do so yourself. I will comment on Bush, IMO, he gets a “fail” on his economic policy because he let Gingrich abuse his power and go on a spending spree. Bush should have used his veto and controlled spending.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Todd asked: Here’s a little exercise for you – compare President Harding’s economic policies and their result, to President GW Bush’s economic policies and their result. What do you find?

          That was fun! 🙂 Both were elected in elections at the beginning of a new decade, Harding 1920, Bush 2 2000. Both entered office with the country in financial troubles, Harding, very high unemployment after WWI, Bush, the Dot-Com bubble burst. Harding did well, reducing unemployment by 10 percentage points and reducing government spending by 50%. He then died after just alittle over two years. Hardings short term led to the roaring 20’s, a very good time in America. The decade ended with the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929.

          W had a different road to travel, before his first real budget could be enacted, 9/11 occured and the country was pushed into a war against the attackers, which continues today. Then, he took us into Iraq and that boondoggle. Overall, until 2007 when the housing bubble began to burst, that decade was pretty good for the country, economically speaking. Much like Harding, the decade ended with a major economic issue. Things went sour quick, and remain today. If this is history repeating itself, we’re in for a long decade, as the “New Deal” didn’t work so well and “Hope and Change” is following in the same footsteps.

          • Gman,
            Very good! Just one thing to highlight:

            The tax cuts enacted by both created relatively prosperous decades. But they also created huge disparities in income and wealth, which lead to over-inflated economies and stock markets, which eventually crashed.

            Too much of a good thing is not a good thing. Will we learn from this history repeating itself?

            • Todd

              I think you have your cause and effect mixed up.

              Tax cuts did not create large disparity in income.

              The tax AND spending cuts of the early 20’s caused a growing economy, and thus stock market, which then increased the income among the top percentiles.


              Losses in the markets, caused by slowing economic outlooks, act to REDUCE the wealth gap. Contrary to the popular left wing talking points.

              The latest “recession” has been the exception to this rule. And that is due to the Govt bailouts and Stimulus pay offs.

              You do realize don’t you that you are claiming that Bush’s tax cuts created a “relatively prosperous” economy.

        • This isn’t proof of anything. A “sympathizer” is not necessarily a “spy”,

          That”ll be the next thing I’m called here … a spy (because I sure am a sympathizer … 🙂

          • Charlie

            As usual you can’t seem to put history in context, then you try to use it in some twisted form of your logic to make a point about today. Thus it makes little sense.

            A “communist sympathizer” in those days were people who were ACTIVELY preaching and working for installation of the “Communist Party” in Unions and Govt. The Soviets were supporting these groups.

            The “communist” of today is just another left wing loon. And while dangerous and a traitor to freedom and liberty, they do not have the financial or other support of a Govt that is trying to undermine ours. At least as far as we know.

            So tell me. I thought you supported the idea of the organized boycott of Glenn Beck. How about the boycotts of Target and WalMart?

    • I started going thru this point-by-point, but the real point seems to be you get upset whenever anything is reported from a view point different from yours.

      Todd, welcome to the NFL …

      But seriously, it was what I tried to point out about the McCarthy praise (after the “lefties”, etc.) put up internment camps … oy vey … how do you condemn one and ignore the other? Answer: SUFA …

      • Charlie, The point of this article is really the economy, not who was a worse person during the wars. On that note,

        And did you ever look back at how silent Cal’s recovery compares to FDR’s.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Hi Charlie 🙂

        I would like to know how we all got to be divided into the left/right paradigm. It’s so dang intense anymore, it almost seems like it’s on purpose. I did an article last year, and questioned weather the Cold War was really what they said it was, or was it a big hoax to enrich the military industrial complex. Seems fear mongering and misinformation is a political mainstay, regardless of which side one claims to be on.

      • Answer: SUFA

        I like that one!!

  7. Hello All! It has been forever since I have been here, but I had some family issues that needed my full attention. I have missed the great conversations since I was away.
    So to comment on todays piece, I think that history shades the ideas we have or the facts of what the president actually stood for or what actions they performed.
    i think that while McCarthy’s idea was most likely correct his actions to solve were wrong. I see him who got drunk over his own power and the that became his drug of choice.

    Im not a friend of either Obama or Bush, I see both being a disater for our country, no question. Im also not a fan of Paul Ryan either. I believe the the theory that your actions should be for the good of the country, not matter the cost to you and your position. there are choices that could be made to fix our debt issues, but are not. Why it can make someone unpopular in their circles. I see that is Ryan’s case, I believe that the higher office is what he wants. I dont believe that his budget fixes what needs to be address.

    • Ellen,

      Glad you are back! Hope all turned out well.

      I was only using McCarthy to show what we are taught is sometimes wrong, not to judge him either way. Today I would describe Bush as Obama Light, less expensive, but tastes like chit. Ryan, I kinda like, but think his plan misses the mark.

  8. Buck the Wala says:


    I hope you’re not too broken up on this.

  9. The report also finds:

    • In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules.

    • While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively “few” 217 bills. Considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies, an abuse addressed recently in proposals such as the REINS Act.

    • Proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010, a jump of 19.3 percent.

    • Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are “economically significant” meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact—this is an increase of 22 percent over 2009’s 184 rules.

    • Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.

    • Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.

    • Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.

    • Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent—nearly double the level.

    • Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.

    • Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.

    Read more:

  10. While the budget drama in Washington, D.C. went back and forth last week over the federal fiscal year 2011 budget, lawmakers and the mainstream media missed the real opportunity. It’s not whether President Obama or House Speaker John Boehner won on the deal, or the paltry savings they agreed on.

    It’s also not whether the real savings are $352 million as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, or the $38 billion in savings claimed by Obama and Boehner, or the $100 billion expected by Tea Party-minded people.

    No! It’s the $1,000 billion (that would be $1 trillion) they did not even talk about.

    One trillion dollars in foreign profits is what could have come back into our economy if the tax on repatriated profits were zero. Multi-national companies could have redeployed those dollars at no cost to anybody.

    It makes no sense to leave $1 trillion on the table!

    Now that fiscal year 2011 is more than half over, I wonder what we can expect when they try to reach an agreement on a fiscal year budget for 2012, which starts on October 1 of this year. Maybe those negotiations will become “Let’s make a Deal — The Movie.”

    The sad part through all of this is that the taxpayers are the biggest losers. We lost out on some truly substantive spending cuts. We lost out on potentially $1 trillion being put into the economy. Some very valuable time our president and members of Congress could have used on a real economic stimulus plan was lost, and we lost the opportunity to solve the many other real crises we face.

    President Obama’s $1 trillion plan to stimulate the economy has not worked, even though he and the liberals are still in denial about that.

    They are also in denial that raising taxes and disguising it as “ending the Bush-era tax cuts” will not work. Just look at history! The president and the liberals can’t seem to get past blaming Bush for Obama’s economic failures. The Bush-era tax rates have helped to stabilize the economy, along with the massive productivity blitz by the business sector.

    Raising taxes will slow down our anemic economic growth even more.

    In addition to raising taxes, the president also proposed last week the idea of an automatic tax-increase trigger and automatic cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits if his proposed spending targets are not met. This idea is economic suicide for the country. It must have been concocted in a classroom.

    In the two-plus years President Obama has been in office, the national debt has increased by as much as it increased under the watch of President George W. Bush in eight years. And he wants Congress to agree to some automatic tax increases!

    This idea is coming from a president who said in December 2008 after he was elected that “deficits don’t matter.” The spending in the last two years and three months has certainly shown that deficits don’t matter to him. And now he wants us to believe that he will do something differently. We are supposed to believe that he and the Democrats have “gotten religion, and will not spend no mo.”

    We ain’t that stupid! And I hope Congress is not that stupid either!

    Economic common sense left D.C. a long time ago, and it didn’t show up when the Obama administration arrived in town. This president has repeatedly broken promises and is spending this nation into financial collapse. And now we are supposed to trust this president with a tax-increase trigger?

    That’s like giving a kid a loaded gun.

    That’s drama we don’t need when there’s $1 trillion just sitting there.

    Herman Cain is a former CEO, a radio talk show host on AM 750 and 95.5 FM WSB in Atlanta, and a FOX News contributor.

    Read more:

  11. Life of Illusion

    Well done.

    We are victims of much disinformation, and as you say, from both sides.

    Truth in History can be elusive and the reasons somewhat understandable. That being that details, very important details, can be lost that give everything context and meaning.

    But the same obfuscation is occurring every day on the TV, Radio, Newspapers and Internet. That is perhaps the most scary of all.

    Notice that the arguments about McCarthy here focused on “communism” which during that period was linked to “Soviet”. But now we seem to want to separate the two.

    The Communist Party of the USA was chalked full of Soviet sympathizers and spies. I see no moral duplicity in ferreting out “traitors” to our nation. The real question is what do we do with them once we have identified them.

    Will public ridicule and shame be enough? Will we have to go so far as to actually shun them?

    • Thanks JAC,

      I think the key issue is/was not allowing even possible traitors in positions of trust. And the standard rules and laws on privacy do not apply. If someone wants to be president or one of his advisors, they have to meet a higher standard. If they are not willing to open up their private life to allow proper vetting, then they don’t have to take the job and can keep their privacy.

  12. Black Flag

    The other day in your doomsday prediction you indicated that the “elite” had been plotting this mess for a hundred years or more and they were all powerful and we could do nothing. Paraphrasing by me so don’t get hung up on the exact words.

    My question to you is WHO are these ELITES????

    Seems to me you agreed with me that this was not a deliberate act but the consequences of arrogant people who think they can run the world. And not some centralized conspiracy of trying to actually run the world.

    I would like some elaboration from you as to WHO you think is behind the mess, WHAT their goal is and WHY they are doing what they are doing. HOW MUCH do they control and how much is blow back?

    I think you get the idea.

  13. don’t believe that he paid for his grades

    You believe he was accepted based on his Daddy (one for the unfair advantage argument, so thanks) … yet you believe his grades were legitimate at Yale? You really think whatever grades he received at Yale had nothing to do with donations by his Dad, his Dad’s name and influence? Okay, if you believe that, I certainly can’t prove it … but I think you’re one of the few who does believe W “earned” anything in his life.

    And remember I voted for the fool twice. So I was equally fooled by the nonsense … by 2006 (it should’ve been sooner) there was no denying the guy should’ve gone to a 2 year college for remedial work before getting accepted to Yale, never mind how he ran one business into another into the ground … then the country.

%d bloggers like this: