American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Esten, even the Democrats are saying it cost $836 Billion. While you have finally admitted Obama spent TARP money, I am relieved but you need to add that to the $836 Billion figure and you are getting close to the $1 Trillion without counting other spending bills he has assisted in passing.

You constantly harp on the war spending being the primary factor for increasing the deficit, I will find the graph which shows how much of the deficit the wars actually account for, it was very small, and P.S. It here for you to lay to rest this misinformation you keep spreading.

WW is right, the "silent majority” is silent no more and the Democrats are whistling P.S. The grave yard when it comes to the defeat of entrenched Republicans being replaced by new small government and less taxes Republican candidates taking the party back to its true roots. Folks are just getting more pissed as the days P.S. To the November elections and voter turnout for the primaries has been much greater for the Republicans than the Democrats. In the P.S. Voter turnout for primaries has been a reliable barometer for the fall election cycle, if that holds true the Democrats are in for a rude awakening on Nov 3rd.

Harry Reid’s latest stunt of promising to include the “Dream Act” and abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the coming Senate defense spending bill as tacked on amendments is pure pandering to the Left’s special interests and will not be well received by the majority of the American people only adding to the fire storm coming in November.

There is a better query to be made regarding Castle-O’Donnell, if one seeks the truth. Clearly, I would not expect Esten to probe in this manner because he works so hard not to find what lies at the end of this path. The question isn’t about what republicans think, rather “What does the left think about a public uprising that throws out posers, who do not vote and act as they once promised, in exchange for unknown candidates promising to do the opposite? ”

As a follow up “If unknown conservative candidates can come out of nowhere and defeat entrenched GOP candidates in AK, CO, Delaware and so on, what might they do to Democrat candidates in November? ”

You can find the answer to those questions in the fact that Dems across the nation and particularly those in main stream media are so consumed with a GOP primary in Delaware. The answer is that they know that they are in real trouble. It isn't just the trouble of possibly losing the house and the senate, it is bigger than that. The Left and Dems face the trouble that the coming repudiation (via historic losses for the left in November) may cause catastrophic harm to their ability to enact major legislation through the congress for years, perhaps a generation or more. No new war on poverty, no New-new Deal, no blanket amnesty (which means no 15+ million new democrats), no more stimulus, no Obamacare.

Those are ugly consequences for the left and it is painful for them to contemplate. However the “why” hurts a whole lot more, which is why they are trying to bury it as best they can. The “why” is the fact that the left is not being defeated by the right or by the GOP or by the Tea Party. The foe that is vanquishing the left is far mightier than any of those collections of mortals. Liberalism is being defeated by the truth.

When the truth is not on your side, use more propaganda. You see, while feigning engagement on issues, propagandists do nothing of the sort. Engagement is the propagandist’s kryptonite. If Esten and his brethren participated in the act of proposing, supporting and defending their positions, they would be exposed for the frauds that they are. Coverage of this primary as “hotly contested” and indicative of a schism within the GOP is complete fantasy. It is deliberate propaganda intended to dissuade America from identifying the conservative ascendancy that is occurring (not coming, occurring). As I have stated before, the reference points for interpreting the election results in November will be moved by the propagandists to try to cover up the historic *-slapping that is coming their way. If the GOP does not take control of both houses, the media will cast the collective outcome as a failure by the GOP and will somehow spin it to mean the Obama should keep on keeping on.

I am by no means counting my chickens before they hatch. The key to November is not taking both houses, it is taking enough seats (from Dems and republican pussies that vote like Dems) to derail Obama's quest to do further damage to America. Whether or not the Dems lose both houses, the fact is that the citizenry has rejected them and their ideology. The special elections and primaries are prima facia evidence that the people are clearly against Obama and his policies. GOP control will signal the beginning of the end for: Cap and Tax, other wasteful green programs, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and additional stimulus (unless the newly elected congress is dumb enough to think that the people who elected them want to be repaid in pork). Hopefully, the first course of action will be to de-fund Obamacare and work towards a full-scale repeal of that mess.

The downside is that if the GOP takes the house and delivers (and that is a very big if), the liberal spending spree will be over and the tax burden should not increase. If things improve it will be due to: 1) the resiliency of the US economic system (despite Obama trying to destroy it) and 2) preventing Obama from doing any further harm to the economy. Therefore, things will improve before Nov 2012 and Big Ears will surely try to take credit for it. That said, I believe that the sleeping giant has been awoken and that even if the above plays out (economy improves, Obama takes credit) that a majority of those going to the polls in 2012 will see beyond the teleprompter to the truth about the false hope that was Obamaism and the empty promises of liberalism.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412320]Harry Reid’s latest stunt of promising to include the “Dream Act” and abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the coming Senate defense spending bill as tacked on amendments is pure pandering to the Left’s special interests and will not be well received by the majority of the American people only adding to the fire storm coming in November.[/QUOTE]It is truly sad. I don't think he is trying to win votes with these actions, I think they are the last desperate acts of a dead man. If he is trying to buy votes, he is more out of touch than I thought. So, he's in the fight of his political life and he expects queers (no offense intended) and illegals to tip the scales in his favor? Just how many gay, registered voters does he think reside in Nevada? As for the Dream Act, how many illegals does he plan to register before the election? Good thing we don't require positive voter identification.

How many that weren't planning to vote in November are now going to the polls because "DADT" or the Dream Act might make it to the Senate floor? I can assure you that most voters smart and dumb alike do not understand the Senate majority leader's role in what gets to the floor and what does not. Voters in Nevada don't give a rats ass about "Don't ask, don't tell" and they sure as hell don't want the Dream Act to add to their democrat-induced nightmare (highest unemployment and foreclosure rate in the nation). Of course, Harry told them that he had nothing to do with those problems. If he loses, it will be good riddance to a dishonest scumbag who has only evaded prosecution due to his high ranking office.

Back when Big Ears got elected, I said that he didn't have a mandate, at least not one typically associated with Presidential elections.

Mandates come from unified voter support for a candidate's platform and promises. America did not sign onto Obama for his agenda, policies or campaign promises. His only mandate was to keep being black (although Jesse and Al didn't think he was black enough), which seemed to be a common thread amongst many voters that supported him (don't waste your time trying to spin this as a racist comment).

In 2008, McCain was on his way to eeking out a very slim victory (leading in all polls) up until Lehman Brothers failed (Sept 15th). McCain suspended his campaign lost the lead for good and never came back (probably would have lost even if he didn't suspend the campaign. That was a desperate gambit to try to counter the Lehman effect). Panic ensued in both the financial markets and on Main Street and the margin of victory shifted to Obama. The shift was made entirely based upon fear, not belief.

Everything Obama has done since taking office has been without a mandate, for the benefit of a very small minority and to the detriment of the majority of Americans and to the fabric of the nation.

Two years ago, the alarm bells went off about the H1N1 virus. It was going to be the worst flu strain in a century. Millions would die. Everyone in the "mainstream" scientific community agreed. Based on all the science, it was labeled a pandemic. No flu vaccines capable of handling this new strain existed, but government spent billions to help cultivate and purchase these vaccines once they finally were developed.

What happened? The "mainstream" scientific community was dead wrong. The flu turned out to be much milder than the normal, garden-variety flu. Skeptical citizens knew this early on as the death toll numbers that scientists convinced everyone they would see never materialized. Now, panels are quietly investigating how the conventional wisdom and all of these respected scientists could have been so wrong.

And the dire H1N1 warnings were all supposedly based on legitimate science.

Now, we come to the multiple "Stimulus" efforts that have been deployed, and the new ones that are being proposed. Conventional wisdom, based on what the media feeds us, is that stimulus programs were necessary because we were in a recession. But, we've been in many other recessions and came out of them without anything that approaches the massive spending done by this administration. Yes, they claim, but this recession was [I]really[/I] bad, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Not so fast. The recession now is [I]really[/I] bad, based on its length and the unemployment rate alone, but those were the things all this stimulus spending was supposed to fix. The only response you generally get is, "well, it would have been worse without the massive spending. " There's nothing to back it up.

The only "science" that suggests these programs were necessary or even worthwhile are based on economics. They call economics "the dismal science" for a reason: It got its name after Thomas Malthus projected that population growth would cause a parade of horribles, eventually leading to starvation and death for much of mankind. He was dead wrong, and the name stuck, if only as a reminder that economic models are notoriously inaccurate.

So, why does anyone take it seriously when the current administration, based on so-called "expert" economists, concludes that any of the stimulus packages were necessary? To the extent that any of these "experts" provide any basis for their conclusions, it almost invariably is predicated on some Keynesian economic principle that is questionable [I]at best[/I]. Real world data debunks nearly every Keynesian theory. It's junk science, yet we're led to believe that billions in spending was and is necessary because these junk scientists tell us so.

What proof is there that these Stimulus programs were unnecessary? Of course it's impossible to "prove" now, but the best evidence is historical. In only one recession have we even approached the record level of stimulus and deficit spending that has been happening. It's called "the Great Depression, " and it lasted longer and was deeper than any other recession. By comparison, Europe did not engage in anywhere near the government stimulus FDR rammed through (measured as a percentage of GDP), and its economies recovered more quickly and its unemployment rate stayed lower at all points than the USA. In all other recessions, we have not spent anywhere near what this team has, and we suffered less (measured in nearly any way possible) and emerged more quickly. So, you can't conclusively prove what would have happened without the massive stimulus, but the smart money bets on experience.

So, if it's not the junk scientists with their demonstrably false Keynesian models, then who should we believe as to why stimulus spending is necessary? Obama and Geithner? Geithner's the same guy who either can't figure out how to pay his taxes, or was attempting to evade them. We've either got a buffoon or a crook running Treasury, yet we're supposed to trust him to spend nearly a trillion dollars wisely. This is the same pair who went to the G-20 meeting in June to trumpet the success of the USA stimulus packages and to chide Europe for even thinking about cutting spending to get their budgets in line. [url]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-26/geithner-says-g-20-needs-focus-on-domestic-demand-not-deficits.html[/url]

They were laughed out of the room by European leaders, particularly Germany, which cut spending instead. Turns out, Germany had the first and last laugh. Their economy is healthy by all accounts, while the Obama/Geithner Stimulus has succeeded only in driving up the deficit. The Obama-led Stiimulus does feed his arguments, though: He claims we [I]can't afford[/I] tax cuts for the wealthy. Why not? Well, because he was so busy blowing our wad on worthless Stimulus projects. (He usually forgets that last part in his stump speeches.)

These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party. It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs. Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence. Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party. But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist. Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412329]These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party.[/quote]There are many issues, however, I believe that there is one common theme, the douche bags elected to represent us don't. They represent their own selfish interest and those of their biggest patrons (I mean donors).

[quote=] It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs.'[/quote]It is funny that the media never really investigated cash for clunkers or the home buyer's credit. These two slights of hand just paid individuals to accelerate their time table for executing transactions. This in effect took future transactions and moved up their timing. No net increase in sales, just altered timing. It is a rouse. We will see the effect in the future in the form of continued lack luster sales.

[quote=]Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence.[/quote]Here's to hoping the Boehner will be able to shove that list up Big Ears' ass.

[quote=] Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party.[/quote]They don't think that at all. But that won't stop them from saying it and wishing it was true.

[quote=] But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist.[/quote]You are correct sir. Obama is the founder of the Tea Party. As I have said before, Obama did not have a mandate. When he lurched violently to the left (inauguration) and started destroying the country, he overstepped his bounds and the country noticed. If he was a pragmatist and not an ideologue, he would have passed smaller, more insidious legislation, avoided creating the tea party and would not be looking at losing both houses of congress in a few short weeks.

[quote=]Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.[/QUOTE]Be done with them as elected officials, yes. However, I do not think that we should forget or forgive the anti-American attack that this congress and president have wrought for their own political gain. Again, just to be clear, this is not anti-decent-citizen with liberal philosophies (you're wrong but I still love you) this is anti-anti-American liberal activists and democrat party apparatchiks.

Two quotes that Obama will learn to regret in the next 45 days "We won, you lost" (picture Boehner with a hot poker and Big Ears grabbing his ankles) and "I'm the only thing between you and the pitch forks and torches. "

As for H1N1, I called the govt reaction fraudulent (which it was) when it happened, but sadly I also know a healthy guy in his 20's who dropped dead from it. There was reason to be cautious and on guard but claiming a false pandemic in order to frighten the public into swallowing Obamacare was criminal (in my opinion, perhaps the new congress can look into that)

I can sense the tide is turning here, and with a few more posts will be able to convince you guys to abandon conservatism and embrace liberalism...

I normally would not continue something like this so long... But it is too tempting to keep pointing out Doppelganger's repeated misrepresentations and errors for all to see.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412320]Esten, even the Democrats are saying it cost $836 Billion. [/QUOTE]Can't find Dems saying that anywhere. Do you have a link? Here's some google search results on stimulus Obama "X billion": X=787 gives 76600 results; X=814 gives 1850 results; X=836 gives 66 results. I found no credible sources for the 836 number, only on various blogs and forums. The latest number per CBO is $814B and that's what you should be using.

[QUOTE]While you have finally admitted Obama spent TARP money, I am relieved [/QUOTE]But I never said he didn't spend any TARP funds. I disputed your claim that Obama bailed out Wall Street. Wall Street was bailed out by TARP, and specifically the first half of TARP under the Capital Purchase Program and Targeted Investment Program. Bush signed TARP and spent that first half.

[QUOTE]but you need to add that to the $836 Billion figure and you are getting close to the $1 Trillion without counting other spending bills he has assisted in passing.[/QUOTE]Wrong. The latest ARRA spending number is about $295B spent so far, and the TARP money Obama spent that has not been repaid yet is roughly around $100B. The sum of these numbers is around $400B spent, which is not close to $1T. Even over time, that number will go up as more ARRA is spent and down as more TARP is repaid. As I predicted, you have failed to demonstrate your case for $1T spent to date.

[QUOTE]You constantly harp on the war spending being the primary factor for increasing the deficit, [/QUOTE]Even your collegues can see how ridiculous this statement is. I posted a breakdown of deficit components a couple times... Far from constantly. War spending was one of several components, and I never said it was the primary component. Actually in that breakdown, war spending is the smallest component at present. Do you have any integrity that you might acknowledge your distortions?

[QUOTE=Esten;412335]I can sense the tide is turning here, and with a few more posts will be able to convince you guys to abandon conservatism and embrace liberalism...[/QUOTE]What ever you are smoking. Please share! LOL! Tick! Tick! Tick! Soon all will be revealed! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;412339]What ever you are smoking. Please share! LOL! Tick! Tick! Tick! Soon all will be revealed! Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Glad to hear I made someone laugh!

BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense?

[QUOTE=Esten; 412342]Glad to hear I made someone laugh!

BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense? [/QUOTE]Despite the noise around the race, Delaware is in play with O'Donnell as the republican candidate.

Once again, I don't count my chickens before they hatch and I do not believe that control of the Senate this fall is required to legitimize the conservative ascendancy (while it may be a condition of your bet).

The Republicans could wind up with 53 (that's right 53) seats in the Senate with both DE and CT in play (I am saying that they are both in play, although I am not hearing many others say that).

I am sure you have heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats. " Think of this more as a ten foot tidal bore.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412342]Glad to hear I made someone laugh!

BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense? [/QUOTE]There may be a few more surprises left that get me to that 50 number. Time will only tell. That said, as long as there are more GOP senators that DEM senators, one might consider that as a win? Your thoughts. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

P. Remember I win the ties.

You're sitting with ten, jack, queen, king but nothing of value waiting for the river.

You think, "give me an ace, give me an ace, give me an ace! "

And down comes an ace.

This is kind of the sensation with the news coming out of the democrats these days.

Not that it directly impacts the November outcomes, but I find it funny that just when Team Obama was trying to reintroduce Michelle the Mooch to electioneering, out comes this Sarkosy book. It is too funny. "I hate being first lady (flying to NYC on AF1 just for dinner and a show; huge boondoggle to Spain, free housing for my mom, etc)" is going to play well with the masses. Wonder why the declined to have dinner with the Sarkosys?

The Tea Party is going to spark a moral awakening !

[QUOTE=Esten;412385]The Tea Party is going to spark a moral awakening ![/QUOTE]Who is he trying to fool? The 20% of the country that thinks he is a muslim or the 50% that knows he favors Muslims, of any nationality, over Americans?

The fornicating issue is due to the wide spread infestation of "raticulae Mario Cuomo" not due to any Tea Party platform.

Our resident propagandist, Esten, is at it again. The Conservatism of the Tea Party is based upon fiscal conservatism first (I. E. Smaller govt, lower taxes) and not primarily based on social conservative issues. Esten knows this, as do his Marxist comrades throughout the left. However, they need to bring out the scare tactics and distortions to try to fight back the coming tide.