A Complete Waste of Space

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world ... QF4YJ2pByw

Probably be better for the US as well.

related to the article cited....which was excellent:

Obama is clear example of the reactive nature of American politics. People, by and large by a massive margin,
were both appalled and disgusted by Bush, who was a man of quick decision and seemingly no caution or forethought. In Obama, we elected the opposite, someone who is, if anything, over-cautious. In the long run, the latter serves us far better than the former.

callmeslick wrote:related to the article cited....which was excellent:

Obama is clear example of the reactive nature of American politics. People, by and large by a massive margin,
were both appalled and disgusted by Bush, who was a man of quick decision and seemingly no caution or forethought. In Obama, we elected the opposite, someone who is, if anything, over-cautious. In the long run, the latter serves us far better than the former.

He sure as HELL hasn't been over-cautious about running up the debt.

Wullie wrote:

callmeslick wrote:related to the article cited....which was excellent:

Obama is clear example of the reactive nature of American politics. People, by and large by a massive margin,
were both appalled and disgusted by Bush, who was a man of quick decision and seemingly no caution or forethought. In Obama, we elected the opposite, someone who is, if anything, over-cautious. In the long run, the latter serves us far better than the former.

He sure as HELL hasn't been over-cautious about running up the debt.

can't be bothered going over who started the runup by cutting revenues to give away money to the wealthy,
and got us into the financial mess that requires government stimulus. Learn economics and then see how much you blame Obama.

callmeslick wrote:

Wullie wrote:

callmeslick wrote:related to the article cited....which was excellent:

Obama is clear example of the reactive nature of American politics. People, by and large by a massive margin,
were both appalled and disgusted by Bush, who was a man of quick decision and seemingly no caution or forethought. In Obama, we elected the opposite, someone who is, if anything, over-cautious. In the long run, the latter serves us far better than the former.

He sure as HELL hasn't been over-cautious about running up the debt.

can't be bothered going over who started the runup by cutting revenues to give away money to the wealthy,
and got us into the financial mess that requires government stimulus. Learn economics and then see how much you blame Obama.

Slick your lecture/explanation is as worthless as your non-answer on the missing 500 billion that was double counted in Obamacare...which, by the way you brushed off as "another gross distortion of healthcare figures"...It seems you were not paying attention to the fact that Obama's appointee "SillyBuss" was the one who confirmed that fact. Your credibility is in the "crapper" with everyone here.

Your horseshit justification of give away money to the wealthy, and requires government stimulus. is beyond stupid.
The result of all of that was.....the wealthy got it all...again. Then there is the "entitlement programs" to mollify the poor and keep them quiet and under control....
You say "learn economics"? When all you preach is Socialism...under the guise of economics...

Slick, your idea of "economics" ranks right up there with your collection of "Pet Rocks"....

sorry you don't like it, but most economists worth squat will confirm that in an economic situation like we had, government stimulus is necessary. Note, that when I speak of stimulus, I am NOT referring to the various bailouts of banks, lenders, and other financial institutions. That money created no jobs. However, we are fortunate, I suppose that much of that money(except for Fanny, Freddy and some of the insurers) got paid back.

I'm always amused how idly people have sat by and accepted Bush's tax cut plan. That thing was the biggest gift to inherited wealth that could have been conceived, yet embraced heartily by folks who got like
$30 per year back from it(after you subtract the increased local taxes and fees). What a hoot! I got a 20K per year boost on dividend revenues and I'm not exactly superwealthy. I cannot fathom the level of largesse that went to, say, the DuPonts or the Rockafeller family members. Further, such giveaways NEVER,EVER stimulate the economy. Trickle down economics is really piss-on-the-head of the masses economics. And, the rubes fall for it, hook line and sinker.

Bottom line--until that taxation level returns, somehow, to the pre-2000 level, you are NEVER going to balance the budget. Further, this bullshit tinkering with stuff like NPR, WIC and heating assistance are but a slap in the face to every poor to mid-level American. The real money is in Social Security, Defense, Medicare
and no one yet has come up with plans to deal with that. Obama included, for what it's worth.

"You say "learn economics"? When all you preach is Socialism...under the guise of economics..."

Exactly WHERE is that Slick Willie "peace dividend"?

Since you think that tax cut was SO bad, why didn't you give that $20K ( since you're not exactly super wealthy) back and have it applied to pay down the debt? I mean it sounds like you want us to believe you feel guilty about getting such a break and all.

Wullie wrote:Exactly WHERE is that Slick Willie "peace dividend"?

Since you think that tax cut was SO bad, why didn't you give that $20K ( since you're not exactly super wealthy) back and have it applied to pay down the debt? I mean it sounds like you want us to believe you feel guilty about getting such a break and all.

In a way, I do, but I'm not going to be some martyr if the whole bunch of you are so dumb as to go along,
and folks in the billionaire category aren't paying back.

callmeslick wrote:

Wullie wrote:Exactly WHERE is that Slick Willie "peace dividend"?

Since you think that tax cut was SO bad, why didn't you give that $20K ( since you're not exactly super wealthy) back and have it applied to pay down the debt? I mean it sounds like you want us to believe you feel guilty about getting such a break and all.

In a way, I do, but I'm not going to be some martyr if the whole bunch of you are so dumb as to go along,
and folks in the billionaire category aren't paying back.

Typical liberal response.

It's all about the feelings, not the doings.