Everyone remember this Obama doozy from a year ago? (h/t Gateway Pundit)
Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That’s my job. (Applause.) And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, well, this is Obama’s economy. That’s fine. Give it to me. (Applause.) My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and harp and gripe. (Applause.)
With four simple words — “Give it to me!” — President Barack Obama took possession of the economy.
For months, the White House and Obama’s economic team have laid the economic crisis at the feet of President George W. Bush. But there comes a point in a presidency when inheritance becomes ownership. Obama made that pivot Tuesday in Michigan, the state suffering the worst unemployment in the nation.
He most definitely has taken possession of the economy. But the “pivot” point was just a figment of our imagination seeing as how he is STILL blaming everyone else for the economy:
Throughout this year, Obama has blamed Bush and the criticism has intensified this month.
On Aug. 9 in Bush’s home state of Texas, Obama said the ex-president’s “disastrous” policies had damaged the economy, noting that Bush inherited budget surpluses and ended his time in the White House with a budget deficit.
During a fundraiser with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in Seattle this week, Obama said, “Eighteen months ago I took office after nearly a decade of economic policies that had given us sluggish growth, sluggish job growth, falling incomes, falling wages and a record deficit.”
Over a year and half after taking office, and a year in which he supposedly took possession of this economy, he is still blaming Bush. Take a look below, paying special attention to the time period after July 2009 (the date he said “give it to me”..26 seconds in) up to the present day.
Whose fault is this?
He and his party have control of both houses, he has run this economy into the ground, and he has the audacity to blame Bush?
Won’t last for long:
In a new poll by the Associated Press, just 41 percent of Americans approve of the president’s performance on the economy, his lowest in that poll yet. Sixty-one percent say the economy has gotten worse or stayed the same during the president’s term.
…a new Rasmussen poll shows that voters are just as likely to blame President Barack Obama for the nation’s current economic woes as they are to blame his predecessor, President George W. Bush.
Obama faces the most skepticism from Independents, who blame him by a margin of 52 percent to 44 percent margin.
Rasmussen asked 1,000 likely voters whether the actions of President Bush or President Obama were mostly responsible for the nation’s current economic problems. Forty-eight percent said the blame lies with the current president, while 47 percent blamed his predecessor.
Only 4 percent of voters said that they were not sure who bears the most blame.
We know who bears the blame. The whiny sorry excuse for a leader can point his finger at anyone he wishes but the American population can see through it.
What an embarrassment this man is.
See author page
The blame Bush days are long gone. 0-bama owns this economy and wasted a trillions dollars on his union friends and buying votes vs. real job creation. We live with this now but come November America will speak loud and clear. Give us our country back you useless jerk!!
Imam Obama is a whining nit wit.
Seriously, who cares what Obama says anymore. The man is a natural-born bullshit machine.
@Tom in CA:
Could that be why the beaches at Martha’s Vineyard were closed for fecal pollution?
To widen his shrinking appeal, Obama is now blaming Congress — a Democrat Congress, no less. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/08/obama-mosque-jobs-economy.html
@Indigo Red
LMAO!! Too bad he only has two hands to point at everyone. Wont be long until he needs his toes. What a douche-rocket.
Though not a great prediction, he will use the “blame Bush” strategy in 2012. And, when he loses, it will be Bush’s fault.
From day ONE after taking the Oath of Office the Magic Half Kenyan Boy Wonder assumed Authority as the Pretender in Chief of the greatest Nation on the planet but assumed Zero Responsibility for the Office, the Global war on Terror, the status of the Economy, the declining value of the Dollar, declining US Prestige in the International Community…Etc…
Talk is cheap and placing blame is NOT Leadership, not by my standards.
Obama is just a Post Turtle by my estimation…
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/28/patrick-dorinson-obama-post-turtle/
But from where I sit, Barack Obama is a”post turtle.” What is a”post turtle” you urbane urbanites and city slickers might ask?
Well one day an old cowboy was out ridin’ fence and he saw a turtle balanced on top of a fence post. When he got back to the bunkhouse he told the other fellas that he saw a “post turtle”. They all asked, “What the hell is a ‘post Turtle’? And he said it was a turtle settin’ on top of a post! He then went on to explain that “you know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there and you just wonder what kind of dang fool put him up there to begin with!”
Obama was never really vetted by the adoring media, he has never had his nose bloodied in a real political fight, in the Senate he perfected voting “present” to an art form, he has no real understanding or knowledge of the struggles of his countrymen, and he has had no real hard life experiences that are the hot steel needed to forge and shape leadership qualities.
During the campaign when he made the comments about some Americans”clinging to their guns and their religion” to a crowd of well-heeled San Francisco Democrats, it was almost as if he was giving them an anthropological lecture on the people of the rest of America. What he said demonstrated a total lack of understanding of his fellow citizens, but the way he said it was worse. It was as if he was saying, “You know I just returned from the hinterlands and I would like to tell you about the strange natives and their quaint customs I encountered in my travels.”
And they wonder why health care is in trouble.
There is also a growing perception about Obama being in over his head and that his inexperience, once seen as a not being a problem by his admirers, has become a problem.
Still, Obama appears to enjoy BEING president–throwing out the first pitch of the baseball season, cracking jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner and having a NASCAR Day at the White House. The more important question is does he really know how to BE president?
Well, over the next few months we are about to find out. His health care plan is in deep trouble, the economy has too much “whoa” and not enough “giddyup,” and critical foreign policy questions will need to be answered on Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran — to name just a few.
He is either going to stand up and grab the standard of leadership or he will show that he really is a “post turtle” after all.
The days of fancy speeches and adoring rallies are over. The American people have been aroused from their infatuation and will now be judging him on cold hard facts not his rhetorical flourishes. It’s about to get very interesting.
As Obama’s hero old Abe Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
*********************************************
I wasn’t fooled from Day One.
Mr. Obama needs to take some Responsibility and stop pointing fingers.
OLD TROOPER 2: YOU gave the speech, that the next PRESIDENT would give to AMERICA.
bye
@Old Trooper
I don’t believe Abraham Lincoln actually is one of Obama’s heroes. Their stark difference in thought kind of precludes that notion.
Obama is doing his damnedest to divide this country along racial, economic, and religious lines.
As I have documented in another post here, Obama perverts, and also goes around, the Constitution when he deems it expedient to his cause.
Why this quote? Because of the constant whining and blaming of the ill economy on the previous president, and his forgetfulness of his own 2 years, during his parties’ majority, that led to his increased deficits and uncertainty in the business world.
I think the latest polling on his confidence answers this one. That, and the polling on his actions undertaken so far.
I believe this one is self-explanatory.
BP spill anyone?
To Obama, that some achieve great success, is proof that they have done so at the expense of those who have not.
Unfortunately, Obama and his admin act as if he and his congressional leadership are the masters of all, despite the public sentiment to the contrary. For example, we, as the people, were given Obamacare, even when public opinion was against it, and we are still being sold that bill of goods, even when public opinion now shows a marked aversion to it.
And finally,
Obama’s actions, policies, and ideology discourage and deny people from taking responsibility for their own lives, and place it upon the shoulders of government and society in general, in essence, taking away a man’s liberty to succeed, or fail, on his own merits. Obama takes that responsibility and shackles it to that person’s fellow citizens, that all success may be shared, even by those who did not earn it, and that all failure is equally spread amongst the people, which serves to lessen the impact upon the individual, but places responsibility for it amongst those with no voice in the pursuit that led to the failure.
Lincoln espouses ideals that man is responsible for himself, and to allow others to maintain their own responsibility. Obama espouses ideals that force one man to accept the burdens of another. Lincoln espouses ideals that all men, have equal opportunity, for success and failure, by their own hand. Obama espouses ideals that claim one man’s success is the product of another’s failure, and thus, should not be allowed his success for himself, but in fairness, should be spread to all. The differences in their thought processes make it clear that although Obama may claim Lincoln as a hero, he does so only for political expediency and gain, while discounting Lincoln’s own ideals.
Currently, republican accusations that democrats blame Bush pop up a heck of lot more frequently than democrats actually name Bush.
The repeated accusations of Bush-bashing are nothing more than a means of diverting attention away from any serious discussion of the policies that got us into this situation. It’s far easier for republicans to defend the person of the former president than to defend the high-end tax cuts that they’re trying to sell the voters on yet again.
@Greg
Please explain to me how lowered taxes for the ‘rich’, as liberals refer to them, have in any way, shape, or form, lowered federal revenue, or hurt the middle class, or the poor.
Please explain to me how lowered taxes for the ‘rich’, have driven the economy downward.
Please explain to me how increasing those taxes on the ‘rich’, will turn the economy around.
Please explain to me how increasing those taxes on the ‘rich’, will in any way, shape, or form, affect the middle class and the poor positively.
Socialists practice class warfare, Greg, so one has to assume that you, at the very least, have socialistic tendencies, if not being an outright socialist.
“Please explain to me how increasing those taxes on the ‘rich’, will turn the economy around.”
Democrats haven’t actually suggested that increasing taxes on the rich would turn the economy around.
What they’ve pointed out is that the economy isn’t in the condition it’s in as a result of excessive taxes on the wealthy, or because of regulation.
Simply consider the fact that the economy took a nose-dive at a time when deep, high-end republican tax cuts were still in full force, and at the end of a long period of sweeping deregulation, when special interests had established strong influence over our regulatory agencies themselves.
Here’s a reality check for those who keep talking about “high-end” tax cuts.
Here’s what happened to tax rates for the wealthy during the Bush years:
Wow!
Look at that…the upper brackets bear more of the burden.
A pertinent article by economist Paul Krugman, from 2003:
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html
He seems to be a guy who sees with clarity:
Lest there be any confusion about who’s side of the debate Grover Norquist is on, here’s a quote from him:
“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Get it?
If only the far right would speak to mainstream America with such honesty and clarity. But they’re far too clever for that. They’re careful not to state what they’re really selling.
@Greg
You are missing the point entirely, yet again. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue at the time. Tax hikes, as seen throughout history, lower revenue. And why is that, I wonder? Possibly because of lower economic activity? And yet, you speak of the dems talking about the economy and the tax cuts for the wealthy, somehow equating that the tax cuts are responsible for the bad economy. Just how bad do you think it will be when those cuts end? Economically illiterate can best describe you in these postings.
And Greg, per your posting on #15, show me a time when a tax cut actually decreased federal revenue. Please. Go on. Show me.
Citing anything from Krugman will get you nothing more than an amused laugh here. He is Keynesian through and through, and Keynes was wrong as history has shown.
Again, show me a tax cut that decreased revenue, because that is the only way that the article you cite can in any way be prescient on the issue.
@ post #16: “Again, show me a tax cut that decreased revenue, because that is the only way that the article you cite can in any way be prescient on the issue.”
How about the most recent one?
Is anyone under the impression that federal tax revenues increased last year, or are going to this year? The decline in federal tax revenues has been dramatic, to say the least. The worst since the Great Depression. The states have had it even worse.
All while the previous administration’s tax cuts have remained in effect.
I can certainly understand why people might want to discount Krugman–in spite of the fact that the article he wrote 7 years ago seems so dead on target that he might have written it yesterday.
how right you are. This pretender-n-theif will suffer the same fate as Lincoln I suspect, only his will be of a political nature. But, we have to know that long after his departure, our countrymen/ladies will suffer for his ignorances of We the PEople and just where does one get his honor rebate?
@Greg:
You mean the deregulation Clinton signed into law? Bush increased regulation…..big time. Must be fun for dyed in the wool liberals to be lied to so frequently.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/602/the-great-bush-deregulation-myth
http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB123396551669058895-lMyQjAxMDI5MzAzNzkwNjc1Wj.html
@Greg:
You can’t tax what isn’t being earned, the decrease in revenue is due to unemployment, not the Bush tax cuts. Unemployment is due to the collapse of the economy, that btw, was global……even countries that did not initiate……evil tax cuts…… were hit, recall?
States that “have it even worse” that’s due to spending, pension obligations, high taxes and REGULATIONS that drive business…….elsewhere, no profit, no businesses, no taxes.
There will be no hiring while business has to fear the cost of what was recently enacted and what else will be coming at them. Investors are sitting on their cash for that reason, if they lose, everyone loses as you can see by the number of “out of business” businesses. If they can’t profit they close, they go where they can profit or sit on their money.
How much revenue do you think was lost due to the auto dealership closures and business that benefited from their existence…..the oil rigs….refusing loans/grants to oil based industry? A favorite target of this administration, “cutting off your nose to spite your face” kind of behavior. 🙄
MISSY: hi, wow I keep admiring your capacity of giving them the right food ,before they choke on their own saliva; you are saving life, and they come back for it, bye
@Greg
Ok, genius. How many jobs have been lost during that year? And the previous one? And the one before that?
Missy has explained it fairly.
Yet, you would have us believe that even though after the initial cuts, and federal revenue due to taxes increased, that all of a sudden, those tax cuts ‘for the rich’ caused that same federal revenue to drop sharply. You would have people believe that the economic activity of the country dropped due to those tax cuts. You would have people believe that the housing market crashed due to those tax cuts.
You spend too much time putting carts before horses.
As for Krugman, he has penned so many opinion pieces on economic issues that it has spawned a new industry dedicated to explaining just how he is wrong on every item he addresses. He is so famously wrong on topics that he stands to gain the title of “infamous” in the near future.
I suggest you take a spin with a different economist. See how it fits.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_is_a_liar_does_th.html
I agree that Krugman’s recent article misinterprets the Brookings Institute data. He states this:
“And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break.”
There’s an obvious flaw in the logic of that statement: While the wealthiest 1% would receive far greater individual annual tax savings from a full extension of the Bush tax cuts than the remaining 99%, and while the top .1% would receive individual shares of savings that are vastly greater, their group’s share as a whole does not actually represent the largest portion of the overall total savings. Obviously the small shares of the total going to the rest of us make up most of the overall total, because we’re far more numerous.
As the Brookings Institute data points out, Obama’s proposal–when compared with a full extension of all tax cuts–trims cumulative federal deficits by only about $680 Billion over the next 10 years. (Mostly that savings would come from eliminating the cost of extending the disproportionately large tax cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers.) It’s clearly not enough.
Maybe, as the Brookings article suggests, the tax cuts need to be dumped in their entirety. Maybe everybody needs to bite the bullet–Obama’s campaign promises notwithstanding. And then we’ll need to look at spending, across the entire spectrum, and get ready to bite the bullet again. Whichever side of the political divide you’re on, prepare to see some of you’re favorite spending programs trimmed.
Since we can’t agree on what spending to cut, maybe we should go for a 10% cut on every single item? It would make it difficult to play politics with a necessary process.
@Greg
So you would recommend doing the completely wrong thing to do, when the economy is stagnating, and people are looking to just maintain as much of the status quo as they can, and take more from the people who make the economic engine tick?
That shows the belief that the government IS the economy. That taxes, and the resulting federal revenue, determine the direction the economy heads
Why do you think people are sitting on cash reserves? How much of that capital will be reinvested into the economy when their taxes are increased? Reading Krugman has made you economically illiterate when it comes to the reality of how the economy works. People might spend their reserves to make up the difference between what they did earn and what they will earn, but they certainly won’t engage in any financial endeavors that lead to job growth.
Tax increases, during a time of recession, and especially a depression, will not lead to anything other than a contraction of economic activity. Double dip? If Obama has his way it might just end up in free fall.
Greg
We can mark this occasion as The Day We Agreed on Something. (But I’m ignoring the Brookings position, as they are economic idiots, and partisan to the Neo-Fabian* cause.)
Everyone needs to have skin in this game, and that includes more of the lowest 48% who pay no taxes whatsoever (Go FairTax!). That 10% cut would be a good start, and as a bonus to this shocking paradigm of mine, I’d include the military, and NASA.
Where we might diverge, is in the fact that not only would I cut 10%… MY 10% is BEFORE the Obama increases in spending. I would cancel ALL Obama-spending as the starting point, because his spending is far beyond 10% of last year, let alone the year before…thus the Brookings position, and I suspect, possibly yours.
Keep the Bush tax cuts
Cancel all Dem spending over the past 2 years.
Cut services/budget 10% (Minus the Baseline budgeting definition of zero, and minus the Obama Peloci and Reed budget-rape.)
Attach a 10% interest/surcharge on TARP/GM. (Like Reagan did to Chrysler)
Pass the FairTax.
*Edited from “Neo-Com”, as I feel “Fabian” is more a accurate term than Communist, and less needlessly hyperbolic.
“Missy has explained it fairly: You can’t tax what isn’t being earned, the decrease in revenue is due to unemployment.”
I read that as a statement of the obvious, rather than as an explanation. For an explanation, you’ve got to back up a step and figure out why we’ve had an enormous spike in unemployment. People seem to want to start that analysis no earlier than the point in time when a democratic majority was seated, or when Barack Obama walked into the oval office.
The precarious arrangement dominos had already been set up by then. Setting them up was a long bipartisan effort.
@Patvann, #24: “Tax increases, during a time of recession, and especially a depression, will not lead to anything other than a contraction of economic activity.”
So everyone says–particularly those who will benefit the most quickly from tax cuts. I actually understand the logic behind the statement and don’t discount it.
The problem is, we’ve also got the matter of out-of-control debt, which I’m not at all convinced more tax cuts will improve.
@Greg. (You quoted something that was not me, but by JohnGalt)
But I will answer, because it’s so easy.
Reduce the tax on the “producers”, and more taxes come in because if the increased economic activity. Laffer’s curves work here as well, because you don’t want to go to zero, (detriment to budget then occurs.)…but where Obama/Pelosi/Reid wants to take us is, in the opposite direction of that sought-for “balance under the curve”.
Tax cuts have been proven to increase government income. Several times in history, in fact. The opposite has also been proven.
Sorry about the misattributed quote, Patvann.
breaking the economy is easy, fixing it takes a long time.
The Dems took control of both Houses on Jan 3, 2007, and 11 months later the country went into recession.
Owebama, aka Mr. Rubberstamp, got in and we are where we are today – in deep debt – over $14 TRILLION.
Sure, they will continue to blame Bush, their dumb base will swallow it, and they are counting on that.
Proof of the matter is, the Dems held both Houses and the White House, spent tax dollars like drunken sailors on bailouts and ‘stimulus’ plans which put the country into the debt it’s in, while kicking-back money to the union bosses for their political machine, and they crammed all kinds of Bills down the taxpayer’s throats, to include Obama Care. YET, with complete control of Congress and the White House, the Dems did not repeal the Bush tax cuts, and that is because the tax cuts isn’t the problem – they have actually kept us from going under even worse, and they know it, which is why they did not repeal them when they could have. The Dem’s spending for votes, and lining up illegal aliens for future votes; spending, spending, spending, is the problem.
PATTVAN, you should be the PRESIDENT
Bill , hi,
yes absolutly, how come nobody tell him that, are they afraid of him or the UNION BOSSES,
they are scare for sure,
Bee,
The Dems and their main-stream media are afraid of the truth, and their blind sheep wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them between the eyes.
With the Dems, it’s the one-eyed king leading the blind.
Bill, they lost it some times ago, they would need a debriefing to remember who they are,
where they are, why they are. and what their future will be when they fall in
the precipice
Bee,
The Dems never had it to begin with.
Bill, yes, and the burden will fall on the next GOVERNMENT TO FIX,
THAT is why they will have to be strong beleivers of the CONSTITUTION,
TO REPAIR THE DAMMAGE DONE, NO WEAKLING NEEDED.
BYE
Bee,
The only thing that will turn the country around is Mitt Romney as President with a Republican-controlled Congress.
If America is to be righted, ALL Dems and RINOs must go.
Bill, I REALY DON’T SEE THE SAME ON ROMNEY, BECAUSE AS I hear he has gone along the dem with healthcare support that Many don’t beleive in, I heard it from so many that I tend to lean on their side, so to not make the difference that is needed by ROMNEY, WHICH IS NOT TRUSTED TO HAVE THE GUTTS TO WIN
OVER THE DEMS. WHY DO you THINK HE CAN?
bye
The health care bill Romney signed is a few hundred pages and ONLY for Massachusetts, and it is within the realm of the Constitution.
Owebama Care is another story – a few thousand pages, which none of them even read, then shoved down the throats of 50 states – it goes against the Constitution, which is why it has been and will continue to be overturned in the courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Owebama Care also stripped BILLIONS from senior’s Medicare so they could cover illegal aliens with that money.
For all practical purposes, Owebama care is history.
Romney has not gone along with the Dems on Owebama Care – as a matter of fact, he has vowed to repeal it if he becomes president and if it’s still standing at that time.
Romney is a great turn-around guy – America needs to be turned around.
I believe he will be great for the economy – America needs him.
bill, thank you, I value your knowledge, from our previous exchange,
funny I was coming just to tell you that there is a big electric storm here now, with lightning and thunder seems to be quite close, and I just had a phone call telling me that a tornado is in the menu also, so I WILL close my computer, so to to keep away from electro something that a lightning could hit,
on the last year storm, one lightning hit the roof and burned the wires from the phone,
I had 3 phone lines, and only one was repaired, and when it happen, I was right here at the same place ,
it hit so hard that I felt the lightning so close, my computer close by itself and never recover to play as before, until I change for a new one,
that is my fear of mingle with that electric power now,
bye
Bee,
I hear you – lightning is scary, and it can do serious damage and harm when it strikes.
Wear rubber soles and practice the one-hand rule when lightning storms are in your area.
It’s one thing to get a good electrical bite, another to have it travel through your chest – it will whack out the heart.
You sound like you have a good one, so keep it that way ☺
Bill, I came back to check if you had answer, I got it yes, I’m going now thank you ,
I’ll check back when THE FORCES OF NATURE are calm,
bye
Bill, hi, no tornado yet, but still menacing, no wind, all is standing still, that is the menacing part of tornado, before it unleash, so I’ll keep checking.
about ROMNEY, do you beleive that he is to be beleive, some will say anything you want to hear before,
and change drasticly, after they get the power, that is why it’s difficult for the people to see before It’s already done, like the last one, who realy made the people skeptical for this time to beleive the speech, of anyone.
and they have to convince that what they say is what it will be,
bye
Bee,
They all say this and that and what they think folks want to hear – the difference is whether the person possess what it takes to run the country successfully or not – talk is one thing, reality another.
During his campaign Owebama claimed he would pull the troops out of Iraq – they are still there.
Owebama claimed he would pull the troops out of Afghanistan – he added troops.
Owebama claimed he would close GITMO – it’s still open.
Owebama claimed that spending BILLIONS of taxpayer’s hard-earned money on stimulus plans would turn the economy and lessen the unemployment rate to below 8% – it didn’t happen.
The unemployment rate has been horrendous for way too long now, and that’s just the part of it – many cities, counties, states, and the feds have their employees on furloughs – pay cuts. And the threat of losing their jobs every day is stress nobody should live with.
Owebama claimed he would kill the Bush tax cuts – even though he crammed a bunch of crp down the taxpayer’s throats, he did not kill the Bush tax cuts.
Owebama claimed he would close the gap on the deficit – he widened it worse than every president before him combined.
Romney and a Republican-controlled Congress is the ONLY answer to our country’s grave problem.
Bill, HI, you surely know more than me the qualfications of ROMNEY,
did you check on CAINE WHO IS COMING QUITE SYMPATETHIC TO CROWDS,
I LISTEN TO 2 OF HIS SPEECHS AND HE IS A STRONG OPPONANT TO BE BEAT,
RICK PERRY seem to consider the run, GILUYANNI IS GETTING IN,AND SARAH PALIN MIGHT GIVE A GOOD FIGHT,
AS YOU SAID the now regime has destroyed, and I think that we must concentrate on the most able to take the job
by defeating this power of democrats AS OPPOSE TO his ability to get the COUNTRY GOING,
BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL FOR THE BEST OF AMERICA, BUT IT WONT TAKE JUST ABILITY
which wont be any good if the candidat cannot crush his opponant, therefor allow him to win again another 4 years with open borders and citys full of mosquito receiving their own brothers of hood to activate the same disturbance they are doing now in the middle east, and the free countrys are next,including AMERICA WHICH LEADER MAKING IT EASY FOR THEM TO DO MORE RAPIDLY,
WE NEED A FIGHTER WITHOUT NO MERCI, TO CRUSH THE BEAST WITHOUT TOLERANCE.
BEFORE SETTING A FOOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
BECAUSE HE HAS THE WHOLE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT AND THE SOCIALIST PARTY,
ALL THE YOUNG IN UNIVERSITY HIT BY THEIR PROPAGANDE, ALL THE UNIONS THUGS AND MOST EMPLOYEES WHICH HAVE BEEN WARN AND THREATENNED TO FOLLOW OR ELSE,
HE HAS MOST OF THE BLACKS POOR COMMUNITY AND THE WELFARE WHICH ARE BEING TOLD TO VOTE FOR THEM OR ELSE AND OF COURSE THE MUSLIMS FOLLOWING THEIR IMANS, THE ALSO CROOKED MANUEVERS OF VOTES STEALING, AND ALSO THE ILLEGALS COULD PLAY SKEEMS TO VOTERS, ALSO THE DEMS PLANTIG FALSE CONSERVATIVES, THEY WILL DO ANYTHING NO MATTER THE COST TO BUY VOTES, BY CHEATING OR BRUTALISING THEIR OPPONANT.
ROMNEY SEEM TOO SOFTY WITH NICE WORDS MORE TRYING TO APPEASE THE CONSERVATIVES THAN FIGHT THE DEMS.
BYE, OH YES THE MEDIA IN HIS POCKET
IT TAKE A STRONG WARRIOR TO DO THE JOB WHICH IS NOT IN THE BAG YET,
BYE
Bee,
You are spot on about most everything except Romney – during the debates last presidential round, when asked about GITMO, Mike Suckabee and Shitstains McCain both said it should be closed, and that’s because they thought it was politically expedient to do so.
When asked, Romney said GITMO should not be closed, that it should be doubled.
The man has both brains and balls – he is the best person for the job by far.
Bill, I know you are very smart, so I am not qualified to debate longer,
I take it as you have a good point being smart and informed to choose ROMNEY,
WELL THEN, BUT HE NEED SOME STRONG CREW TO BACK UP HIS CLASSYS SPEECH
AND GOOD PUNCH LINE TO DELIVER WITH AN AUTHORITARIAN VOICE THAT
REQUIRE NO REMARKS FROM HIS BROKEN DOWN OPPONANT,
THAT IS HOW UGLY IT WILL BE FOUGHT AND MUST BE WON,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO SECOND RETRY, FOR AMERICA. TO WIN
BEST TO YOU.
Romney is a business man – a good business man – right now America can use a good business man at the helm, and not just another politician.
Owebama has NEVER run a business in his life, and neither has any of the tons of cabinet members and czars he has surrounded himself with. Those zipper-heads are riding around on training wheels while the country goes into massive debt. Not a one has ever even run a lemonade stand in their lives, let alone run anything of significance successfully.
Romney was governor of a state controlled by Dems, and he still managed to do a good job despite their opposition.
Most of Romney’s life has been running businesses – successfully – even turning some around from major slumps.
If elected, Romney WILL select people who know how things work. As a result of it, they will pull us out the the hole the Dems have dug us into.
George W. Bush has been called stupid by the Dems and their main-stream press, yet the opposite is true.
He’s very smart – ran his own business – governed Texas successfully, and had the sense to surround himself with people who had real experience.
We were hit on 9/11, and we saw how the experiences of great people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld paid off. Maybe the press and the Dems won’t admit it, but for sure the enemy found out the truth of that fact fairly quick.
Bill, yes for sure, it would be good to see the people hoping and creating for the future in AMERICA, TO SEE BIG COMPANYS RETURN TO A NEW START FOR THEM TO BE AGAIN PROUD TO GET THE AMERICANS WORKING, building, discovering made in AMERICA ANY THINGS SOLD AROUND THE WORLD FROM AMERICA’S POINT OF SHIPPING, SLOWLY CHANGING LETHARGIC YOUNG MIND INTO A NEW RULES OF SCHOLARITY INCENTIVE NOT TO ADORE OBAMIST FALSE god, but to recite
THE LORD’S PRAYER AGAIN IN THE SCHOOLS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS NATION AND HISTORY OF THE BEGINNING OF HER, AHEADOF FOREIGN HISTORY OF NEGATIVE RELIGIONS OF
HATE AND DEATH WISH.
SO MUCH TO DO, BUT DOABLE BY THE RIGHT AMERICA LOVING AND DEDICATED PRESIDENT.
BYE
The MSM is nothing more than a mouth piece for Socialistic Communistic Liberal elements here in the States! Just like it is mention correctly here how they called Bush “dummy”…..well what is so wise about them!
Personally I blame both parties both Republican and Democratic for the economy! They allow each other to screw us outside of a small hand full of people! I hope we can get some no BS people like Cain and West in Office, and begin to incorporate people who will not betray the American public! Listen the functioning part of our Government is not the elected officials anymore! If Cain and west were to get into office they would definitely begin to clean house by firing and dismissing all of these unnecessary money crunching power hungry committees and subcommittees! Is a real stream of insanity! Appoint a real committee to restrict State Department give away programs and begin to put people in the State Department which has turned in to nothing but a Liberal orgy that is draining our country!
READ BELOW GENTLEMEN AND TELL ME WHAT ORGANIZATION HERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GETTING ANYTHING TO BEGIN WITH??????
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
Save America ‘s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.
Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings.
Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts .. $9 million annual savings. What the hell is this anyway…?
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.
U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.
Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing payments to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings. WHAT THE HELL…!
Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).$93 million annual savings.
Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
HUD Ph.D. Program. ????
Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act
TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question, what THE Devil is all this doing in the budget in the first place…?
Is there anything listed you cannot do without…?