Then since we're currently spending 40% MORE than
under Bush, the economy should be really humming.
Yet, here we are 3 years into Obama's economic
plan and the economy is still just barely moving.
Back to the "anti-terrorist spending spree". Yes
additional money was spent on defending the country
after 911. We know you libs would just have sent
Bin Laden a cake and called it a day. Yet with
that spending, in 2007 we only had a deficit of
$160bil and it had been steadily DECLINING.
And yet right now, we're running a $1.6tril deficit
and spending has jumped 40% since 2007. It's
gone from $2.7tril to $3.7 tril.
Unless you're gonna claim that the TSA materialized
in 2008, as did the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,
trying to pin out of control spending on 911
has no merit.
Paying for it? What rope are you smoking? We're
not paying down the debt. The USA is borrowing 40
cents of every dollar spent. Back in 2007, with the TSA
and TWO wars, we were only borrowing 6 cents of
Booms and busts have occured and will continue to occur
throughout history. If the govt is so smart at preventing them,
where was Barney Frank and his committee that had oversight
on Fannie and Freddie? He proclaimed them basicly OK
just weeks before they collapsed. I guess he has a big
I wish we could always be the high-minded altruistic people we should be.
Syria is a different country than Libya, AFAIK. While there may be
similarities, the differences are important. Also, the "war" in Libya
didn't go by far as smoothly as originally anticipated (my interpretation
of events, and how long they took). Getting bogged down in a much bigger
country with many more and very highly populated cities is not where you'd
want to fight a war. Whether Libya was just about the oil for Europe, I'm
not sure, but there is definitely that aspect. And slogans are just that.
In any case, I am glad that this war in Libya was a proxy war, and also
that the US could supply the air power and control that made it possible
for the ragtag army of the "rebels" to win.
I could easily be convinced that Assad is a bad guy. No problem. He
probably feeds Hamas and Hezbollah. Case closed. But Khadafi wasn't a
real darling either. I seem to remember an "accident" with a PanAm plane
over Scotland. Regarding an uprising in Iran, that'll come after the
current crop of insane mullahs die off. Analogy with Soviet Union and Red
China, who both are still dictatorial, but in essence capitalist nowadays.
You need convincing? Just look at the US list of state sponsors
Case closed. But Khadafi wasn't a
That is true. But Kadafi in more recent years renounced
terrorism. He had cooperated with the international
community regarding WMDs and dismantled his atomic
program. The uranium was shipped to the USA. As a
result, Libya was removed from the list of state sponsors
of terrorism. Does
that make up for his past? No. But given that he was
behaving exactly as the West wanted him to, it's
particularly ironic that Obama sought to take him out
while refusing to do the same with Assad. In other
words, we have no consistent or rational foreign
You can see that in our approach to Iran. A couple
weeks ago Leon Panetta gave CBS an interview where
he said Iran is further along in developing a bomb
than we previously thought and that if they decided
to assemble a bomb they could probably have one
in a year. He said if we knew they decided to do
that, the US would unilateraly take action to eliminate
At the same time, we're running around trying to
round up more world support to take varying actions
against Iran, mostly sanctions, because of the
threat they pose.
Now just a couple of weeks later you have ImaNutJob,
president of Iran, giving a press tour of their newest
enrichment facility. That night on the news you have
the state dept and other administration experts
pooh pooing the whole thing, saying it's really nothing
new, they aren't all that far along, etc.
So, which is it? It's time Obama and his administration
make up their mind.
I see no evidence that one crazy mullah won't be replaced
by the next. And unless something changes, the current
ones will have the bomb before long. I've been waiting
for the Obama speech to the nation:
"As you all know, despite the best efforts of the
US and our allies, last night Iran tested a nuclear
Yeah, it's obviously working real well. Tell that to the
10,000 dead and the city of Homs being shelled.
The rebels in Libya got NATO airpower.
In Syria, Obama can't even give words? And the
really sad part is the liberal Obama loving media
isn't even asking the questions I've raised.
Now you're just throwing words around. Maybe that embassy in Syria has
helped foment the current revolt. But let's not pound our breasts for
that, or we might be attacked by real fascist leftists (Assad and Russia).
Inflation happens when there are too many dollars chasing too few products.
Right now people are too afraid to spend so there is no chasing. Watch out
when that changes. Gasoline *will* be $10/gallon, like your boy wants.
I have the same fears, but a slightly different solution. The Bush tax
cuts were an abomination. Under Reagan the tax rates were even higher.
Somehow, conservative minds should realize that rates have to go up from
what they are now. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be spending
cuts were appropriate. Lets figure out where the greatest spending
increases occurred, which of those can most easily be diminshed, and for
which increases in spending we should compensate with tax increases,
after we close some loopholes. I would personally "suffer" if capital
gains were taxed higher and charitable and other deductions were limited,
but maybe that should happen.
The main problem with tax increases is that they are institutionalized
in law with an enforcement mechanism. On spending there is no way that
the current Congress (even assuming they COULD control spending) can
have any impact on the next. If there was a way to make sure the
spending cuts would take place, I would be a lot more sanguine about tax
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
Then we need a mechanism to make congresscritters responsible for what
happens 2 or 5 years hence. I don't know how to do that. But I agree
that in years past they were able to adjust social security stuff to at
least postpone problems. The same things SHOULD be done now again for SS
Medi****, taxes and spending. However, (on both sides) standing
rigorously on campaign stances isn't useful.
I don't see it as a campaign stance. I see it as defending
liberty. Just as this country was founded to get away from
tyranny from the British, today we're slowing allowing govt
to take away our freedom. Each year the average American
winds up working more days to pay for govt that has gotten
too large. Many of us recognize it as the biggest threat
today to our freedom. Not only does it result in us becoming
serfs of the state, more govt meand more govt involvement
in controlling everything we do. Witness how Obamacare
is now impacting Catholic charities for example.
Taxes are NOT the problem. The
federal govt took in more money last year than ever before
in history. Out of control spending is the problem.
I can't disagree more. It is male catholic hierarchy among other male
religious organizations who want to usurp power and claim that religious
freedom is challenged. Nothing is further from the truth. Secular law
needs to trump religious law at all instances. Otherwise, sharia law
will soon be instituted and that is something neither you nor I want. If
there were true religious freedom involved the religious crowd should be
able to get some women to testify on their behalf. The regrettable fact
that the religious powers are so out of touch with their flock that
almost all women disregard the edicts of the top of the male church is
proof enough. Freedom is a personal thing. If you prohibit choice from
among the employees by taking the possibility of choice away, then you
(whatever crowd you stands for) are the tyranny. And don't say that then
they shouldn't work for a catholic charity, because those charities do a
lot of good, and perhaps those women like to contribute to that.
Religious freedom is challenged when govt tells free people
that they have to spend their money on funding for abortion
and birth control. This is exactly what you get from the
big govt that you liberals want. The more govt programs,
mandates you have, the more it intrudes on all our freedoms.
If I'm a Catholic, running
a charity or business and I don't want to spend my money on something
against my religion, the Constitution says I do not have to.
Ultimately, we'll get that ruling from the Supreme Court if
we need to. It will just be one more needless lawsuit.
Can you point to any other administration that has so many
lawsuits being brought by STATES against the federal
govt? We have 20 something states suing over Obamacare.
We have AZ, LA suing over immigration enforcement. Now TX and
various religous groups will be suing over this latest
And you can damn well bet this. Just imagine if it
were some govt progam than mandated pork and
bacon be served and the govt told Muslims organizations
they must serve it. Then you liberals would be all
up in arms.
Oh, please. This is just a total non-sequitor that's beyond stupid.
Who exactly is taking any testimony at this point?
If it's needed, plenty of women will be available. How
many women does it take for the Constitution to apply?
By my book, even 1 is enough. That's all it takes for
the ACLU to find to bring some lawsuit claiming a
big violation of freedom. Funny though, they seem
to be absent unless it's a leftist angle. But in this
case, you're now arguing that unless there are
waves of women protesting, it's OK to trample
constitutional rights, because, well, it just doesn't
>The regrettable fact
Whether they are out of touch in your view has nothing to do
with the issue.
>Freedom is a personal thing. If you prohibit choice from
Unbelievable. No one is prohibiting choice. If those
women want birth control, it isn't expensive and they can
pay for it themselves as they are doing today.
Or they can go get it for FREE from
any number of sources. And yeah, if they don't like that,
they can go work somewhere with a different health plan.
The Catholic charity should be the one that determines
that, because it's within the scope of their religous freedom.
It's their organization, their money, their religous beliefs.
It's not for you to dictate what kind of healthcare they need
to offer. The Catholic institutions clearly don't believe not
paying for birth control has hindered their ability to
function in any way.
I think you're a little confused here. Those states
do not have mandatory birth control insurance. AFAIK,
what they have are laws that say if an employer CHOOSES
to offer PRESECRIPTION coverage, then they have
to include birth control coverage. So, AFAIK, any employer is
free to have a health insurance plan without prescription
coverage. Or they could have no insurance.
I also don't believe it would be hard to find Catholic
institutions in those states that are not offering prescription
coverage, probably as a result of the law.
Another example of where all this big govt meddling gets
you is this. Perhaps you can explain to us why it is OK
that Obama declares war on the Catholic church, but
at the same time has freely handed out wavers from
Obamacare to nearly 2000 others? You know, businesses like
the expensive steak house in San Francisco, unions,
etc. Under Obamacare they can just do whatever
they please. Which is exactly the kind of tyranny you
get when you demand more govt.
too REALLY cut spending entitlements like social security and medicare
MUST BE CUT.
Thats the 3rd rail of the government, cut it and die...
As long as congress is bought and paid for by PACs and re election
stuff there is no hope.
Special interests buy congress and give the reps money to get re
elected. only the super wealthy have the bucks, which is why the
middle class is being wiped out
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.