People keep talking about how Obama is spending so much money... much money in the new package.  What people fail to address, is the fact that prior to Obama, Bush was spending just as much money, on a war with acountry we didn't need to go to war with.  Now their is no choice, another person has to come in and take the reigns and finish what Bush started, and fix his mistakes.  And some of that, Iraq and Afganistan for example, will take somemore money.  Picture, if you will, that Bush is still president.  What do you think he'd do with Iraq and Afganistan?  Not spend money?  What would McCain do if he was president?  Not spend money on Iraq and Afganistan?

Yes, it's going to take somemore money, but the difference is its money to make things better, not money to make things worse.  Bush spent money to make things worse when he started a second war before he was done with the first war he started.  If you've got a problem with Obama and his spending pakage, then where were you when the banks got bailed out? Bush was president then.  What do you suppose Bush would do about the economy if he was president now?  What do you think McCain would do? 

Remember, before you complain about all the money that's being now,  remeber all the money that the previous president spent.


Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.

Sell Obama Chia Pets to balance the budget

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

This is a real product being sold at

Chia Obama Handmade Decorative Planter

<div id="imageViewerDiv"><img src="" id="prodImage" /></div>

{;-) Dan in Miami



For Rajah: The Pantsuit Hillary Clinton Nutcracker

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

var closeTagLink = 'Close window';

Close window The Hillary Nutcracker <div id="imageViewerDiv"><img src="" id="prodImage" /></div>

var imageViewerTagDiv = '';


This is a real product sold at

{;-) Dan in Miami


A painful reminder to Bill's situation

Rajah's picture

Poor Bill

Whores! Impudent strumpets!

Scumby's picture

Bush, McCain, or Obama would be doing exactly the same thing: whoring for their Wall Street sponsors.  Rahm and Obama were the #1 Wall Street campaign recipients from Wall Street last year for the House and Senate, respectively.  Bush would be continuing to be a potted plant and let the looting continue.  I hold Obama to a higher standard since he's probably the smartest guy to ever hold the office, so he's conscious of his whoring.

McCain's whoring goes back to the Keating 5 scandal, and he threw the election when he whored for TARP last year.

Where was I?  I opposed Bush's bailouts strongly, calling my rep multiple times when TARP was jammed through last year.  I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and Afghanistan after we failed to exit.  Bush was a fiscal disaster, which Obama is extending to the point that government solvency is increasingly at risk.  No inconsistency here.

You're right, Obama should be held to a higher standard

Rajah's picture

The deregulation that started with Reagan needs to stop. Throwing money at the problem isn't going to work if there's no great change in the way the country does business. Letting these giant companies do whatever they want doesn't seem to work. Trickle down economics is a bust. Yeah, we may keep the banks and wall street afloat but so what? Nothing really changes til you put back the anti-trust acts and regulations. There apparently isn't a company too big to fail.

Bush has so lower our expectations of what a president should be that some are letting him slide on the issues. Sure he'll get us out of Iraq but it will be much later than he said before. He's really backsliding on the wiretapping and the torture issues. Yeah, I support the president but there's nuthing wrong with asking him to do better. He knew the job was dangerous when he took it.


michael3b's picture

I agree with Scumby.

I absolutely bombarded my state and federal reps and sens with letters while this shit was being force-fed to us.  TARP may go down as the biggest payoff to private interests in all of humanity, outstripping by a country mile the Iraq "war".  And, to boot, this clown wants us to do what noone has ever even remotely come close to doing- stabilize Afghanistan...all this while maintaining Israel's right to wipe out anybody at any time.  Schizophrenic much?

So far, it seems that I highly overestimated Obama's intelligence.

We keep hearing that he's capitulating on all of this crap in order to "fight the bigger fight" later on.  And what fight is that, exactly?  Health care? Good luck with that, dude. If we have learned anything during The Great Experiment, it's that people will not act en-masse outside their own best interests to help others if it means sacrifice.  And, although universal healthcare would ultimately become a net benefit for all, it is way outside the realm of the American mindset to act altruistically over the long-term if there is no overt self-righteousness attached...and helping out the poor is not something that inspires self-rightousness in us... unless it means killing bad guys in the process, of course. 


Gee, so much wrong with that post. So little time...

Coaster's picture

Since your premise regarding Israel was pure unadulterated BS, we'll just skip that.

Let's examine Universal Health Care  There's a couple of points I'd like you to consider:  1) Health care costs are part of the economic picture that's helping drive our economy right into the crapper; and  B)  Many captains of industry support universal health coverage because every other industrialized nation with which we compete in global markets has it, and not having it puts us at a great competitive disadvantage.  Toyota doesn't have to worry about carrying health care coverage for their employees, but General Motors does. 

If every other western democracy can institute universal health care coverage, why can't we?  I realized most of the negative comparisons of other countries universal health coverage compared to ours is disingenuous at best.  Try and find anyone in Europe, Japan, or Canada that would trade their health coverage for this bloated bureaucratic mess we have here.  Other than a few Canadian doctors who resent the fact that they can't get filthy rich practicing their craft as can American docs, you'll find a dearth of takers. 

As for the waiting times in Canada, let me tell you abour Blue Cross here:  Time to wait to complete the procedures for my cataract removals (yes, I had this done at an abnormally early age), was nine freakin' months.   And a word about McCorry Campus Insurance: Time to get tests done and test results back to diagnose a potentially deadly and crippling chronic illness for one of my family members was over one year.  We all had the McCorry was purposely delaying approval in the hope that the patient would leave college, thus leaving their insurance program.   Yeah, it would suck to be Canadian, wouldn't it? 

Is Obama wimpy or pragmatic?

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From the liberal NY Times:

Congressional Democrats effectively killed [Obama's] proposal to slash farm subsidies by nearly $1 billion a year, and forced him to retreat partially on a plan to require private insurers to pick up more of veterans’ health costs. They also got him to shelve the idea of a commission to buttress Social Security’s finances.

And Thursday, Mr. Obama suggested that he would not fight in Congress to renew an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. It was the latest example of the pragmatic approach he adopted after winning the presidency by promising to challenge entrenched interests and put the public good ahead of political expedience.

Mr. Obama’s allies point to his winning the second $350 billion in financial bailout money from a reluctant Congress; a pay-equity law for women; expanded government health insurance for children, including — at his insistence — legal immigrant children; and the $787 billion economic recovery bill that reached his desk, as demanded, by mid-February.

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  The NY Times article fails to mention Obama's biggest compromise to date.  He is still justifying imprisonment without right of habeas corpus for accused terrorists.  To me that's not a compromise, but a basic failure to obey the US Constitution.  When the US President takes the oath of office he swears to protect the Constitution.

PPS:  Obama seems to be winning when it comes to spending money.  Yet, somehow he loses when it comes to cutting spending.  Imagine that.


Obama's "compromise"

FearlessFreep's picture

Of course, in the case of the war on habeas corpus, Obama didn't have to compromise his pre-election position because he made it pretty clear from the start this was the position he was going to take. Some of us remember his decision to vote for immunity for the telecoms who did Washington's dirty work, the sort of decision the Nader-haters were careful to ignore.


Nader Haters? No need for them anymore.

Coaster's picture

Nader faded from relevancy after his fucking of Al Gore in 2000.  Since then, his political base has resided primarily in his own mind.

I hope he runs for president again in 2012.  I could use a chuckle. 

The Democrats f**ked themselves

FearlessFreep's picture

Michael Moore told Gore: "We didn't leave you.  You left us."


Gore didn't cater to the far far left. Okay by me.

Coaster's picture

From the Ralph Nader Wikipedia article:

“In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes, for 2.74 percent of the popular vote.”


“[In 2008] Nader received 738,475 votes, for 0.56 percent of the popular vote.”


Buh-bye Ralphie.

Sneering isn't argument

FearlessFreep's picture

Americans have a special genius for learning the wrong lesson from everything.



Coaster's picture

When it comes to Nader's contribution to the Great Bush Disaster, I have power sneering.

If that is true

Critico's picture

Why was he at the end of the campaign telling people to vote for Gore?

I agree with you, Coaster.

michael3b's picture

Universal healthcare SHOULD happen.  In fact it should have happened a long time ago. Erring on the side of being humane is my philosophy as far as government goes.  My point was that Americans are hard-pressed to act in this manner and so are easily manipulated by fearmongering.  UniCare will only happen with a unified effort that I don't see happening.  Hopefully I am wrong.

As for Israel, if their actions over the past few years have not made a dent in your perspective on our relationship, well...  And this is in no way an endorsement of Hamas or any of the other frauds ruining the name of Islam (for which I personally have no love). Nor do I have anything against the Jews (i mention this because anything anti-israel is usually equated with anti-semitism...which is BS).  But we simply should not be backing one horse against another while trying to "stabilize" the situation.  In short, America is Israel's lapdog in my opinion and it is an inherently destabilizing position for the US to take.

And for Obama- his handling of this financial situation is a joke in my opinion. So was hiring Hillary and Geithner and not demanding that Paulson and Bernanke resign. This is not to mention the fact that he does not want to bring anyone to justice for anything except a bunch of half-assed pirates who are now, after bing in existence since the invention of the boat, supposedly a threat to the world's safety.

Feeling screwed by big government?

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Not much left of your paycheck after Uncle Sam gets through with it?

Corkscrew Bill

<div id="imageViewerDiv"><img src="" id="prodImage" /></div>

var imageViewerTagDiv = '';



{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  To really get screwed go to for your genuine Billy Bob cork screw tool.



I pretty much ran this subject up on youtube big time...

TMundo's picture

...posting my thoughts on nearly every tea party forum I could find.

I was suprised with the positive responses I received.  A few of the Tea Party Brewers corrected ijn saying that the Parties weren't political, and that politicians were not allowed to speak at them.  None could disaggree that they should have had the protests earlier.

After eight years of Bush...

MH's picture

I'm willing to cut Obama a lot of slack on just about every issue (economy, health care, war, torture, etc) - I sometimes disagree with him and I do think he's made some mistakes, but people turning against a good-but-imperfect person is exactly what got Bush into office in 2000, and if we're not careful it's what will get Palin/Gingrich/Romney/etc elected in 2012.

I really do think Obama's a decent guy who's trying to do the right thing while balancing all the responsibilities of the office - he's certainly less sleazy then Clinton, and I sincerely doubt he'll do anything involving cigars and interns.  Plus, much of the anti-Obama rhetoric from the left is over the top (I actually read comments on a liberal blog saying he's worse then Bush) and much of the right's anti-Obama rhetoric has very little basis in reality (he's a soclaist/terrorist/Muslim who wants to redistribute all the wealth and impose Sharia law).  I'm not saying that people shouldn't disagree with Obama or anything like that, all I'm asking is for people to get some perspective - has 3 months been long enough to forget just how much worse a President can be?


A heretical thought

FearlessFreep's picture

Could it be that if Obama loses the next election, it won't be the fault of the leftist purists who didn't support him unanimously enough, but Obama's own fault?

I'm not inspired by progressives who seem determined to give Obama a pass on issue after issue. (They did that with Clinton, too.) The more you do that, the more you're inviting him to shaft you just as Clinton generally did.

As Spiderman learned, with power comes responsibility.  


Isn't having some of what you want better then nothing at all?

MH's picture

Of course people need to speak out and get their voices heard, but my belief is that it's better to do it in a way that works with Obama rather then against him - regardless of what you feel about any specific policy of his, he's not the enemy (let's be real, he's probably the most liberal president we can possibly get at the moment, someone like Kucinich is not going to be elected anytime soon).

The thing that bothered me the most about Bush is that he was ideologically driven - in his approach to terrorism, taxes, war, Katrina, etc, he way too often put right-wing ideology over finding practical solutions to problems.  Obama doesn't strike me as highly ideological, which to me is a good thing - he's willing to work with all sorts of people (including those who disagree with him) in order to get things done.



You're The Man Now Dog!

Rajah's picture

Expect more from your president. Didn't he say during his campaign that if he was messing up he wanted to hear about it? He was handed a turd sandwich and it'll be a miracle if he pulls this off.Bush has left the bar so low anyone would look better. I don't think Obama has a hidden agenda like Bush. But he took this shitty job because he wanted to serve his country. I can't see any other motive. Would you want his job? Well, he's the man now dog and his feet are to the fire as it should be. I wish there were more serious debate coming through from the other side. Instead he's called every name in the book and is accused of all sorts of crazy shit. Yeah, many were saying the same things about Bush but the kicker was some of that was true.

Having read hundreds and

Truck32's picture

Having read hundreds and hundreds of comments from people about current state of moral and economic affairs, I note that nobody ever seems to address the issues - they only want to talk about George Bush. How moronic. Are there any real ideas out there? I want my country back. Can we not capitalize our economy, which was badly needed, through means other than pork? Can we not let poorly managed businesses fail and sell off the pieces, like we did in the 80s? Can we not put government back in its place, rather than let it do things it has no expertise in doing? Can we not put term limits on these people in Washingon, and eliminate the existing tax code? Can we not completely reform the tort system? Can we not trust in God, anymore? If the comments I read are any indicator of the state of our nation, we have no compass no character and no future. Maybe we should just let the neo-cons and the secular progressives shoot it out until there's nobody left. Might even sell tickets.

Instead of hundreds & hundreds of comments, try reading the news

Coaster's picture

The neew economy will be supported by investments in education, green energy, and health care reform.  You're getting your country back, but instead of not having any auto industry to speak of, we'll be having one with at least two resized car companies.  This is not to say it's a bed of roses right now.  As an employee of a small business, I've not seen any loosening up of available credit; Lines of credit are a small business necessity if said business is to grow.  Also, the employment picture continues to get worse, and as a lagging economic indicator, it may, according to both Bernanke and Geithner, not recover until late 2010.  If you've been getting your news from Fox, NewsMax, Hannity and Limbaugh, your angst is understandable.  Conservative don't believe in investing in green energy ("Gore" being a dirty word ranking right up there with "liberal" and "scientist.").  Conservatives have never been big on public education.  And health care reform?  Fugedaboudit.  Yet all three are required to build a sound economic base for the future.  That is what the Obama administration has been saying, that's what the democratic congress has been kicking around, and that's what I believe. 

Also not helping your ill feelings about the future of our county is the language spewing forth daily from Right Wing Hate Radio©.  Here's some news from me:  I'm not the enemy.  Those who know me off of this board, and there are plenty here who do will tell you I'm not exactly a Jane Fonda liberal.  I served my country in uniform and I've worked in the defense industry for the past decade.  I've raised two kids and I live in the middle of America's Heartland.  Hell, I even own a pickup truck and some guns.  And unlike most of the Republican leadership, I've been married to the same woman for the past 31 years.   I commute 10 hours a week to my job, which I should have retired from a year ago, but there was that pesky stock price drop thing. 

Unlike you, I see this country redefining its purpose after 8 years of rather disastrous leadership and I like what I see.  I like the fact that other countries are beginning to like and respect us again.  It's much easier to fight global terrorism when your allies actually like you, rather than having been bought off to behave as if they like you.  Was the moral compass of this country turned in the wrong direction when the Bush administration was torturing people? 

As for being without God, that's fine by me.  Look within yourself for the country's character and future, rather than depending on a mythological super-being and a knowledge-challenged clergy for leadership in affairs of state. 

Here's a current picture of Coaster and wife

Rajah's picture

Twenty minutes spent composing that and this is the reply I get?

Coaster's picture

(Goes back to posting on Craigslist Atheist Forum as "Lord_Elpus)

Okay, you did vote for Nixon

Rajah's picture

So that doesn't make you much of a hippy

Green energy matters.

michael3b's picture

But I do not trust Geithner or Bernanke as far as I can throw them to tell me what is going to happen to the economy in the next five minutes, much less over two years.

And it's not just the right-wingers (read: the Obsoletists)who are complaining.

The handling of the banking "crisis" has been a disaster, IMO. And nobody got a word in edgewise against the bailout proponents. We made a big deal here about that female representative calling out the automakers and banks for "coming home to momma", but Obama and the Fed were 10000% behind bailing these guys out.  Essentially, the Fed pulled a gun on itself (ala Blazing Saddles) and said, "give us all your damn money or we're blowing this economy's head off."  So, we fork it over and VOILA! still no freakin' credit. AND we're up to our great grandkids' eyeballs in debt. AND we're still pretending as though we're gonna stop killing innocent civilians in the middle east someday. Now we hear about relatively miniscule cuts in government petty cash spending and are supposed to see this as a new day dawning?  I dunno...

Those are my main criticisms that don't involve putting people in jail. Otherwise, 'bama's got free reign for 3.5 years to do whatever he damnwellpleases, and so he will.  We'll see what happens. The tightening of anti-trust rules is a good sign.

Meantime, buy local.


michael3b's picture

How exactly will education, healthcare, and green energy become a foundation of an economy as huge as ours?  Understood that energy may be a big factor, but how does a state-funded healthcare/ education system work in terms of feeding the economy?  I honestly have not read anything that spells this out.

In any case, taking care of ourselves (which is important) is only a small portion of what drives this place. Actually DOING stuff does...or at least it did once.  And I am very wary of this government taking an EU-esque stance on how corporations will function in the future.  Creating federally-owned zombies out of the automakers and big banks/insurers is not a good start IMO. 

However, as I say below, if they are going to start cracking down on the anti-trust end of things AND stay out of the ensuing melee, then that will be a good start. 


Agree with you on the bailout

Rajah's picture

These banking corporations know how to piss away money and I don't see it stopping or them changing their ways anytime soon. Also Bank of America and Citibank are among those that are hiding funds in off-shore fake subsidiaries. Obama's people are hoping these fuckers will do the right thing and free up credit.

 Improving education will give us a more educated work force and investing in green technology will create jobs. Health care as it now stands is a drain on the economy. Again Obama is counting on corporations and The Congress to do the right thing. I sincerely doubt the insurance companies will cooperate and oil and coal companies want to keep their strangle hold on energy and good luck with changing the education system. It's all too dependant on the fuckers who have been screwing us all these years to do the right thing. Corporations are out for their own good as are many in Congress.

Correction on: Corporations

jazzdrive3's picture

Correction on: Corporations are out for their own good as are many in Congress.

It should read "Corporations are out for their own good as are 99.5% of the members of Congress.

All for revamping education...

michael3b's picture

...but the change has to come at home. The schools aren't where kids get smart. In fact, unless there is a massive change in the way Americans perceive about everything they've been taught, then schools will continue to function as institutional filtering devices rather than places of enlightenment and growth.  The US has plenty of good schools and plenty of intelligent people (though, that number will drop as the intelligent folk stop having's hoping the mexicans bring some brainpower!). But  I don't see the government making any difference in how these brains are utilized if money keeps flowing overseas (I know Obama wants to stop this, but it is beyond his control) and into failed businesses/banks.  Long story short, people need to start acting proactively on a local level and not hyper-reactively, emotionally, and with their "faith in god" to things that are way beyond their control.  We gotta have a fundamental change in 

What are the details of the stimulus package, does anyone know?

TMundo's picture

...I'm all for the type of socialism that forces businesses to do stuff that they haven't been doing, but should do to better the economy.  Like, here's some bailout money, but here's what you must and cannot do with it... A car company for example:


     Use money to invest in new forms of energy propulsion.


     Give bonuses with the money.

  And so on and so on.  Does anyone know the details of the stimulus package and whether or not things like this are being done?  There's no point in having the government interveen and give money to a company if they aren't going to tell that company what to do with the money.

Wow are you about to be disappointed

Scumby's picture


Basically it falls into:

- Construction pork

- Welfare

- Plugging state govt deficits

- Tax credits

- A tiny miniscule amount for 'green' projects as a fig leaf


Actually food stamps stimulate the economy more than tax cuts

Rajah's picture

I never want to hear these corporate fat cats beef about welfare ever again! They have gotten the biggest welfare check ever! Now they owe us! Pay some fucking taxes you cheaters and stop with the fake companies in the Cayman Islands! I've never seen such a bunch of arrogant pricks in my life. Why are we saving their companies again? Oh yeah, they provide jobs. Funny, they sure laid off a bunch of people after receiving all that money. Aren't there some other companies out there with new ideas we could give the money to?

Everyone should quit working now

Scumby's picture

Food stamps and unemployment payments stimulate the economy, so the more government handouts there are, the more the economy will grow.  Do your part.


Become a nation of hobos?

Rajah's picture

Sterno stock will skyrocket!

Buying up...

michael3b's picture

...all them sticks and bandanas isn't lookin' too stupid anymore, now, is it?

Obama's budget cuts are pitiful

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

By David S. Broder in the Washington Post
Sunday, May 10, 2009


The mountain labored, and brought forth a mouse. Last week the administration confronted the budget of the U.S. government in the "line by line" review long promised by President Obama -- and found theoretical savings almost invisible to the naked eye.

The nickel-and-dime exercise, a repeat of equally futile gestures by former president George W. Bush, claimed $17 billion in savings in a $3.4 trillion spending plan -- a bit less than one-half of 1 percent.

{;-) Dan in Miami


michael3b's picture

$17b would have been a good chunk of change on any other budget.  I mean, you can't make up for spending $100grand on a Porsche by bringing the grocery budget down to $0, but it's still a good idea to cut back on the heat/electricty bills regardless of what you're spending elsewhere.

I am all for calling these guys out on the bailout/stimulus package, and these cuts certainly ring hollow under the light of massive giveaways, but this is not the way to go about critiquing the real issue at hand IMO. 

You, sir, have no idea how much I can eat.

Coaster's picture


It's not a "cut" at all.

jazzdrive3's picture

It's not a "cut" at all. This is all part of the political corruption of language. The Republican's are saying the cut is too small. Democrats are saying the cut is significant ($17 Billion!). But it's not a cut!

What both Democrats and Republicans really mean by "cut" is a reduction in additional spending they want to add to the budget

They don't use "budget cut" like any other reasonable person would use it.

Not technically, but...

michael3b's picture

For example- Coaster, inline with last year's bump in Frito-consumption, is looking to up his Ring-Ding intake another 10% but sadly is limited by his pants/belt budget to only a 5% bump.  When you take into consideration this year's salary increase (stalking SixFlags is more lucrative than even i had guessed) there is a net gain in the household income .

The first thing they should do...

FearlessFreep's picture

... is  abolish the Homeland Security Department. (As Hurricane Katrina showed, it's just making things worse.)


Obama says he must spend to stimulate the US economy

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

OK.  So why is he spending money to keep US troops in Germany, Japan etc?  Seems like that kind of thing only stimulates the economy in those countries.  Or am I missing something?

{;-) Dan in Miami


I agree.

michael3b's picture

And that is part of the larger problem: i.e. money flowing out of the US and into the crippled-by-socialism EU (see: Airbus tanker deal and AIG shoveling a ton of that bailout cash into foreign debtors) and "elsewhere". 

Even if things were just ducky, I'd still pull back our military and get out of the business of policing the earth STAT.  If somebody needs help they can ask for it (humanitarian crises notwithstanding) . 


Just a little correction,

DS, USA's picture

Just a little correction, Bush did not start the first war, the 19 hijackers on September 11th, 2001 started the war. Get your facts strait before you bash a president you liberal scum. Also, I'm still waiting to see Mr. Obama's birth certificate that proves he's a natural born U.S. citizen. Last time I checked Kenya was not part of the United States of America.

War was actually never

jazzdrive3's picture

War was actually never formally declared. So constitutionally, we aren't at War. And we have Bush and the Republican Congress to thank for that.

And what's war on terror anyway? Why are we supposedly waging war on a method? I'm against mechanized armies, so I want to start a war against tanks. Although the name Obama has given the "operations" is very 1984ish.

You're too cute!

Wulfgar's picture

Who let you out of the basement?




~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~


He was born in Hawaii, not Kenya

scarlet_ohara's picture

Obama was born in Hawaii. Though my horrible high school gym teacher was, too. No jokes- this lady watched us change in the locker room and she had a creepy grin on her face the whole time.


I didn't notice the Dems making any hay...

Rajah's picture

over McCain being born in Panama. Yes, he got in on a technicality cause an american military base is considered american soil.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.