# The politics of fear?



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I really want this guy to succeed for the sake of the country. But for a politician who accused others of stoking people's fear to pass an agenda I don't see how this is any different:


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

consider the source - conservative media elite


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The source is Obama! He's the one calling for dire consequences. Would you feel better if Mother Jones had picked up the story?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Interesting....when I heard Obama's comments yesterday (NBC, I believe) I initially had that reaction too. Like you, I want the man to succeed for the sake of the country, but I don't know if any more fear-peddling is needed at this point. People already know how bad it is out there. 

Who knows? Considering he's already won the job, maybe he's just being brutally honest...something that's been missing in our leaders for a long, long time.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> Who knows? Considering he's already won the job, maybe he's just being brutally honest...something that's been missing in our leaders for a long, long time.


I believe brutal honesty would be to admit that he doesn't know what is going to happen, any more or less than any other seer. The same people who are now predicting a second Great Depression are the same ones who failed to predict the current situation.

Our biggest economic problem right now is uncertainty, similar to what happened when the country transitioned from Bush to Clinton. This isn't meant to be a rant about Republicans or Democrats, it is simply the fact that a different political and economic school of thought is going to be in charge, and there is uncertainty in the markets as to how the actions of the new powers that be will effect the economy and investing. Like Clinton, Obama has met with economic advisors who have warned him against following through with the tax increases he promised while campaigning, but there are lingering fears that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire and try to claim that such an expiration is not a tax increase.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> The source is Obama! He's the one calling for dire consequences. Would you feel better if Mother Jones had picked up the story?


The source linked is Fox News' digest of what was a long speech. Unless one watched the whole speech or read a complete transcript one does not know exactly what he said or what was emphasized and are instead relying on others of variable veracity to decide what is important.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

agnash said:


> I believe brutal honesty would be to admit that he doesn't know what is going to happen, any more or less than any other seer. The same people who are now predicting a second Great Depression are the same ones who failed to predict the current situation.
> 
> Our biggest economic problem right now is uncertainty, similar to what happened when the country transitioned from Bush to Clinton. This isn't meant to be a rant about Republicans or Democrats, it is simply the fact that a different political and economic school of thought is going to be in charge, and there is uncertainty in the markets as to how the actions of the new powers that be will effect the economy and investing. Like Clinton, Obama has met with economic advisors who have warned him against following through with the tax increases he promised while campaigning, but there are lingering fears that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire and try to claim that such an expiration is not a tax increase.


Right on, agnash.

None of them saw this coming 2 years ago, but now, they know that we will implode in about month as a country if they don't "work weekends" to get this trillion $ government spending package passed. Now, they can foresee "many years" of great financial difficulty ahead, even *with* that spending.

I just wish they had pulled out their crystal ball a couple of years earlier.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I just wish they had pulled out their crystal ball a couple of years earlier."

This is the part that puts a lie to the whole financial "disaster".
They did have their crystal ball. They were warned in general about the foolish nature of the whole market philosophy and the falsehoods passed off as economic principles, but also they knew that a collapse would be certain. 
As for Obama, he is trying to lay it on the line with a worst case scenario. It is unlikely to reach disastrous proportions even without further spending. However Obama did do something right. He is using the opportunity to push for infrastructure improvements which are sorely needed and to force the government into a conservation program. This will be the hard part. Government hates conservation of resources.
This does not mean I agree with any further deficit spending any more than I cared for the bailout but with reactionary politicians to placate along with their buddies standing ready to rake in profits from more government spending, it is a congressional mandate to "do something". 
Obama is apparently just trying to make sure that the "something" might actually be of some benefit over the long term.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Quay said:


> The source linked is Fox News' digest of what was a long speech. Unless one watched the whole speech or read a complete transcript one does not know exactly what he said or what was emphasized and are instead relying on others of variable veracity to decide what is important.


I did watch the interview on CNBC and he essentially said the same thing. Obama won the election. Don't blame fox news or anything else. He is going to be the president and needs to be held to a higher standard. He is no longer one of many or just a candidate. His words matter.

He has said on numerous occasions that unless "bold action" is taken then the recession could drag on for years and we could hit double digit inflation.

Does a Reuters story make you feel better?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Is it just me , or should our economic branches of government be put under Homeland Security?
We ALL want whoever becoomes president to succeed.
Their success is the one 'trickle down' surety that isn't somebody peeing on my trousers and telling me it's raining, and I should 'pull myself up by my bootstraps' except the boots are now communist china made tennis shoes full of God knows what toxic waste byproduct of their nuclear programme.
I don't expect much from anybody. What would be pleasing though, if in an act of executive pardon that precursor to our contemporary ( the ones on the other side of the counter) bank robbers, John Dillinger be removed from F.B.I. targets and replaced by one more contemporary and onerous.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I really want this guy to succeed for the sake of the country. But for a politician who accused others of stoking people's fear to pass an agenda I don't see how this is any different:


I hear people say they "want this guy to succeed," but I have to disagree. I guess it's semantics, but "succeed" by what definition? I really think Obama's definition of succeeding is to destroy the unilque vision of the founding fathers and replace it with the vulgar, common place, proven failure of the dream of a socialist utopia. Frankly, I hope he fails.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Too bad Obama is not a Socialist*

Unfortunately the President-elect is not a Socialist, because what just what the country needs.

Thirty years of simplistic voodoo economics masking the looting of America is the legacy we inherit from Reagan, Bush, and Bush, with 'way too much help from Bill. Finally what's left of working America voted their pocketbooks instead of falling for nonsensical conservative eyewash.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> Unfortunately the President-elect is not a Socialist, because what just what the country needs.
> 
> Thirty years of simplistic voodoo economics masking the looting of America is the legacy we inherit from Reagan, Bush, and Bush, with 'way too much help from Bill. Finally what's left of working America voted their pocketbooks instead of falling for nonsensical conservative eyewash.
> 
> ...


Pardon my asking but what planet are you living on?


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Same planet, different world view*



pt4u67 said:


> Pardon my asking but what planet are you living on?


Same planet as you.

I presume your question is rhetorical, and intended to convey disagreement with my posting.

All the best for the next eight years of principled leadership from the White House.

Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*And right now we are experiencing capitalist utopia?*



Liberty Ship said:


> I hear people say they "want this guy to succeed," but I have to disagree. I guess it's semantics, but "succeed" by what definition? I really think Obama's definition of succeeding is to destroy the unilque vision of the founding fathers and replace it with the vulgar, common place, proven failure of the dream of a socialist utopia. Frankly, I hope he fails.


And the last thirty years has been a capitalist utopia? If it has been, then I hope you made a mint while most of your fellow citizens were getting screwed.

The trillion dollar deficit sounds to me like unbudgeted war debt.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Once again I must observe that niether true conservative ideology or liberal have been represented by the 'Gang of Four' who just gathered at the White house with Obama like ghosts from a Dicken's story.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> Same planet as you.
> 
> I presume your question is rhetorical, and intended to convey disagreement with my posting.
> 
> ...


He hasn't even been sworn in for his first term, and you're already saying he has eight years?



Gurdon said:


> And the last thirty years has been a capitalist utopia? If it has been, then I hope you made a mint while most of your fellow citizens were getting screwed.
> 
> The trillion dollar deficit sounds to me like unbudgeted war debt.
> 
> ...


Actually, the only President to eliminate the national debt was Jackson, and Jackson was a free market guy - opposed the National Bank even. He also waged several wars, if I'm not mistaken.

I think the debt you're referring to comes from unfunded liabilities - social security and medicare. Turns out, all those tax dollars everyone has spent to go to those programs should probably not be used for other things and replaced with IOUs.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> He hasn't even been sworn in for his first term, and you're already saying he has eight years?
> 
> Actually, the only President to eliminate the national debt was Jackson, and Jackson was a free market guy - opposed the National Bank even. He also waged several wars, if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> I think the debt you're referring to comes from unfunded liabilities - social security and medicare. Turns out, all those tax dollars everyone has spent to go to those programs should probably not be used for other things and replaced with IOUs.


Are you suggesting that Mr. Obama will not be sworn in?

I believe Bill Clinton eliminated budget deficit.

I am not referring to the so-called unfunded liabilities. I am just making the more general point that there is a correlation between spending a trillion dollars on Bush's war and the fact that the nation is in the hole for a trillion dollars.

Regards,
Gurdon

As Hillary said during her campaign, "What didn't you like about peace and prosperity?"


----------



## IvanG (Dec 29, 2008)

Getting rid of the debt is a tough task and this will probably be shared over several terms. No way, this can be accomplished within just one term.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

IvanG said:


> Getting rid of the debt is a tough task and this will probably be shared over several terms. No way, this can be accomplished within just one term.


...and cutting taxes for anyone (rich or middle class) isn't going to help us pay off this mess any faster.

I am starting to believe that Obama's true test (and hope of a legacy...I know, I know...too early to start discussing such matters) will be in how his administration starts paying off our massive, massive debt. Higher tax receipts only gets you a fraction of the way there, and cutting all but the most essential infastructure/pork projects doesn't help much (in the grand scheme). That leaves defense and entitlements. Cut defense, you p*ss off the conservatives. Cut entitlements, you p*ss off the liberals.

Obama is in for a dumpy ride and he better be prepared to make more enemies than friends (to the right and to the left) in the next four years. Hope, change, peace and daffodils all cost money. To say it will be "interesting" to see how he plans to pay for it all is an understatement.

I have little to no faith in government solving the recession...or many other problems for that matter. For the consumers who still have jobs: SPEND, BABY, SPEND!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> I am just making the more general point that there is a correlation between spending a trillion dollars on Bush's war and the fact that the nation is in the hole for a trillion dollars.


While I agree that the monetary cost of war is much greater than the monetary cost of peace, the fact remains that such expenditures are usually exaggerated. Many of the dollars quoted are fixed expenditures that would still be there whether we were at war or peace.

For example, when I was flying search and rescue in the Navy there was a fixed cost associated with our operation regardless of whether we were actually out saving someone or not. If we flew out and rescued a civilian whose boat was sinking there would be a dollar amount associated with that rescue. There were the operating costs of the helicopter such as fuel and maintenance along with the salaries of the crew.

When you consider the fact that the taxpayer dollars that were spent in that civilian rescue could just as easily have been spent by us flying around trying to look at women on the beach, which by the way is what we would probably have been doing, it makes you realize that the rescue really didn't cost nearly as much as would be reported. We would have been up there flying around anyway just having fun.

Again, I'm not trying to diminish the cost, and tragedy, of war. It's just that many of the dollars quoted would have been spent regardless.

Cruiser


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Sadly, the only "soothsayer" who has been consistently right in his predictions so far is Peter Schiff so for the realists; gird your loins with the bitter truth and the idealists; keep the lofty dreams/hopes because the journey into the dark abyss of this Depression has just started. God help us all.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

And in case anyone missed some of his previous predictions.................. Enjoy!


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't know about you, but looking out my window it seems pretty nasty. My wife was out of work 2 1/2 months this fall (attorney and commercial escrow officer). Her company laid off about 2/3 of their work force over the past 6 months. Just got a new job this week as a paralegal, obviously at a substantial pay cut; she's happy just to have a job because there aren't any; the other attorneys laid off with her are still out of work.

I didn't get paid last month along with no end of the year compensation which is normally about 25% of my yearly pay. I'm a partner in a law firm that does primarily real estate and financial institutions work. I'm now working 7 days a week, at least 70-80 hours a week, just so we can try to keep the cash flow going to cover payroll and keep the doors open. I have no idea whether we will cover overhead and payroll so there will be enough left over to pay me.

Every day I get unsolicited resumes from people all over the country looking for work. Yesterday it was a from a laid off law firm partner in Kansas City who does securities law. Not much call for that these days, just like work in real estate or the financial sector.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

No, I'm not implying he won't be sworn in. I'm saying he hasn't even started his first term and you're already talking as though he'll have a second term. There is that pesky thing called an election for that one.

Secondly, there is a big difference between debt and deficit. Also, I think $1 trillion is a bit of an exaggeration for the Iraq War - perhaps if you include Afghanistan and the rest of the War on Terror.

Look at how much social security, medicare, and other welfare programs cost. It isn't even these programs that are causing the problem as much as the fact that politicians, instead of setting the money aside for the program they are meant to pay for, they spend it and fill the coffers with IOUs.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> No, I'm not implying he won't be sworn in. I'm saying he hasn't even started his first term and you're already talking as though he'll have a second term. There is that pesky thing called an election for that one.
> 
> Secondly, there is a big difference between debt and deficit. Also, I think $1 trillion is a bit of an exaggeration for the Iraq War - perhaps if you include Afghanistan and the rest of the War on Terror.
> 
> Look at how much social security, medicare, and other welfare programs cost. It isn't even these programs that are causing the problem as much as the fact that politicians, instead of setting the money aside for the program they are meant to pay for, they spend it and fill the coffers with IOUs.


I was being hopeful about reelection.

I'll accept your accounting. My point remains the same. We have spent a lot of money on the war. We did not raise taxes to pay for the war. We are in the hole for a lot of money. There is some connection between the expenditure and the lack of cash.

I particularly agree with your last statement and cannot improve on what you wrote. I wish the public discourse were taking place in these terms. Instead simplistic slogans such as Arnold's "there is no money." are used as excuses to cut programs unpopular with those in power.

Regards, 
Gurdon


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Well, it is true that something may be cut. It seems clear to me that increasing taxes simply leads to the government creating new programs: politicians gain popularity by building new roads, not repairing current ones.

I am a conservative. I believe that the government should limit itself almost exclusively to the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Therefor, I think the government should spend its money on providing a national defense before it spends money on things like social security. We shall see what happens from here.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> I believe Bill Clinton eliminated budget deficit.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon
> ...


Actually, if you do your homework, you will find that Bill Clinton protested mightily against the Republican Congresses insistence on balancing the budget. President Clinton said that balancing the budget would destroy social programs and wreck the country. However, despite the balanced budget, President Clinton was able to increase the national debt every year he was president through the use of presidential descretionary spendning that is not included in the budgets passed by Congress.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> I'll accept your accounting. My point remains the same. We have spent a lot of money on the war. We did not raise taxes to pay for the war. We are in the hole for a lot of money. There is some connection between the expenditure and the lack of cash.


How come government revenues are larger with lower taxes and more people have jobs? Government, like anything else, can spend more than it takes in. How is raising taxes going to bring in more revenue if it puts more people out of work? If more people are working doesn't the goverment have more people to tax, so more tax money to receive? And yet, high taxes and more people get layed off.

"High taxes" "sock it to the rich" Democrat politcal hay, because the simple believe it. Obama is saying to cut taxes to get the economy going like Reagan and JFK. At present Obama is not going with his parties political hay. Reagan proved that low taxes bring in more revenue, and Jimmy Carter proved that high taxes put people out of work. Politicians prove they can spend more than tax payers pay. Masses of the greedy always bring the economy down.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> I'll accept your accounting. My point remains the same. We have spent a lot of money on the war. We did not raise taxes to pay for the war. We are in the hole for a lot of money. There is some connection between the expenditure and the lack of cash.
> 
> I particularly agree with your last statement and cannot improve on what you wrote. I wish the public discourse were taking place in these terms. Instead simplistic slogans such as Arnold's "there is no money." are used as excuses to cut programs unpopular with those in power.
> 
> ...


Let's compare. The best number I can find on the Afghanistan/Iraq debacle is $192 billion for 2008. That compares to $1.527 trillion for Social Security/Medicare in 2008. I agree that there is a connection between expenditure and lack of cash, but the war is only about half of the total 2008 deficit.

Medicare and Social Security should have been self-funding, but spineless politicians for years have refused to link the real costs of these programs to the taxes taken out of paychecks. Of course, they probably wanted to get re-elected, and the electorate would have turned on them if they were forced to pay the real cost for their retirements.

Right now, the national debt is around $8 trillion. If we just took all of the money we are wasting on the Iraq/Afghanistan thing, and all of the money we waste on Social Security/Medicare, and spent it on lowering the debt, we could probably be debt free by the time Obama left office. And, we would have gotten something for our money.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

agnash said:


> If we just took all of the money we are wasting on the Iraq/Afghanistan thing


While I think that there is certainly plenty of room for honest men of differing opinions to debate the war in Iraq, I think the only valid criticism of our involvement in Afghanistan is that we aren't doing enough. That's where 9-11 originated with full government support by the Taliban. It is our government's responsibility to it's people to track down every one of those bastards. Please don't lump the war in Afghanistan together with the war in Iraq. These are two totally different endeavors.

Cruiser


----------



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

Gee, several mentions of people wanting obama to make it or not. Hmmm, remember we still have the same lousy senate and congress.
Cosmo


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

cosmotoast said:


> Gee, several mentions of people wanting obama to make it or not. Hmmm, remember we still have the same lousy senate and congress.
> Cosmo


What do you think the last eight years of Bush and all the Republicans in both houses has been by Democrats voters. Watching the news (abc, nbc and cbs) and it has been constant slander and withholding news of positive things that Republicans have done. The whole election process we just went through was aimed, by most of the media, for the Republicans to lose. So, if a Republican voter wants the Democrats to do poorly then they are bad and a Democrat voter who want the Republicans to lose is a hero?

I hope Obama does well when he is right and loses when he is wrong, and further more I hope he makes more good choices than bad ones.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I think the only valid criticism of our involvement in Afghanistan is that we aren't doing enough. That's where 9-11 originated with full government support by the Taliban. It is our government's responsibility to it's people to track down every one of those bastards. Please don't lump the war in Afghanistan together with the war in Iraq. These are two totally different endeavors.
> 
> Cruiser


Point conceded, I withdraw my request for cancelling the war in Afghanistan. Actually, I also have a moral quandry when it comes to Iraq. I do not believe we should have ever gone in there, but since we did, and since we have made such a mess of the country, I do feel we it owe it the people of Iraq to leave things at least as well as they were when we arrived. Sort of like borrowing a car and returning it with a full tank of gas. :icon_smile:


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

agnash said:


> Let's compare. The best number I can find on the Afghanistan/Iraq debacle is $192 billion for 2008. That compares to $1.527 trillion for Social Security/Medicare in 2008. I agree that there is a connection between expenditure and lack of cash, but the war is only about half of the total 2008 deficit.
> 
> Medicare and Social Security should have been self-funding, but spineless politicians for years have refused to link the real costs of these programs to the taxes taken out of paychecks. Of course, they probably wanted to get re-elected, and the electorate would have turned on them if they were forced to pay the real cost for their retirements.
> 
> Right now, the national debt is around $8 trillion. If we just took all of the money we are wasting on the Iraq/Afghanistan thing, and all of the money we waste on Social Security/Medicare, and spent it on lowering the debt, we could probably be debt free by the time Obama left office. And, we would have gotten something for our money.


I don't consider money spent on social security or medicare wasted. As you note, shortfalls are the result of politicians' failing to fund them adequately. I do not agree that people would not elect politicians who voted for taxes supporting beneficial programs. BTW, I believe Social Security was not intended to be a retirement system, but rather a, dare I say it, safety net to take care of those who did not have a pension or enough income to have saved for retirement.

The Iraq war is a terrible waste of lives, money, and our long term national interest. We should just leave. We do have a moral obligation to make reparations, but I doubt that we are capable of figuring out how to discharge it.

Afghanistan is different, in that it was the place from which the 9/11 attack originated. In light of the past, both recent and ancient, I doubt that we can prevail militarily. (We should ask the Russians and British about their military efforts there. I believe Alexander was not successful there, either.)

I do not know if it is possible for the US to engage in a cooperative effort with the Afghan government that would further our interests. It might be, but there does not seem to be much official interest in anything but military action, and the record of the Democrats is not encouraging. (They seem to be, historically, at least, the more bellicose of the two parties.)

I am sorry to be so vague, but the gap between what we seem to be able to do (blow things up and kill people), and what we ought to be doing (development programs that the recipients actually want, combined with low profile police and intelligence work) appears to me to be beyond our ability to even imagine, let alone undertake.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> Unfortunately the President-elect is not a Socialist, because what just what the country needs.
> 
> Thirty years of simplistic voodoo economics masking the looting of America is the legacy we inherit from Reagan, Bush, and Bush, with 'way too much help from Bill. Finally what's left of working America voted their pocketbooks instead of falling for nonsensical conservative eyewash.
> 
> ...


Three weeks later, two weeks into the failed Obama administration and the mask is off: I was right, you were wrong. He is a socialist.

Cheers,
Liberty


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Well it's finally time...we have to admit it...no other options...we need Bill O'Reilly in the White House!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Well it's finally time...we have to admit it...no other options...we need Bill O'Reilly in the White House!


What would he do?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Howard said:


> What would he do?


Finally release the Nancy Grace sex tapes.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> I don't consider money spent on social security or medicare wasted.


Social security works much like a ponzi scheme, without the intent to defraud (although I've developed my doubts over the years!). Yes, social security was developed as a safety net for people who's pensions were inadequate, and now thanks to it, it drains money away from people who could otherwise help fund their own retirement.

It is the fatal conceit of government to try to solve societal problems and in turn worsen them through its inherent inefficiency and mis-allocation of resources.


----------



## walterb (Dec 24, 2006)

Asterix said:


> Sadly, the only "soothsayer" who has been consistently right in his predictions so far is Peter Schiff so for the realists; gird your loins with the bitter truth and the idealists; keep the lofty dreams/hopes because the journey into the dark abyss of this Depression has just started. God help us all.


Actually, Peter Schiff was right about the direction of the US stock market and wrong about pretty much everything else. Look for the blog of a guy named Mish Shedlock who is one economist who has been pretty much right on. He predicted deflation and global market selloffs. Peter Schiff predicted run away inflation in the US and advised his clients to go heavily into overseas stocks which have tanked even more than the US market.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

walterb said:


> Actually, Peter Schiff was right about the direction of the US stock market and wrong about pretty much everything else. Look for the blog of a guy named Mish Shedlock who is one economist who has been pretty much right on. He predicted deflation and global market selloffs. Peter Schiff predicted run away inflation in the US and advised his clients to go heavily into overseas stocks which have tanked even more than the US market.


Mish=Mike Shedlock, "Peter Schiff Was Wrong"

https://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> I did watch the interview on CNBC and he essentially said the same thing. Obama won the election. Don't blame fox news or anything else. He is going to be the president and needs to be held to a higher standard. He is no longer one of many or just a candidate. His words matter.
> 
> He has said on numerous occasions that unless "bold action" is taken then the recession could drag on for years and we could hit double digit inflation.
> 
> Does a Reuters story make you feel better?


It's his spending plan, called "stimulus" though its not, but huge bonuses to his constituencies, that will do nothing except lead to high inflation.

Does anyone else out there think its congressional and senate compensation that needs reform?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Literide said:


> It's his spending plan, called "stimulus" though its not, but huge bonuses to his constituencies, that will do nothing except lead to high inflation.
> 
> Does anyone else out there think its congressional and senate compensation that needs reform?


Yes, but I'd probably settle for them to stop saying "The Last Eight Years of Republican Congressional Leadership." How quickly people forget that Pelosi took power and proudly pushed through only one accomplishment in her first two years - a raise in the minimum wage widely predicted to kill the growing economy.

Serving in the Congress should be a strictly volunteer effort IMHO. However, my biggest issue is not really compensation, but pork. McCain lost the earmark argument when Obama said it's only $18 Billion. However, the problem is not the $18 Billion, the problem is the additional $3 Trillion the $18 Billion in "bribes" cost us taxpayers. I can't believe President Obama got away this, but he did and now so is Nancy.

Borrowing on a line from Michelle Obama, for the first time in my adult life I'm really not very proud of my country.


----------



## walterb (Dec 24, 2006)

KSINC, Thanks for posting the link!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Miket61 said:


> Finally release the Nancy Grace sex tapes.


Nancy Grace never did porn.


----------

