This Guy Predicted The Mortgage Meltdown

[Mike]

From 2006:

http://schiffforsenate.com/?q=media/peter-schiff-was-right-2006-2007-2nd-edition-0

 

[don]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?reflink=MW_news_stmp

becoming a more commonly held belief.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?reflink=MW_news_stmp becoming a more commonly held belief.

AMEN don- andthis best sums upthe whole problem.....

Yes, Stockman is equally damning ofthe Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so closetothe development ofthe Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America'stoxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unlessthis war stops soon, both parties will succeed intheir collective death wish.

Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy' ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyedthe U.S. economy." Yes,that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director ofthe Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New YorkTimes op-ed piece, "Four Deformations ofthe Apocalypse."

Get it? Not "destroying."The GOP has already "destroyed"the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

Yes, Stockman is equally damning ofthe Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so closetothe development ofthe Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America'stoxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unlessthis war stops soon, both parties will succeed intheir collective death wish.

But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost inthe 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How didthe great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course,to where our very survival isthreatened? We've arrived at a historicturning point as a nationthat no longer needs outside enemiesto destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism.The American dream. All dying. Why? Because ofthe economic decisions ofthe GOPthe past 40 years, saysthis leading Reagan Republican.

Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation:This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroyingthe U.S. economy. Listen closely:


Reagan Republican:the GOP should file for bankruptcy Stockman rushes intothe ring swinging like a boxer: "Ifthere were such athing as Chapter 11 for politicians,the Republican pushto extendthe unaffordable Bushtax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead,the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even athree-percentage-point rate increase."

Inthe past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principlesto hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans usedto believethat prosperity depended uponthe regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in internationaltrade, onthe ledgers of central banks and inthe financial affairs of private households and businessestoo." No more.

Todaythere's a "new catechism"that's "little morethan money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed inthe ideological vestments ofthe prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredationsthat have crippled our economy."

Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy. Stockman's indictment warnsthat the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations ofthe national economy, and modern Republicans haveturned a blind eyeto each one:"

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations underthe 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts withthe world." So forthe past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcomethat Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixonto unleash onthe world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."

Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, andtrade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong bytrillions. And unfortunately "once relieved ofthe discipline of defending a fixed value fortheir currencies, politiciansthe world over were freeto cheapentheir money and disregardtheir neighbors."

And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks runtheir own printing presses at ever faster speedsto sop upthetidal wave of dollars coming fromthe Federal Reserve."
Yes,the roadtothe coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listeningto a misguided Nobel economist's advice.

Stage 2. Crushing debts from domestic excesses, war mongering Stockman says "the second unhappy change inthe American economy has beenthe extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18trillion, it will be 40times greaterthan in 1970." Who'sto blame? Not big-spending Dems, says Stockman, but "fromthe Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, ofthe insidious doctrinethat deficits don't matter ifthey result fromtax cuts."

Back "in 1981,traditional Republicans supportedtax cuts," but Stockman makes clear,they hadto be "matched by spending cuts,to offset the way inflation was pushing manytaxpayers into higher brackets andto spur investment.The Reagan administration's hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match forthe primordial forces --the welfare state andthe warfare state --that drivethe federal spending machine."

OK, stop a minute. As you absorb Stockman's indictment of how his Republican party has "destroyedthe U.S. economy," you're probably asking yourself why anyone should believe atraitortothe Reagan legacy. I believe party affiliation is irrelevant here.This is a crucial subject that must be explored because it further exposes a dangerous historicaltrend where politics is so partisan it's having huge negative consequences.

Yes,the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says "the neocons were pushingthe military budget skyward. Andthe Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposedto cut spending, exempted fromthe knife most ofthe domestic budget -- entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects.

But inthe end it was a new cadre of ideologicaltax-cutters who killedthe Republicans' fiscal religion." When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" inthe '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the newtax-cutters not only claimed victory fortheir supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good onthe delusionthat the economy will outgrowthe deficit if plied with enoughtax cuts."

By 2009,they "reduced federal revenuesto 15% of gross domestic product," lowest sincethe 1940s. Stilltodaythey're irrationally demanding an extension ofthose "unaffordable Bushtax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing."

Recently Bush made matters far worse by "rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging intwo unfinanced foreign military adventures." Bush also gave in "on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65% percent gain fromthe $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicansthus joinedthe Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy."Takestwototango.

Stage 3. Wall Street's deadly 'vast, unproductive expansion' Stockman continues pounding away: "Thethird ominous change inthe American economy has beenthe vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector."
He warnsthat "Republicans have been oblivioustothe grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the sametime, removingtraditional restrictions on leverage and speculation."

Wrong, not oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly what they were doing. They wantedthe economy, markets andthe government to be underthe absolute control of Wall Street'stoo-greedy-to-fail banks.They conned Congress andthe Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7trillion debt.

Worse,they have since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now backto business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cyclethat will culminate inthe coming "American Apocalypse."

Stockman refersto Wall Street's surviving banks as "wards ofthe state." Wrong,the opposite istrue. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its "unproductive"trading is "extracting billions fromthe economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives."
Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never survived without government-guaranteed deposits and "virtually free money fromthe Fed's discount windowto covertheir bad bets."

Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon Finally,thanksto Republican policiesthat let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ...trade,transportation, informationtechnology andthe professions shrunk by 12%to 68 million from 77 million."

Asthe apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed andthe wealthy. Soon.Thetrigger will bethe growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that duringthe last bubble (from 2002to 2006)thetop 1% of Americans -- paid mainly fromthe Wall Street casino -- receivedtwo-thirds ofthe gain in national income, whilethe bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%.

This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It'sthe decaying fruit of bad economic policy." Get it?The decaying fruit ofthe GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy.
Warning:this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon.

His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pitythat the modern Republican party offersthe American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism whenthe old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed morethan ever."

Wrong:There are far biggerthingsto "pity." First,that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit inthe bleachers passively watchingthis deadly partisan game like it's just anotherTV reality show.

Second,that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets ofthe Wall Street conspiracythat controls Washingtonthey are helpless and blind. Andthird,there's a depressing sensethat Stockman will be dismissed as atraitor, his message lost inthe 24/7 news cycle ... untilthe final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swantriggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war. So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect.

 

[Anonymous]

The whole system is set up to ensalve us. With every dollar issued either by printing or by fractional banking, we are on the hook to the jewish cabal federal reserve for interest. Our forefathers warned us to NOT DO THIS as it was the reason they left England.

We are slaves again.

Republicans and Democrats alike are paid off by the money printers.

No matter how much bitching people do back and forth on the it is republicans fault no it is democrats fault, nothing changes. this is what they want. infighting.

if the public figures out that they are both working for the banking cartel, the game is over.

 

[hypocritexposer]

So basically the article is saying that from Nixon on, the Republicans have been too liberal and not Conservative enough. This resulted in both parties practising Keynesianism and wrecking the economy.

so the answer to this shift to the left by both parties would be???????


Anyone? anyone?


Why not just vote for someone left of obama, that will fix everything. :roll:



"Reagan wasn't Conservative enough, so we voted for obama and his record debt/deficits to correct the overspending problem from 40 years ago"


As I said awhile back, why not just blame George Washington.


Maybe after reading some more articles from David Stockman, OT, you'll realize what the point is that he is trying to get across.


Here's one for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/opinion/20stockman.html

 

[Anonymous]

Gee Maw- the news always says that the Democrats are the Big Spenders.

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html


The main thing I take from Stockton is that you can't spend and cut taxes both- which is what this neo-con generation of Republicans have done...

 

[hypocritexposer]

Gee Maw- the news always says that the Democrats are the Big Spenders.

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html


The main thing I take from Stockton is that you can't spend and cut taxes both- which is what this neo-con generation of Republicans have done...

What was the deficit as % of GDP from 2000 to 2006, from 2006 to 2009 and what will it be in the future?

You CAN cut taxes and spend at the same time, if your GDP is growing, because your tax revenue will be increasing while you are able to keep taxes the same or decrease them.


9% of $120 = $10.80
10% of $100 = $10.00

Which tax rate above brings in more available revenue for spending?

The trick is to determine what drop in taxes will stimulate the economy to bring about the necessary change in GDP.

 

[Anonymous]

You CAN cut taxes and spend at the same time, if your GDP is growing, because your tax revenue will be increasing while you are able to keep taxes the same or decrease them.

Until the bubble bursts- hence the Bush Bust... (Except now Stockton says it should be the GOP Bust... :wink: )

 

[hypocritexposer]

You CAN cut taxes and spend at the same time, if your GDP is growing, because your tax revenue will be increasing while you are able to keep taxes the same or decrease them.

Until the bubble bursts- hence the Bush Bust... (Except now Stockton says it should be the GOP Bust... :wink: )

Well if you don't like this Bush Bust you're really going to hate the obama crash.

Year GDP-US$ billion Deficit as %

1980 2788.1 2.65 a
1981 3126.8 2.53 a
1982 3253.2 3.93 a
1983 3534.6 5.88 a
1984 3930.9 4.72 a
1985 4217.5 5.03 a
1986 4460.1 4.96 a
1987 4736.4 3.16 a
1988 5100.4 3.04 a
1989 5482.1 2.78 a
1990 5800.5 3.81 a
1991 5992.1 4.49 a
1992 6342.3 4.58 a
1993 6667.4 3.83 a
1994 7085.2 2.87 a
1995 7414.7 2.21 a
1996 7838.5 1.37 a
1997 8332.4 0.26 a
1998 8793.5 -0.79 a
1999 9353.5 -1.34 a
2000 9951.5 -2.37 a
2001 10286.2 -1.25 a
2002 10642.3 1.48 a
2003 11142.1 3.39 a
2004 11867.8 3.48 a
2005 12638.4 2.52 a
2006 13398.9 1.85 a
2007 14077.6 1.14 a
2008 14441.4 3.18 a
2009 14258.2 9.91 a
2010 14623.9 10.64

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html


Even with 911, Katrina and 2 wars, Bush 2 was not the big spender that the Dems. like to make him out to be.

But what is amazing is how you condemn Bush for the same things you give obama credit for.

They have all spent too much, that is obvious by the Debt that has been wracked up (except Clinton, who is said to of shifted right in his second term), but don't claim that you are non-partisan OT, if you are not going to say something about what is going on in regards to spending with the current administration.

Both parties have been liberal in their spending policies, and the answer is to become more Conservative, not more liberal or worse, progressive.

But that's what you voted for and are now trying to find excuses for.

 

[Anonymous]

You CAN cut taxes and spend at the same time, if your GDP is growing, because your tax revenue will be increasing while you are able to keep taxes the same or decrease them.

Until the bubble bursts- hence the Bush Bust... (Except now Stockton says it should be the GOP Bust... :wink: )

Well if you don't like this Bush Bust you're really going to hate the obama crash. Year GDP-US$ billion Deficit as % 1980 2788.1 2.65 a 1981 3126.8 2.53 a 1982 3253.2 3.93 a 1983 3534.6 5.88 a 1984 3930.9 4.72 a 1985 4217.5 5.03 a 1986 4460.1 4.96 a 1987 4736.4 3.16 a 1988 5100.4 3.04 a 1989 5482.1 2.78 a 1990 5800.5 3.81 a 1991 5992.1 4.49 a 1992 6342.3 4.58 a 1993 6667.4 3.83 a 1994 7085.2 2.87 a 1995 7414.7 2.21 a 1996 7838.5 1.37 a 1997 8332.4 0.26 a 1998 8793.5 -0.79 a 1999 9353.5 -1.34 a 2000 9951.5 -2.37 a 2001 10286.2 -1.25 a 2002 10642.3 1.48 a 2003 11142.1 3.39 a 2004 11867.8 3.48 a 2005 12638.4 2.52 a 2006 13398.9 1.85 a 2007 14077.6 1.14 a 2008 14441.4 3.18 a 2009 14258.2 9.91 a 2010 14623.9 10.64 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html Even with 911, Katrina and 2 wars, Bush 2 was not the big spender that the Dems. like to make him out to be. But what is amazing is how you condemn Bush for the same things you give obama credit for. They have all spent too much, that is obvious by theDebt that has been wracked up (except Clinton, who is said to of shifted right in his second term), but don't claim that you are non-partisan OT, if you are not going to say something about what is going on in regards to spending with the current administration. Both parties have been liberal in their spending policies, and the answer is to become more Conservative, not more liberal or worse, progressive. But that's what you voted for and are now trying to find excuses for.

Bush- both parties spent like money grew on trees...Its just that I would rather have those funds directed toward America- than to go nationbuilding and build GW Bush Superhighways thru Baghdad- and being the cavalry to rescue the Iraqi oil wells for all his cartel buddies...

And right now it appears it is the Dems that will put that money into issues that benefit people living here- and look toward long term issues....


Our best chance to change the direction of this country went out the window when Ross Perot didn't get elected...

He could hear "that giant sucking sound" of the sellout of America....

 

[hypocritexposer]

And right now it appears it is the Dems that will put that money into issues that benefit people living here- and look toward long term issues....

So let me get this straight. Bush's spending wrecked the economy because of how much he spent (even though it is Congress that appropriates the spending), but triple the spending, by borrowing from China, is going to be more beneficial to US citizens, because the money goes directly to them.

Oh, but I forgot, obama is spending just as much in foreign Countries, if not more, than Bush.



Gotcha :wink:

 

[don]

yeah you got it straight. two stupid, unnecessary, unwinnable wars pushed the american economy past the tipping point. if your lower tax rates are required to increase revenues i think you better put all taxes to zero because you're going to need infinite revenues the shape the american economy is in. have a good weekend.

 

[Anonymous]

And right now it appears it is the Dems that will put that money into issues that benefit people living here- and look toward long term issues....

So let me get this straight. Bush's spending wrecked the economy because of how much he spent (even though it is Congress that appropriates the spending), but triple the spending, by borrowing from China, is going to be more beneficial to US citizens, because the money goes directly to them.

Oh, but I forgot, obama is spending just as much in foreign Countries, if not more, than Bush.



Gotcha :wink:

Like Don said- two wars and cutting taxes don't work..And if the Presidential election had gone the other way we'd probably be in 3 wars (remember Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-Bomb Iran) and still cutting taxes- with a President and his Economic advisor (Foreclosure Phil Gramm) still echoing "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" :roll: .....

 

[Mike]

The 2006 Democrat Congress was about to take office when Peter Schiff made the above video. He knows something about economics and didn't like what he saw about to happen.

The economy was fine until the Democrats took over in 2007........

 

[hypocritexposer]

If it was the wars that were the tipping point Don, why did the economy not crash before, when deficits were more as a % of GDP, say during the Reagan years when you and OT are now blaming this all on.

What were the costs associated with Katrina and 911?

Bush's budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46300

 

[don]

if cutting taxes would straighten this out how much should taxes be cut? americans don't want to understand that it isn't taxes that are too high; spending has been too high for decades. the credit card was taking the abuse but now it's maxed out. the usa is in no way exceptional - all the rules of physics and economics that apply in other parts of the world apply within america as well. this is the big wakeup call. either straighten things out or lose the superpower status because the economy says it's over.

 

[Anonymous]

If it was the wars that were the tipping point Don, why did the economy not crash before, when deficits were more as a % of GDP, say during the Reagan years when you and OT are now blaming this all on.

What were the costs associated with Katrina and 911?

Bush's budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46300

Thats because most the war costs were not put in the budget...They were special expenditures that did not go thru the budget...In essence a wide open charge card to wage a war- that before the war his adminstration told us would cost nothing- and be paid for by the riches of Iraq....

Or did you forget the lies we were given in a run up to this war ?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves.They can finance, largely financethe reconstruction oftheir own country. And I have no doubt that they will." - Richard Perle, Chairman ofthe Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [ofthe war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario,the negative effect will be quite small relativetothe economic benefits." - Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginablethat the United States would haveto contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikelythat we would haveto contribute eventens of billions of dollars." - Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small." - Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comesto reconstruction, before weturntothe Americantaxpayer, we willturn first tothe resources ofthe Iraqi government andthe international community." - Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of moneyto pay forthisthat doesn't haveto be U.S.taxpayer money, and it starts withthe assets ofthe Iraqi people. We aretalking about a countrythat can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense,testifying beforethe Defense Subcommittee ofthe House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committedto helping Iraq recover fromthe conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03


"Iraq hastremendous resourcesthat belongtothe Iraqi people. And sothere are a variety of meansthat Iraq hasto be ableto shoulder much ofthe burden forther own reconstruction." - Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

 

[hypocritexposer]

If it was the wars that were the tipping point Don, why did the economy not crash before, when deficits were more as a % of GDP, say during the Reagan years when you and OT are now blaming this all on.

What were the costs associated with Katrina and 911?

Bush's budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46300

Thats because most the war costs were not put in the budget...They were special expenditures that did not go thru the budget...In essence a wide open charge card to wage a war- that before the war his adminstration told us would cost nothing- and be paid for by the riches of Iraq....

Or did you forget the lies we were given in a run up to this war ?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves.They can finance, largely financethe reconstruction oftheir own country. And I have no doubt that they will." - Richard Perle, Chairman ofthe Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [ofthe war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario,the negative effect will be quite small relativetothe economic benefits." - Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginablethat the United States would haveto contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikelythat we would haveto contribute eventens of billions of dollars." - Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small." - Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comesto reconstruction, before weturntothe Americantaxpayer, we willturn first tothe resources ofthe Iraqi government andthe international community." - Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of moneyto pay forthisthat doesn't haveto be U.S.taxpayer money, and it starts withthe assets ofthe Iraqi people. We aretalking about a countrythat can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense,testifying beforethe Defense Subcommittee ofthe House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committedto helping Iraq recover fromthe conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03


"Iraq hastremendous resourcesthat belongtothe Iraqi people. And sothere are a variety of meansthat Iraq hasto be ableto shoulder much ofthe burden forther own reconstruction." - Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

and how much is obama now spending on these wars he promised you he was going to end? Or did you conviently forget those campaigns promises in the name of paritsan politics.

I have already said it is all of them and the spending. while you can't change the past, you have a little hope of changing what is going on in the here and now and the future.

Think of the grandchildren and the taxes that you say they should pay for the present spending.

If you agree with don that the wars were the tipping point, then this was the administration that had a chance to turn things around. The Bush tax cuts will not even come close to covering what obama has spent in 2 years.

 

[hypocritexposer]

I should mention that I am against creeping Socialism, which I believe to be more about a centralized government than tied to any one political party.

Seems like don and OT are against the wasteful spending of a centralized government.

I wonder if something like a Constitution would solve many of these problems by enumerating most powers to a more local Government?

While some Americans like to call Canada a Socialist country they do not realize that the US has surpassed socialism already and have moved left of that point.

 

[Anonymous]

and how much is obama now spending on these wars he promised you he was going to end? Or did you conviently forget those campaigns promises in the name of paritsan politics.

I think they have done a major drawdown in Iraq- but never said anything about getting out of Afghanistan...
Do you think we should just cut and run again.. :???: I think GW pretty well committed us to a long term involvement with both countries- altho I think more and more of the load will be taken off the Nato military forces...

I never had that much problem with Afghanistan- except that Bush should have finished it when he had the chance- before he decided to go nationbuilding with his trumped up war in Iraq and fighting on two fronts- and in doing so made a mess of both :roll: ...