Rubbish. I accept that the media as a whole leans liberal. But you seem to
have forgotten the NY Times cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq, to
pretend the media did nothing but attack Bush whether he deserved it or not
is not a credible position. There were certainly people prepared to believe
that if it rained on their birthday Bush was responsible, but there were at
least as many willing to cut his administration a mind-boggling amount of
slack. If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd
have been re-elected in a landslide, and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.
If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd
You are being funny right? It was his total inability to be effective with
every thing the he was involved in that got him elected out of office. The
economy was the bigger problem.
and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy their
weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....
"Swaggering?" Heh! That's what Sadaam thought. We invaded his country,
evicted him from his homes, confiscated his money, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends, killed his children, then, ultimately, had his
skanky ass hanged.
As for "paying the bill," I'll remind you that the deficit under Obama's
first year is larger than the deficits of all the Bush years.
Here's a graph:
Doing so implies those figures don't already include those government
expenditures. If they don't, the graph is misleading. If they do,
adding them a second time is just as misleading.
And the $400 billion or so of the trust funds that are counted as
revenue and spent every year and replaced with an IOU which isn't
counted as an expenditure.
Interesting that the graph shows a surplus in 2000 and 2001, but the
national debt has increased each and every year since 1960.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:51:28 -0700, Doug Winterburn
I don't know one way or the other whether the graph represents any
reliable view of reality, but from what I've seen, accountants can
play some funny games with numbers and it sometimes looks like
government accountants play games that would get private sector
accountants locked up.
Once you get away from the principle of "take the money you get,
subtract the money you spend, and what's left is what you've got"
there's way too much room for misrepresentation.
There were deficits under Bush, true. In his last year it was about $400
billion. A lot, but a robust economy could overcome that. Obama's 1st year
deficit is projected at $1.85 trillion (CBO).
In fact the 1st year Obama deficit alone is larger than the deficits for all
the Bush years combined. Obama's second year's deficit is projected at $1.4
trillion. The deficit drops a bit faster after that, the third year's
deficit a more modest $1 trillion.
The president has taken note of this, however. According to the Washington
post just today:
The president has ordered his departments to come up with $100 million in
cuts. Considering the entire budget is $3.5 trillion, the cuts the president
proposes are equivalent to a family with a $75,000 income giving up two cups
of coffee. Or a family making $250,000 giving up one paperback book. Per
No one should need more than 64K memory, or $10 grand a year to live on.
I think Obama should tax any income over 10 grand at 90%... Perhaps
then his rich bitch wife could no longer afford those $400 lunches I
heard about on the internet...
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.