Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4154
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:03 am    Post subject: Biggest Democrat Disaster of Day One Reply with quote

Democrats seem cursed ...

Quote:
So many things went terribly wrong on the first day of the Democratic National Convention it’s hard to pick which one was the most damaging. First, the Treasury Department confirmed yesterday that the federal government’s debt officially passed $16 trillion. Then, Occupy Charlotte protestors got into a fight with Obama supporters outside the convention hall. Apparently unions even bussed in some of the Occupy protesters.

Then Democrats kicked off their official convention program with a video from the host committee titled, “Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To.” Mitt Romney immediately tweeted out in response, “We don’t belong to government, the government belongs to us.” Realizing what an epic disaster the video’s message was, the Obama campaign quickly retreated, disavowing all knowledge of it. “The video in question was produced and paid for by the host committee of the city of Charlotte. It’s neither an OFA nor a DNC video, despite what the Romney campaign is claiming,” the Obama campaign claimed in an email.

But the biggest disaster from Tuesday actually began Monday at a training session for Jewish Democrats held by the Obama campaign. At the event, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed that Israel’s ambassador to the United States had accused Republicans of being “dangerous” to Israel by criticizing President Obama’s record. The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, then released a statement Tuesday “categorically” denying Wasserman Schultz’s claim.

Wasserman Schultz then went on Fox News, where she denied ever saying that the Israeli Ambassador told her Republicans are dangerous for Israel. She also attacked The Washington Examiner‘s Phil Klein, who originally broke the story, for “deliberately” misquoting her. Problem is, Klein taped Wasserman Schultz speech to the Jewish Democrat training session. You can listen to the audio here. She clearly says, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

Will the liberal media call out Wasserman Schultz for her lies?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....EdKe1SGa_G


Part of it can't be avoided ... just bad luck ... but how could they have been stupid enough, so politically tone-deaf, as to title one of their videos “Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To”???

Perhaps it's an omen of what is to come.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4154
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Democrats are definitely more 'fun' than Republicans, as this video shows ...


Link


Think about it ... four more years with this lot in control!!

Comments?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4154
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention.

The day stated with a floor fight over the removal of the word 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance ... and some anti-Israel bit of policy. It has the party pros pulling their hair out. A floor-fight broke out, and it was agreed that God certainly should not be omitted. When it was re-inserted, the announcement was met with boo's. Not the kind of thing that David Alexrod wants being shown to the hicks ...

A snippet of pundit-talk, assessing the damage ...

BLITZER: “I guess maybe it sounded even awkward if you will. But what do you think?”

BEGALA: “Beyond awkward. It's embarrassing. It's stupid. It's an unforced error by my party.” (CNN’s “Situation Room,” 9/5/12)

The Dems shoved Debbie Wasserman Schultz out to face the media ... and she insists that Obama changed the platform because he wanted to make sure that everybody knows where the capital of Israel is ... it's wall-to-wall barefaced lies with that woman. Anderson Cooper says she must be in an alternative universe ...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/and.....rm-change/

The evening is bound to go better ... Bill Clinton, unleashed. This is the greatest politician of our time. He knows how to play this game. His speech will be affecting and one of the highlights of the convention. It will stir the hearts and tickle the brain.
machiavelli





Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Reputation: 66.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OBAMA'S MASSIVE OVER SPENDING & TAX INCREASES CREATE FAILURES

Barrack Hussein Obama’s less than laudable fiscal endeavours include the four highest spending years since 1946, increased 21 different taxes in ObamaCare, increased cigarette and other specific job killing taxes on the middle class, and a monolithic job slaughtering tax increase on small businessmen and the most productive wealth/job creators who make over $250,000.

With 23 million Americans currently unemployed, there are less Americans working now than there was in January 2009 when Obama became president. Three million more Americans are out of work than four years ago, the national debt is $5 trillion bigger, medium income in much lower, family income has declined by $4000.00, and gas prices are much, much higher.

He has increased the deficit by a billion dollars each year of his presidency, and the national debt has multiplied from $9 trillion at his inauguration in January 2009, to more than $16 trillion in 2012.

As a result of his disapproval of the free enterprise system, Obama has mishandled one of the slowest and weakest recoveries from a recession since the Great Recession. He endeavoured to stimulate the economy in the standard Keynesian style; however, while expediting this policy he relentlessly affirmed his anti-business convictions, persistently threatened stronger job killing regulations, incessantly promised higher taxes, and unremittingly promised wealth redistribution. The result is feeble job growth, pathetically low GDP growth, and a major increase in debt resulting from, to a large extent, wasted stimulus dollars

Obama has repudiated reining in spending and instead has grown the national debt. It took America from 1789 to 2008 to acquire $9 trillion in federal debt; it took Obama less than three years to increase that 200 year debt by practically 70 percent. In Obama’s first three years, the national debt increased from a little more than 40 percent of our gross domestic product to more than 100 percent of GDP. Obama’s long list of economic failures also includes the first debt downgrade in U.S. history, and a drop in Americans’ incomes to the same levels they were in 1996.

One therefore, would think that even an extreme progressive like comrade Obama would realize that out of controlled spending, over regulation, and increasing taxes will result in continuous decades of impediments for current and future American families. The Congressional Budget Office revealed that Obama’s annual spending increases of 20% has inflicted the next generation of Americans with a deficit of $1.08 trillion, or 7% of GDP, in 2012, and a debt of 72.5% of the economy, up from 49.3% from President Bush’s last year in 2008. The utopian building president has increased Federal Government spending to the highest level---21 percent in 2009---since 1946.

Obama wants to obstruct wealth/job creators, who already pay much much more than their fair share of income tax, with additional tax increases. Someone should inform the president, as if he would be interested in loosing one of his re-election talking points, that according to the Internal Revenue Service for 2008, the top 1% of earners paid 38% of all personal income taxes, while earning 20% of pretax income. The top 5% of income earners paid 58.7% of personal income taxes while earning 34.7% of pretax income. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of income earners paid only 2.7% of the total tax burden while earning 12.75% of the total pretax income. Many of non-tax payers actually receive tax credits (welfare) payments.

Rational fiscal analysis realize that the US has a spending problem rather than a revenue problem. Spending has accelerated to an estimated 25.3% of GDP in 2011from 21.3% since 1988. The obvious fiscally responsible answer is cutting $4-5 trillion in structural cuts over a relatively short duration without gutting the defence budget which would be a renunciation of their basic national security responsibilities.

Rather than continuing comrade Barrack Hussein Obama’s irresponsible out of controlled spending, over regulation, and tax increases, free-market economists and political scientists contend that the US needs a permanent cap on spending, and structural changes in entitlement programs. As one economist pundit says, “you can not tax an economy into prosperity”.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't help but dwell on Bill Clinton's speech;

He commented that no President (himself included) could have fixed the mess that President Obama found himself in within four years.

While I won't weigh in on if I agree or disagree with the fact that if I had a time machine and could pick my President wither he could have done better in four years or not,

However just to comment on previous situations;

The unemployment rate was 7.5% in May 1980 peaking in 1982 at 10.8%, it was called the Reagan recession even though it had started before he took office, and by the 1984 election it was back down to 7.4%, the Economy was visibly recovering and Reagan ran on his record and won.

Just like now it got worse before it got better, but the difference is that it got significantly better within that four year term.

Clinton seems to argue that its unfair to punish the President because the Economy is not fully recovered; and to an extent I can even agree with that.

However is it unreasonable for the President to be punished because after having a majority in both houses for two years the economy got worse (unemployment peaked at 9.3% in 2010) when we really don't see a clear a path recovery other then "trust us"?

Four years is at a minimum enough time to determine if a President "gets it",
Clinton argued in 1992 that four years was enough time for American Voters to judge George H.W. Bush's handling of the Economy (It's the economy, stupid) and ultimately won the White House.

However here were are 20 years later and now that same President who was elected largely on making American voters evaluate President Bush's record over his four years is attempting to sell that four years just isn't enough time?

You either "get it" or you don't when it comes to the Economy; four years should be enough time to get an understand of the direction a President wants to take, and I am not entirely convinced that the current President was faced with an economy that much worse then other President's historically.

While it may be worse, most Presidents by the end of their first terms at least had a significant positive direction and were not jumping up and down celebrating 96,000 jobs added in August and an 8.1% unemployment rate nearly fours into their term.

While President Clinton may be correct that no one could have fixed everything in one term, is it unreasonable for the American voter to simply ask that after four years for some significant progress? or even to ask whats the plan now?

President Obama spoke for nearly an hour last night, and it was the same sort of speeches that ultimately led him to winning the white house, but over the course of an hour there was a lot of slogan but little substance.

Where was the policy? Where was the way forward? Where was the vision for the next four years?

While it may be unfair to damn the President for not fixing everything, it doesn't appear that he has a plan for what to do should he be given the next four years.

The Senate will almost certainly go GOP, the House will remain GOP and the one constant about this President is that he cannot work with the House, be it Democrat or Republican as we saw with Healthcare and now the Budget.

The players around the President seem to keep changing but the result seems to remain the same.

Clinton's speech had a very unintended effect on me;
It made me realize how out of place President Obama truly is when we look back at Presidents past;


Last edited by cosmostein on Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4154
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is to the question ... would it have been preferable, in the fall of 2008, to let the crash continue? What is the effect of the ameliorative measures? With the added debt included in the picture, have these 'stimuli' been worth it?

To drill down a bit ... Is Clinton right? If the mess was that big, why did the policy-makers ever think they could borrow enough money to fix it? If such a catastrophic mess was developing, why were the policy-makers so completely blind-sided? Why are the same people in charge of policy now as before?

One layer deeper ... what would have happened if there had been no bailouts, or TARP? If Fanny Maes' debt had NOT been guaranteed? For sure, the financial sector would be decimated, and the housing market would have crashed. Interest rates would be high. There would be high unemployment.

What if good social policy involved getting through the adjustment period as quickly as completely as possible?

After four years, would the US already have a genuine economic recovery going?

You can probably already tell what I am starting to feel. I'm wondering what the good arguments against this view are.

Comments on any part of this question are invited ...
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
This is to the question ... would it have been preferable, in the fall of 2008, to let the crash continue? What is the effect of the ameliorative measures? With the added debt included in the picture, have these 'stimuli' been worth it?


I am going to answer that with a resounding "sort of".

TARP, GM, and the items that were paid to business as "life vests" that had a mandate to be paid back (and in the case of TARP certainly has in spades at outlandish 30% interest levels) were one thing.

The problem is that the economic situation was seen as a means to fund pork under the umbrella of "stimuli".

The amount of government spending on items that have more value as re-election tools then actual job creation was incredible.

What's worse is because of the majority in both houses and a common shared party with the President there was no oversight as to where this money went.

Folks saw a road being paved in their community and they shrugged their shoulders and assumed "I guess this is what a trillion dollars buys?"

Most of the money found its way into causes / programs which need to be funded every year rather then actual honest to goodness Harper-esk stimulus.

The stimulus package is one the largest unreported theft by government of taxpayer money in history, but most taxpayers have no idea.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4154
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cosmo, it seems to me that, in a way, you are in the Krugman camp, ie. Obama had the right idea but the stimulus program was carried on at too low a level of actual funding. Much of the budget was a smokescreen for a raid of the treasury ... particularly by civil service unions.

But does that mean that you think, at this point, it would have been better to let the crash happen than to re-live that whole crisis of 2008, this time with the stakes increased by 60% or so -- as Americans may be condemned to do?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Biggest Democrat Disaster of Day One

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB