Didn't george w. want to invest Social Security in the stock market? w. was the worst Prez in the history of the USA, or in the top three. How can you defend a man who lied to get us into war? He should have been impeached. The man, I use "man" loosely was a total disaster.

Riffhard wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 11:03am:



What's the matter RiffRaff, did you forget to have your daily Liberty Enema today?


PS You don't "tell people differently", you convince people otherwise. Not sure how things went in your family, so some advice seemed appropriate.

Riffhard wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 1:11pm:



Jesus thinks you're a jerk (both figuratively and literally). Have a nice day . . .

TPM Reader AB:

    Just to mention something that is obvious, but hopefully not overlooked, i.e., if this country cannot pass a bill which insures that every citizen has access to medical care, which every developed country has managed to do (and got done many many years ago), there is something very fundamentally and structurally wrong with this country.

    Such an event, in my mind, would confirm that we live with a completely corrupt and dysfunctional form of government. Forty nine states, each with bicameral legislative bodies, some of which have distinguished themselves recently with unabashed levels of incompetency and cluelessness. Then, graft a federal government over that, which is also bicameral, the non-representative portion of it being filled with officials who are certifiable morons and/or who are bought and sold like whores by wealthy contributors.

    Talk about a Waterloo.

    This is a defining moment in our history. Do we fulfill our supposed status as a "shining city on a hill" or continue our long slow decline into a second rate oligarchy?

    I am not one prone to hyperbole.

    I believe this to the depths of my soul.

The ineptness continues unabated! Ladies and Gents, Barry is not only the worst president in US history, he's also the dumbest.


Case in point.



  WASHINGTON (AP) - A senior administration official says billions of dollars to raise fees for doctors treating Medicare patients are not covered by President Barack Obama's pledge to pay for health care legislation.
Budget Director Peter Orszag said Tuesday that's because the administration always assumed the money would be spent to prevent a cut of more than 20 percent in doctor fees.

The Congressional Budget Office said last Friday the higher payments cost $245 billion over 10 years. It said including the money in the overall bill would result in deficits totaling $239 billion.


On Friday, a few hours earlier, the president declared: "I've said that health-insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade. And I mean it."






Riffy

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Liberal Suicide March

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: July 20, 2009
NYT

It was interesting to watch the Republican Party lose touch with America. You had a party led by conservative Southerners who neither understood nor sympathized with moderates or representatives from swing districts.

They brought in pollsters to their party conferences to persuade their members that the country was fervently behind them. They were supported by their interest groups and cheered on by their activists and the partisan press. They spent federal money in an effort to buy support but ended up disgusting the country instead.

It’s not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That’s because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.

This ideological overreach won’t be any more successful than the last one. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday confirms what other polls have found. Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast.

Approval of Obama’s handling of health care, for example, has slid from 57 percent to 49 percent since April. Disapproval has risen from 29 percent to 44 percent. As recently as June, voters earning more than $50,000 preferred Obama to the Republicans on health care by a 21-point margin. Now those voters are evenly split.

Most independents now disapprove of Obama’s health care strategy. In March, only 32 percent of Americans thought Obama was an old-style, tax-and-spend liberal. Now 43 percent do.

We’re only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package. You would have thought that a stimulus package would be designed to fight unemployment and stimulate the economy during a recession. But Congressional Democrats used it as a pretext to pay for $787 billion worth of pet programs with borrowed money. Only 11 percent of the money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year — a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.

Then there is the budget. Instead of allaying moderate anxieties about the deficits, the budget is expected to increase the government debt by $11 trillion between 2009 and 2019.

Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation. They are modeled on the Massachusetts health reform law that is currently coming apart at the seams precisely because it doesn’t control costs. They do little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones.

The House bill adds $239 billion to the federal deficit during the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would pummel small businesses with an 8 percent payroll penalty. It would jack America’s top tax rate above those in Italy and France. Top earners in New York and California would be giving more than 55 percent of earnings to one government entity or another.

Nancy Pelosi has lower approval ratings than Dick Cheney and far lower approval ratings than Sarah Palin. And yet Democrats have allowed her policy values to carry the day — this in an era in which independents dominate the electoral landscape.

Who’s going to stop this leftward surge? Months ago, it seemed as if Obama would lead a center-left coalition. Instead, he has deferred to the Old Bulls on Capitol Hill on issue after issue.

Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they don’t fear him. On cap and trade, Obama campaigned against giving away pollution offsets. The chairmen wrote their bill to do precisely that because they don’t fear him. On taxes, Obama promised that top tax rates would not go above Clinton-era levels. The chairmen flouted that promise because they don’t fear him.

Last week, the administration announced a proposal to take Medicare spending decisions away from Congress and lodge the power with technocrats in the executive branch. It’s a good idea, and it might lead to real cost savings. But there’s no reason to think that it will be incorporated into the final law. The chairmen will never surrender power to an administration they can override.

That leaves matters in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats. These brave moderates are trying to restrain the fiscal explosion. But moderates inherently lack seniority (they are from swing districts). They are usually bought off by leadership at the end of the day.

And so here we are again. Every new majority overinterprets its mandate. We’ve been here before. We’ll be here again.

Pdog wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 5:53pm:



Well said . . .

If anyone thinks that Obama is the same as Bush you're being delusional! There is no way in hell that any Republican would be spending the way that Barry is spending. The agenda that Barry has foisted upon this country is designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Socialism. Bush spent like a drunken sailor to be sure, but Barry is spending like a drunken sailor with daddy's money. And by daddy's money I, of course, I mean our money.

Obama wants to "change" the entire economic system that has made the USA the most prosperous nation on earth. He's a Marxist. That ain't hyperbole either. That's fact.


Riffy

Anyone that thinks that Obama is not a Marxist then I'd highly reccomend that you read this link. Sam Webb is the National Chair for The Communist Party USA. Why not take the time to see what he thinks of Obama. Here's a hint. He loves him! And why wouldn't he afterall? They are of one mind when it comes to Marxism.

Here--->http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_and_the_cpusa.html



Riffy

fuman wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 7:33pm:


There's nothing in the constituion???

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think it's pretty clear, but then again, The Republican party has no problem discrminating against gays or telling women what to do with their bodies and that is a fact...
btw, promoting genral welfare, does mean health and education...

1wel·fare
Pronunciation:
\ˈwel-ˌfer\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from the phrase wel faren to fare well
Date:
14th century
1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2 a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

oh shit, I just remembered since Bush was president, the constittuion didn't matter anymore... i'm just surpised the bush-geeks are surprised and pissed off... I guess you forget simple things like, if the tide is the highest level at a certain high tide, it will also be at it's lowest... so one extreme begets another...duh!!! If the Bush-heads didn't want this, they should've thought it through a few years ago with the blind allegiance to the former prez, you opened this door, now you want it closed... good luck with that... we are expieriencing the economic version of 9/11... and you got a dem in office... so, we get the same dance as Bush, just done to a different song. When you gave Bush absolute power, you absolutely gave up your power, now you're complaining. Part of me wants to say, you deserved this, but it's been happennig to me too, I just felt this way then too... so consider yourself lucky, you just started feeling fucked...