While I can see the point of view that job creation might possibly be hampered, I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Let them lapse. It is a luxury we can't afford during the recession.

let the tax cuts edpire for those earning over $200k for single and $250k for married couples. No rich person pays the full tax rate.With a good tax accountant some of them only pay 10% a year. This only goes to 2 to 3% of the population. Then republicans do not want to extend un employment benefits for 33 billion because of the deficit but do no mind giving 446 billlion to the rich

Why don't we just get politicians to pay what they owe in taxes?

Geithner is an expert on not paying his taxes ... how about Charlie Rangel?

I seem to think there are several others like Senator John Kerry who abuse loopholes in the tax laws.... let's get them to pony up first!

Tax cheat Geithner wants to bring down the deficit? Make him pay a penalty. Didn't NObama and the Demwits just pass additional unemployment without it being funded? This administration and this guy should cut government spending! There is waste all over the place. Like giving billions to Pakistan, to Haiti and to the Palestinians. We guarentee Freddie and Fannie Mac loans but do not put them in the Financial bill...This administration is a joke! Jimmy Carter is thanking god every day as his is not the worst administration anymore.

Those tax cuts never went back into the creation of jobs for Americans as designed. Most of it went offshore, with a small pittance going into low pay hybrid jobs that conveniently morphed the tasks of two jobs into one position. They allowed the well off to skip completely paying anything for the two war scams that the rest of America has been paying for "in full" w/ "interest.
It's about time that they too lived up to the committments made forgetting their own interest, for once, as proud citizens for the securities that they have enjoyed off the backs and labors of those struggling for wages sufficient enough to get by.

"On “This Week” on ABC, he said, “We think that’s the responsible thing to do because we need to make sure we can show the world” that America is “willing as a country now to start to make some progress bringing down our long-term deficits.”

It is these kind of hypocritical statements that has created a mass mis-trust in government. I am not even debating whether to expire the tax cuts on the rich. A guy who did not pay his taxes talks about being responsible but the ONLY way he knows is by taxing more? How about cutting waste, won't that help to bring down the deficit also?

Furthermore, he does not say we need to be responsible because it is the right thing to do, not just for us but for our children's future. He instead says to "show the world". In other words, if nobody is looking, lets continue to be irresponsible.

Hilarious! America has reached the leisure society and EVERY American--RICH OR POOR--should get EVERYTHING for FREE and EVERY American should have an illegal alien paid for by Obama's growing trillion dollar deficit.

Does BP own the Alaskan Pipeline in addition to all this oil in the Gulf? Is this true?

Did the United States know about all this oil in the gulf before the BP debacle and kept oil prices artifically high with Saudie Arabians?

The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone, in all income levels and got us out of the Clinton.com Recession. To stop them will equate to a massive tax increase adding yet another nail in the Obama Democratic Left Coffin, possibly sending the US economy into a tailspin or worse, the depression we barley missed.

WHY DIDN'T AN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY DRILL FOR OIL IN THE GULF--AMERICAN SHORES? WHY BP?

Was this oil in the gulf a secret?

12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Bush/Cheney had the highest deficits in all of American history.

The Bush largest Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in a time of two wars ( Iraq and Afghanistan ) and after September 11, 2001 are Shameful, Disgraceful and morally wrong.



==============

Don't Feed the Beast / Bush Should End This Tax Cut Myth
http://tinyurl.com/h9rhk
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700924.html

HEADLINES THAT YOU NEVER READ IN THE REPUBLICAN/FOREIGN-OWNED U.S. MEDIA: / http://tinyurl.com/5mq65x

President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $100 Billion in one year!

President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $200 Billion in one year!

President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $300 Billion in one year!

President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $400 Billion in one year!

President George W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $500 Billion in one year!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion AGAIN! Almost hits $600 Billion!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a THIRD time!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FOURTH time!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FIFTH time!

"Our National Debt is up Three Trillion Dollars under George W. Bush!" / http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone, in all income levels and got us out of the Clinton.com Recession

------------------

Bill F. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Bush had Clinton's Surpluses that's how he gave the largest tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

Caspian smell the coffee it's the Congress that passes budgets not the President.

Mags Yes at the suggestion of the White House and Bush did not veto anything.

====================

Don't Feed the Beast
Bush Should End This Tax Cut Myth
May 8, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/h9rhk
George W. Bush is not the sort of president who reads journals such as the Atlantic Monthly. But at least someone at the White House should check out the piece in the new issue by Jonathan Rauch. For honest believers in tax cuts, it's devastating.

It's been a long time since honest believers argued that tax cuts pay for themselves. When you have extremely high rates of taxation -- say, 70 percent-plus -- there may be something to this claim: When rates are that high, the rich go to extraordinary lengths to evade taxes and aren't motivated to earn more, so it's not crazy to argue that tax cuts might boost tax receipts. But you have to go back to the 1970s to find tax rates that high. When the top income tax bracket is in the 30 to 40 percent range, nobody serious believes that tax cuts change behavior enough to pay for themselves.

Or at least half decent. Everybody knows that the Reagan tax cuts did not actually cause spending to come down in the 1980s; most people have surely noticed that the Bush I and Clinton tax hikes were followed by spending constraint in the 1990s; and the Bush II tax cuts certainly have not stopped Congress from spending like a drunken sailor recently. But then the plural of anecdote is not data, and until the starve-the-beast theory is conclusively discredited, tax cutters won't stop hiding behind it.

Well, now it has been discredited. Rauch cites William Niskanen, an economist who worked in the Reagan White House and now chairs the Cato Institute. Niskanen has crunched the numbers between 1981 and 2005, testing for a relationship between tax cuts and government spending, and controlling for levels of unemployment, since these affect spending and taxes independently. Niskanen's result punctures his own party's dogma. Tax cuts are associated with increases in government spending. The best strategy for forcing cuts in government is actually to raise taxes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700924.html

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States
http://tinyurl.com/2d5dtr7
On this page you will find a history of surpluses and deficits in the United States, running all the way back until 1789.

Directly underneath you will find an up-to-date table that contains all of the budget surpluses and deficits in the United States from 1940 until present day, both in nominal dollars and inflation adjusted dollars. Projections for both 2009 and 2010 are included as well:

Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2010
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

"President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FIFTH time!"-Caspian

Caspian, your list would not be complete unless you included our current president as well:

"Created: 03/17/2010 03:38:36 PM PDT
(CBS) The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since President Obama took office."

"President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days."

http://www.ktva.com/ci_14695030?source=pkg

NOW IT'S COMPLETE!

TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH?????

Bush Tax Cuts: the 2001 and 2003 tax proposals by President Bush.

The key elements of the President's 2001 tax relief proposal were to reduce marginal tax rates on ordinary income, provide "marriage penalty" relief, increase the child tax credit and repeal the estate and gift tax; and the 2003 proposal was to end the double taxation of corporate income and accelerate the phase-in of the 2001 bill. Neither legislative proposal was enacted as proposed nor were the Bush Tax Cuts accomplished in just two acts; in total, there were five bills that collectively created current law with regard to these policies. With a few exceptions discussed later, the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire at midnight on December 31, 2010. Under current law, these policy changes then revert to their pre-2001 constructions.

Caspian, what bubble world do you live in? You just repeat liberal propaganda and fail to use your own brain. Oh, sorry. Do you own one?

Alan Greenspan warned for many years during the Clinton years that there was an "irrational exuberance" with the dot.com companies. The Clinton economic burst as he was walking out the door and left Bush holding the repercussions but unlike Obama Bush took it like a man rather than continuously blaming the former occupant of the White House.

Then 9/11. That hit New York financial markets hard and soured the mood of the country.

I wonder what unemployment would have been if Bush didn't give tax cuts to spur the economy.

Clinton worked with the Republican controlled Congress to balance the budget. HISTORY, CASPIAN. NOT MAKE BELIEVE.

Someone got rich and it wasn't by way of a tax cut:

Pentagon can't account for $8.7 billion in Iraqi funds
The reconstruction money was from oil revenue it was entrusted with between 2004 and 2007, according to a newly released audit that underscores a pattern of poor record-keeping.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-funds-20100727,0,3856364.story?om_rid=MMAuZ5&om_mid=_BMTtGLB8QIMihk&

July 26, 2010 | 9:13 p.m.

Sorry folks that link dosen't work:

Pentagon can't account for $8.7 billion in Iraqi funds
The reconstruction money was from oil revenue it was entrusted with between 2004 and 2007, according to a newly released audit that underscores a pattern of poor record-keeping.

By Liz Sly, Los Angeles Times

July 26, 2010 | 9:13 p.m.


Reporting from Baghdad — The Defense Department is unable to properly account for $8.7 billion out of $9.1 billion in Iraqi oil revenue entrusted to it between 2004 and 2007, according to a newly released audit that underscores a pattern of poor record-keeping during the war.

Of that amount, the military failed to provide any records at all for $2.6 billion in purported reconstruction expenditure, says the report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is responsible for monitoring U.S. spending in Iraq. The rest of the money was not properly deposited in special accounts as required under Treasury Department rules, making it difficult to trace how it was spent.

Though there is no apparent evidence of fraud, the improper accounting practices add to the pattern of mismanagement, reckless spending and, in some instances, corruption uncovered by the agency since 2004, when it was created to oversee the total of $53 billion in U.S. taxpayer money appropriated by Congress for the reconstruction effort.






"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," notes the audit report, a copy of which was obtained Monday by the Los Angeles Times.

Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen, who heads the agency, said repeated investigations have shown that "weak oversight is directly correlated to increased numbers of cases of theft and abuse."

In this instance, the audit focused on Iraqi revenue earmarked for reconstruction under a 2004 arrangement granting the Defense Department access to Iraq's oil proceeds at a time when the country did not have a fully functioning government and was unable to undertake urgently needed projects. The revenue was deposited in a special account in New York, called the Development Fund for Iraq.

The report comes as Iraqis are increasingly frustrated with their own government's inability to provide basic services, or to explain how tens of billions of dollars' worth of oil revenue has been spent since 2007. The alleged U.S. mismanagement of Iraqi money is certain to revive grievances against the U.S. for failing to make a big dent in the country's reconstruction needs despite massive expenditures.

Iraqis are still angry about the failure to account for a separate $8.8 billion in Iraqi oil revenue spent by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 and 2004.

If more money is found to be missing, "Iraq will definitely try to get it back," said Ali Musawi, a media advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Most of the money covered in the latest audit has been spent, but the study found $34.3 million that should legally have been returned to Iraq in 2007, when Iraq's government assumed responsibility for its finances.

The Defense Department has not said what it intends to do with the money, which is "at risk" of being spent, the audit said.

In response to the audit findings, the Defense Department concurred with recommendations that it establish better guidelines for managing such funds. But a letter from U.S. Central Command emphasized that failure to establish deposit accounts for the $8.7 billion does not mean it all cannot be accounted for.

The U.S. reconstruction effort is winding down as the military withdraws, and no more new U.S. funds are expected to be allocated.

liz.sly@latimes.com

Times staff writer Riyadh Mohammed contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

I wonder what unemployment would have been if Bush didn't give tax cuts to spur the economy.

------------

Mama Mia ,

Bush and his corporate Republicans along with the corporate Blue Dog Democrats lead to the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

I blame Bill Clinton for terminating Glass/Steagall.

--------------------------

Behind The Deregulatory Curtain
October 1. 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/3kn39v
Notice what these revisionists are not mentioning.

No “thank you” to former Senator Phil Gramm for pushing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. This law was passed in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 - and designed to separate banking from securities activities. In 1999, when Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and in so doing repealed Glass-Steagall the banks strayed into rough waters by looking for fast money from risky investments in securities and derivatives.

As predatory lending mushroomed out of control, the regulators -- key among them, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Comptroller of Currency -- sat on their hands. The Federal Reserve took exactly three formal actions against subprime lenders from 2002 to 2007. Bloomberg news service found that the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which has authority over almost 1,800 banks, took three consumer-protection enforcement actions from 2004 to 2006.

No “tip of the hat” to the Bush Administration for preempting state regulators and Attorneys General from using state consumer laws to crack down on predatory and sub-prime lending by national banks.
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2063-Behind-The-Deregulatory-Curtain.html

President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.

===============

Thanks Mike G. Duly Noted.

Maggie Mama:

"Clinton worked with the Republican controlled Congress to balance the budget."

You are so right on this one,but you must remember the"noise" wasn't there as strong as it is today.
And I think that helped to make that possible.If he were president today I don't think it would happen in that same way.

"12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Bush/Cheney had the highest deficits in all of American history."


Until the very short tenure of Obama who put them all to shame claiming massive runaway defecits that he is adding to on a daily basis, ensuring poverty for generations to come.

"You are so right on this one,but you must remember the"noise" wasn't there as strong as it is today."

The reason for the "noise" is that instead of balancing the budget Obama continues to spend even more.

Consider this analogy:

Your ex-spouse (Bush) and your children (the bankers/too big to fails) max out your credit cards making you broke to the point they are going to foreclose on your home. You (Obama), did nothing to cause this problem. Your ex-spouse tries to save the home by taking out an equity loan but you don't feel it is enough. So you borrow much more money and your top priority is to buy things you never were able to afford before. Your children still own their credit cards because you decide that taking them away, is a lower priority. Spending responsibly and cutting necessary waste is not considered at all, until perhaps after your spending binge is over.

So really, why should you be thanked? What have you really done, except not participate with the ORIGINAL irresponsible spending and policies.

Geez,..I wish RNN would expire! That way my local station could run something more socially significant,..like "Mr.Ed" or "The Honeymooners"!

RNN is awful!

"To stop (the tax gifts to the rich) will (result in) sending the US economy into a tailspin or worse, the depression we barley missed."-BF

Too bad the rich had 90% and higher tax rates for so many years; we might have been spared the most robust industrial/economic growth this world has ever seen.

On and on we go again, and still nobody has hit the mark.
Only idiots will site verbatim about this mythical dot.com bubble that President Clinton supposedly left on Bush II's doorstep.
Yet when all is said and done, none of his defenders can explain how this imposter, adorned with his goofy Harvard MBA in Economics, and 3x bankrupt track record- rose to the seat of Presidency of these United States and engineered his 4th and greatest bankruptcy, the almost total collapse of the entire worlds capitalist system.

THE TOTALLY OF THE COSTS ACCRUED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATRAION CANNOT BE DEFINED AS ONLY A DOLLARS & CENTS ISSUE.
In dollars and cents alone the bush Administration compounded then doubled the debts of 42 former Presidents which was at $4.3trillion in a mere 8yrs.

When Bush left office in 2008 the national debt was at an amazing $12.7trillion- and he had the Federal Reserve and its bankers threathening Congress and this nation with "martial law" for the debts that they accrued following his "deregulation" crack pipe dreams.

Bush left the SSI trust fund owing not the $300billion borrowed for his wars but, in his wake he left a heart stopping $1trillion to China due to interest. Bush could have borrowed the same $300b from the Treasury at zero interest but, Nooooooooooooo... Why pay for these cash cows now, when we can just milk the public forever. ...heh, heh

Bush supplementals that never saw the light of day on Federal budget ledgers amassed another $700b, ...heh, heh

The Bush ponzi scheme gift to the pharmeceutical cartel cost another $534b and partsB-D added another $100b. This FRAUD was amazingly hailed by republicans and called rather incredulously, despite its deliberately leaving out 20% of the nations people--> a NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PLAN.

OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS- REMOVED YET ANOTHER $2TRILLION PLUS FROM THE NATIONS CASH FLOW- THAT OTHERWIUSE WOULD HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED INTO THE AMERICAN JOB MARKET.

TAXBREAKS FOR TOP RICHEST 1% SUCKED UP AN AMAZING 48% OF THAT POOL- THAT IS ADDING AN AMAZING $3TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEBT POOL OVER TIME WITH INTEREST.
THE REST OF AMERICA in the lower 98percentile received anywhere between low of $47 per yr, ...upward to $1,900 per yr. *98% percent of the American public was told to be grateful for the benefit- that this upper echelon class now claims- leaves each of us owing "equally" $41,000. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Pity the poor bastards at the bottom, ... heh heh

Bush/Cheney teamed with Rocky & his friends to give us two wars to Nowhere that are supposed to last a minumum of 50yrs... heh heh
THE WARS AND THE WAR MACHINE DOUBLED AMERICA'S OIL CONSUMPTION... CHENEY & GRAMM INSURED THAT WE PAY TRIPLE FOR THESE LUXURIES heh heh

Bush then turned loose the blood sucking lechers for the banking cartel that owns the Federal Reserve when he replaced the all too competant Wm Donaldson for being too concerned with protecting the taxpayer and their hard earned and therefore pensions. Replacing SEC Commissioner Donaldson with PR yesman Cox and Goldman-Sachs insider Paulson. "How to make a bust turn into a boom with taxpayer money" by AIG & Goldman Sachs
Tack on your first 2.3trillion from the Fed. heh heh
Add another $874b to the deficit but this time put it all on Obama's ledger. heh heh heh heh

... heh heh. NOW WATCH AS DUMBASS AMERICANS IN THE LOWER TIERS FIGHT OVER WHOSE JOB IS MORE EXPENDABLE TO PAY BACK ALL THAT I "THE DECIDER" ...AND MY LOCKSTEPPING REPUBLICAN SIDEKICKS PISSED AWAY IN THE BLINDING SHIT STORMS.

Until the very short tenure of Obama who put them all to shame claiming massive runaway defecits that he is adding to on a daily basis, ensuring poverty for generations to come.

-----------------------

Clue for you Buddy from W.Heights

I think Hoover had the highest deficits and FDR reduced them and turned it to surpluses similar to what Bill Clinton did after 12 years of Reagan.

FYI:

The GOP's New Tax Cut Hypocrisy
by Peter Beinart Info
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins.













House Republicans, during a news conference on "Democrats' failure to pass a budget, the record-setting $13 trillion National Debt, and the need to cut spending now to create jobs." (Scott J. Ferrell / Getty Images) Five years ago, Republicans backed tax cuts—but said deficits didn’t matter. Today, they say deficits are all that matters, but still like tax cuts. Peter Beinart on the party’s economic time warp.

What do the debate over the Afghan war and the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts have in common? They could both be taking place in 2005. The financial crisis has changed the world. But in Washington, the arguments have barely changed.

Five years ago, Washington Democrats said the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting because there really were terrorists there. Five years later, the Democrat in chief is still saying that, even though we now know that 1) most of the al Qaeda types are in Pakistan, 2) Hamid Karzai has largely given up on the war we’re fighting in his name, and 3) our superpower status is seriously threatened by debt. Five years ago, Republicans said the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting because the “Islamofascists” were today’s version of the Nazis and communists. Five years later, al Qaeda still hasn’t pulled off another attack anywhere in the world (let alone in the U.S.) even close to 9/11, and yet to listen to the GOP, ceding Marja to the Taliban remains the equivalent of letting Hitler have Paris. With the exception of Vice President Joe Biden, whose patience with Karzai seems to have run out, it’s hard to find a prominent Washington politician willing to allow new information to displace old dogma.

Today, everyone pretends that they’re worried about the deficit—and then pursues basically the same agenda they would pursue if they weren’t worried.

• Lloyd Grove: The Texas Republican Who Hates BushOn the tax cuts, it’s much the same. During the Bush years, Republicans mostly insisted, in Dick Cheney’s famous words, that “deficits don’t matter.” Now they say deficits are virtually all that matters. Their rhetoric has shifted radically, but their policy prescriptions haven’t changed one bit. You might think that people terrified of deficits would be concerned about permanently extending tax cuts that will add at least $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Nope. The Republicans were for cutting taxes when they didn’t care about deficits and they are for cutting taxes when they do care about deficits, which is another way of saying that they don’t really care about deficits. For their part, most Democrats are as adamantly opposed to upper-bracket tax cuts as they were in the Bush years, even though if you really believe in Keynesian economics, as the Democrats supposedly do, raising taxes during a recession makes a lot less sense than raising them when times are good.

In 2010, as in 2005, American politics remains basically a contest between a pro-war/anti-government party and an anti-war/pro-government party. But it wasn’t always this way. To understand how Beltway discourse might be different if the two parties really made policy based on their view of the deficit, think about what Republicans and Democrats believed in the two decades between World War II and Vietnam. From Harry Truman through Lyndon Johnson, Democrats said that if Washington spent lavishly and cut taxes, America would grow its way out of debt. And because they weren’t worried about debt, the Democrats of the early Cold War weren’t all that worried about war: From Korea to Vietnam, they said the U.S. could essentially run its foreign policy on a blank check. Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower, on the other hand, were so afraid of deficits that they opposed both large new government programs and large tax cuts—and costly ground wars as well. In Washington today, there are barely any Truman/Kennedy Democrats or Eisenhower Republicans left. Joe Lieberman is probably closest to the former, Ron Paul to the latter, and both men are viewed inside their parties as traitorous freaks.

There were plenty of problems with American politics in the early Cold War years, but at least each party had a coherent view of deficits, a view that guided the policies it espoused. Today, everyone pretends that they’re worried about the deficit—and then pursues basically the same agenda they would pursue if they weren’t worried. “There’s another elephant in the room—the budget deficit,” declared Max Baucus recently. “And that elephant is growing.” It may not be the world’s most elegant metaphor, but Baucus is on to something. An elephant in the room, after all, is something that doesn’t interrupt your normal routine, no matter how large it gets. Until it tramples you, that is.

Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Part II- NWO AND ITS RISE TO TYRANNY!

THE Prelude and the Pretext for 9/11 and Wars w Afghanistan & Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA


How Bush took the Greatest Military ever Assembled into a skirmish with 1,800 Al qaeda, ... and turned it and its military hierarchy into an 8yr dysfunctional mess- to the point where endless occupation and stalemate has become the last best chance option.
HOW OCCUPATION HAS TURNED CERTAIN VICTORY INTO A LIFE SUCKING TORTOUROUS QUAGMIRE FOR OUR HEROES & THEIR FAMILIES.

*COSTS OF BUSH/RUMSFELD OCCUPATIONS & NATION BUILDING- OVER 100,000 TROOP CASUALTIES, ANOTHER SEVERAL THOUSAND FAMILYS & CHILDREN DIVIDED, 5,000 DEAD FOREVER $800B PER YR, PLUS INTERESTS- ...UNTIL INFINITY?

BANKERS IN THE TOO BIG TO FAILS & GLOBAL EQUITY CONSORTIUMS- boy do you knowwhat it takes to bring about your New World Order.

Try reducing any deficit with a dead in the water stagnant economy with 20% of the country under employed. Thats right bankers keep hoarding your money and keep on pissing away all of our collateral and resources away offshore.
Let us not tax YOU who comprise this nations top 1% while you continue to break our backs with YOUR DEBTS and PROMISES TO FOREIGN DICTATORS.

WHOSE SIDE WILL YOU BE ON WHEN YOU CAN NO LONGER SUCK AWAY ALL THE REST OF OUR JOBS & ASSETS?

Let us all be thankful for your building that beautiful oasis for yourselves in Dubai with the ridiculous profits you've made from our hides.

Let us all be thankful for your miserly TOO BIG TO FAILS and all of the immunities bestowed upon you by your bought and paid for CZARS

Let us all be thankful that you've orchestrated and approved w/o ever consulting your public- the sell offs of US ports, American industries, NASDAQ, our coastal shores and control of our food supply to foreign dictatorships, foreign caucuses, and their invasionary forces.

IN OTHER WORDS, THANKS FOR NOTHING. LET THE DEBTS YOU'VE ACCRUED IN OUR NAMES, ROT WITH YOU IN INFAMY.
You have no loyalty, no honor, no shame.


Full Version: LET "ALL" THE BUYERS OF THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL DEBT BE ENLIGHTENED & BEWARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ

Mike G: re: "President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FIFTH time!"-Caspian

Caspian, your list would not be complete unless you included our current president as well:

"Created: 03/17/2010 03:38:36 PM PDT
(CBS) *****The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since President Obama took office."
------------------
When Obama took office both he and Congress were being threathened with martial law by the shadow banking establishment. THAT EXTORTION OF $874B BELONGS ON THE BUSH LEDGERS.
SINCE THEN "THE IMF" TENTACLE OF THAT SAME CARTEL JUST CONFISCATED ANOTHER $54B UP TO A POSSIBLE $174B FOR THE EURO BAILOUT.
ANOTHER $80B IS STILL BEING EARMARKED FOR THE TAXBREAKS OF THE 1%.
ADMIT THAT UNEMPLOYMENT AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST FEW QUARTERS OF '09 WERE THE CARRY OVER FROM THE BUSH DEPRESSION- $68B.

Now add that up so we all can have an accurate assessment of the facts.
---------------

Yes I agree, we can't go backwards. Yes I agree 100% that Obama hasn't done a blessed right thing to turn around this economy and all that he did accomplish was to stop the free fall.
But shouldn't any President regardless of who he is have expected a more honorable and patriotic adherence to the terms agreed to by THE BANKERS to whom we all know really are the manipulators of both the debt and the economy?

Obamas' inherited debt by my figures amounts to anywhere between $1.1trillion and $1.2trillion dollars. Leaving him with a $8-900,000B tab over a 2yr span. That's $450B per yr.
With all things considered, especially against what the entire capitalist system was facing and the possibility that the dollar and every single Americans savings and investments were faced with imminent and immediate insolvancy bar none. I would think more people ought to be reflective and a little more grateful.
YET, THE FACT THAT THIS MAN, OUR PRESIDENT OBAMA THINKS THERE CAN EVER BE A JOBLESS RECOVERY THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE SECURITY AND WELL BEING OF AMERICA- COMPLETELY BEWILDERS AND ASTOUNDS ME.
He's just greasing the skids and continuing to prime us for the bankers and the fascists idea of NWO.

If that is "fair" and "balanced" enough for you. SMILE!

NEVER LEAVE OUT THE ORCHESTRATORS HIDDEN IN THE SHADOWS. IT IS THEY WHO HAVE AND CONTROL ALL OF THE POWER BEHIND EVERY THRONE, DICTATORSHIP, AND UPRISING.

"..and all that he did accomplish was to stop the free fall."- John

"Obamas' inherited debt by my figures amounts to anywhere between $1.1trillion and $1.2trillion dollars. Leaving him with a $8-900,000B tab over a 2yr span. That's $450B per yr." - John

"Americans savings and investments were faced with imminent and immediate insolvancy bar none. I would think more people ought to be reflective and a little more grateful." -John

John, help me to understand exactly what Obama did. Are you saying that Bush's TARP money had zero effect and only Obama's massive bailouts were the reason we were saved? Then why was so little of it used for that purpose? Why was additional money spent on bailing out the car dealers? Why was health care such a high priority? What about the extra pork and special interest spending? Much like the stock market what we needed most was confidence.

In analogy, I suppose if Obama used a nuclear weapon to stop the oil leak, we should all be grateful, even if it meant destroying the area and our future in the process. As long as he stopped the leak.

My point is in my view, he used that financial crisis as an excuse for out of control spending for his agenda and it went above and beyond the actual goal.

By all accounts I just like you am appalled by the useless and selectively purposelous misuse of the TARP. Especially after most of the money was paid back. A large portion of this money should have been reassigned to put the unemployed back to work, and an equal share should have been directly assigned to local and community banks for reinvigorate small to moderate sized domestic businesses.
Healthcare was just as bad a sellout as the Bush plan. You know that I was never for a plan that was neither transparent enough for analysis nor immediately accessible. Making it worse was the attempt to make it mandatory and punitive should a person decide they did not want to participate.
As I said before, if you would care to read between the lines. Government is the tool of the shadow bankers. It is they who control the purse strings, the players and all things connected to this economy. The plan is to institute NWO, North American Union, and reduce American wages and holdings to that of 3rd world wage slaves. Obama has thus far proven to be no match for their insidiousness, nor their downright hostile attitude toward us citizens. he thinks that by playing along with them eventually he will get something in return. He is wrong.
He still refuses to use the one thing that he has in his favor that can instantly resolve at least some of the errors committed during his learning experience. That tool is PRESIDENTIAL ORDER.
But then again, in fairness a quick review shows that just when he was about to concentrate his main focus on jobs-
-in January DubaiWorld defaulted on its loans halting lending.
-by March the Euro was collapsing and no money was moving. New projects around the entire world were halted before they got of the ground.
-May gave us, BP and that disasterous economy grinding oil spill.
NO MONEY MOVEMENT. STOPS ALL PRIVATE JOB CREATION.
THE ONLY THING LEFT IN THE BAG FOR JOB CREATION- IS GOV'T SPENDING.
... AND THAT PISSES SHORT SIGHTED PEOPLE OFF.

I have always stated from before day one that the Fed had to be audited and then dissolved if it could not live up to expectations that protects America and our way of life.
We should not be extorted at interest so that multinational bankers could take the money and leave us holding the bags for their offshore debts.
The the meantime in its stead have the treasury Create domestic Treasury currency that puts the underemployed back into the gainful labor pools reconstructing our infrastructure. None of this would have the public bearing absorbitant interest costs while having the benefit of dropping unemployment roles almost overnight...

I hate the blame game. I want action. I want action not in two years. I WANT THIS PRESIDENT TO ACT NOW! not because of party or race but, because he is the man on the seat that can make a difference for us all. He can disregard Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, lobbyists, right and left wing neo-fascists, and the zipperheaded MSM. He is the President of the United States of America with an intellect to know the difference between right and wrong and he was elected to do our bidding.
Two years from now... who knows what will be left that will be worth saving?

Why Liberalism Is Dangerous:

July 27, 2010

In early June, George Will devoted one of his syndicated columns to a favorable discussion of my book, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State. Three weeks later, Michael Lind of the New America Foundation devoted his weekly column in Salon to attacking Will for endorsing Never Enough and thereby supporting “the Orwellian project of rewriting American history in order to demonize liberalism.” Two months earlier, Lind had laid the foundation for his attack in a column on “Glenn Beck’s Partisan Historians.” It criticized “serious scholars on the American right” — including Harry Jaffa, Ronald Pestritto, Thomas West, and Charles Kesler — for lending “their scholarly credentials to the oldest trick of right-wing populist demagogues: denouncing liberals as amoral, state-worshiping libertines.” The “demagogues” Lind named were Jonah Goldberg for writing Liberal Fascism and Glenn Beck for . . . well, everything.

Messrs. Jaffa, Pestritto, West, Kesler, Will, Goldberg, and Beck do not need my help against Michael Lind. In speaking for myself, I acknowledge having a bit part in this movie: Lind’s acquaintance with Never Enough seems to encompass only what George Will had to say about it. My point here is not that a careful reading of Never Enough would disabuse Lind of his mistaken and melodramatic ideas about its critique of modern American liberalism. It is, instead, to ask that readers consider for themselves Never Enough’s critique — which is informed by the scholars Lind mentions, as well as by co-conspirators he leaves unindicted — rather than relying on Lind’s overwrought assessments.

Lind makes four arguments to show that people who find liberals’ words and deeds less glorious than he does must be wicked, stupid, or both.

First, conservative critics of liberalism “are correct when they point out that many progressive intellectuals like [Woodrow] Wilson rejected the 18th century ideas of natural rights and checks and balances as outmoded.” The mistake those critics make is to treat the history of liberalism since 1932 as an elaboration rather than a repudiation of progressivism. By ignoring “the profound differences between the Progressive movement and subsequent movements on the American center-left,” these critics can’t or won’t see that “New Deal liberalism broke with progressivism in many if not most respects.”

Second, Franklin Roosevelt and the liberals who followed him did not reject Madison and Jefferson’s idea that government exists to secure the inalienable rights that humans possess by nature but cannot safely exercise in the pre-political state of nature. To the contrary, the New Deal adapted the 18th-century understanding of natural rights to the 20th century’s vastly more complex economic circumstances. Lind takes FDR at his word when quoting his 1936 promise to “reaffirm the faith of our fathers” and “restore to the people a wider freedom” by preserving “the political and economic freedom for which Washington and Jefferson planned and fought.” How, Lind asks rhetorically, can George Will and I misunderstand or misrepresent such straightforward terms as “reaffirm,” “restore,” and “preserve”?

Third, despite all this, it turns out that the whole debate over whether FDR adapted the principles of the American Founding to the economics of his day, or whether he adapted progressivism’s rejection of the Founding to the politics of his day, is beside the point. To think otherwise is to commit conservatives’ gravest intellectual error: “They ignore any material factors — industrial revolutions, population growth, urbanization, geopolitics — and treat American and world history as a Manichaean struggle of abstract philosophies.” Lind instructs us to the contrary: “First principles” are politically insignificant. What matter are “practical subjects: how to provide healthcare, what kind of infrastructure we need. The Democratic healthcare plan can be criticized, but not because it is Hegelian state-worship that betrays the principles of the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing relativist or historicist about the hydropower dams of the New Dealers like Roosevelt and [Lyndon] Johnson.”

Finally, Lind dismisses as “right-wing propaganda” “Voegeli’s claim, seconded by George Will, that liberals have a limitless appetite for addicting Americans to welfare.” He arrives at this nuanced interpretation by refuting a straw-man argument. The book uses “welfare state” as it is generally understood: to describe the entire array of government programs that seek to promote economic opportunity and security by redistributing income through “transfer payments, and by providing or subsidizing certain goods and services.” Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) organization of historical data on federal finances, Never Enough’s “welfare state” encompasses all the spending that falls within OMB’s “Human Resources” category: Social Security and other income-maintenance programs, Medicare and other health programs, and federal programs for education and job training.

The term “welfare state” is hardly a neologism, but by misconstruing it Lind can write as if the core issue is whether the government will assist poor people through transfer payments — “welfare” — or government employment: “Will and Voegeli to the contrary, liberals in the Rooseveltian tradition have always favored public work programs . . . as an alternative to welfare payments to poor people able to work.” Lind to the contrary, I never said they didn’t, not because I have a dog in that fight but because I consider the best mix of welfare and employment programs to be a third-order question, not the crux of the matter.

Lind ascribes great importance to government jobs programs in order to castigate conservatives for their indifference to “republican citizenship and the dignity of labor,” as well as their support for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which uphold “crony conservatism” by providing a government “subsidy to the employers and customers of low-wage labor.” He neglects to mention that one of the right-wing stooges who support the EITC is Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s chief adviser on regulatory affairs. Where Lind endorses “living wage” proposals, Sunstein argues in The Second Bill of Rights that any such program “increases the income of many people who are not poor” while having the “unfortunate effect of throwing people out of work.”

What, then, should we make of Lind’s larger argument about liberalism’s benign pragmatism? Admittedly, I have less confidence in my opinion — that liberalism’s enthusiasm for a government that can pursue any social reform deemed humane by any means deemed necessary flouts the principles and jeopardizes the perpetuation of America’s experiment in self-government — than Lind appears to have in his opinion — that liberals’ initiatives really have made America a more decent, admirable nation, and that the economic and political costs of those initiatives are either negligible or, at worst, clearly worth the benefits they have engendered.

One possible explanation for this disparity is that I’m wrong and he’s right. Another is that Lind is more confident about all of his opinions than I am about any of mine. Were he to experiment with self-doubt, Lind might entertain the possibility that his refutation of the conservative critique of liberalism comes up short for the following reasons.

(1) In order to dismiss the conservative argument about the meaning and importance of progressivism, Lind distorts it. He makes his case by observing that President Wilson re-segregated Washington, D.C., while liberals went on to champion the civil-rights movement, and that many progressives were partial to eugenics, an idea decisively discredited by Nazism. The conservative critics of progressivism, however, have always contended that it is more important as a body of ideas than as a cluster of policies. Pestritto’s book, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern American Liberalism, for example, concentrates on Wilson’s quarter-century as a political scientist, touching only briefly on the decade he spent as a politician.

The key progressive idea was that America’s government of limited, enumerated powers, all of which were derived from and legitimated by the consent of the governed, was woefully inadequate to the task of governing an industrial nation spanning a continent. The resulting challenge, according to Wilson, was “to make self-government among us a straightforward thing of simple method, single, unstinted power, and clear responsibility.” In such a government, trained, disinterested administrators would have all the power they needed to make America conform with the constantly “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” to use Chief Justice Earl Warren’s phrase.

While New Dealers and subsequent liberals rejected ancillary items on the progressive agenda, they embraced the core concept of a government big, powerful, and unstinted enough to do all that progress requires. In 1937, Luther Gulick, an important New Dealer and leading proponent of the professionalization of public administration, advocated restructuring American government to reduce the typical law enacted by Congress to “a declaration of war, so that the essence of the program is in the gradual unfolding of the plan in actual administration.” And indeed, the political scientist Theodore Lowi assessed the sprawling governmental apparatus built up over the subsequent four decades by saying, “Liberalism is hostile to law.” That is, liberalism promotes “policy without law” by having Congress delegate real governance, and vast discretion, to administrative agencies that go on to regulate with “a vigor that is matched only by its unpredictability.” The consent of the governed, expressed through elections that let the people turn unsatisfactory officials out of office, is trivialized. Tired of waiting for the progress of a maturing society to do something democratically about global warming? Fear not — there’s a tenuously democratic Plan B. The Environmental Protection Agency’s life-tenured civil servants have already declared that greenhouse gases are within their boundless regulatory purview, and they stand poised to overrule Congress if elected legislators decide against mandating new limits on emissions.

(2) Lind’s insistence on the New Deal’s adaptive fealty to the natural rights of the American Founding rests on the perception of a guileless Franklin Roosevelt, a quality undetected by the overwhelming majority of FDR’s critics and admirers. This willed credulity allows Lind to declare that if FDR said his purpose was to preserve the freedoms that animated the Founding, it’s simply not possible that he had anything else up his sleeve. This argument leaves no room for the possibility, advanced by Sidney Milkis of the University of Virginia, that FDR gave “legitimacy to progressive principles by embedding them in the language of constitutionalism and interpreting them as an expansion rather than a subversion of the natural rights tradition.” Roosevelt agreed with Jefferson and Madison, but only in the sense that Roosevelt insisted Jefferson and Madison agreed with him, that the Founding was a proto–New Deal.

In 1932, FDR stated that under the social contract laid out in the Declaration of Independence, “rulers were accorded power, and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights. The task of statesmanship has always been the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.” Unlike the rights described in the Declaration, however, there is nothing natural or inalienable about the ones described by FDR: They’re not yours to begin with, and statesmen and historical changes can always alter, augment, or rescind them.

By 1944, the social order had changed and grown enough for the statesman Roosevelt to explicitly redefine Americans’ rights to include jobs, housing, medical care, education — in short, a “Second Bill of Rights,” all of which “spell security.” That can’t be the last word, however; the prospect of future changes in the social order causes FDR to urge the recognition of “these and similar rights.” The governmental right to discover new rights could, for instance, someday lead to the development endorsed by FDR’s National Public Resources Board in 1943, when it called for recognizing the right to “rest, recreation and adventure.”

Who among us would disdain citizenship in that Club Med polity where safaris and sea cruises are guaranteed as a matter of right, where we might awaken any day to find that the changing social order has left us yet another shiny new entitlement in the driveway? The problem is that it turns out to be impossible to elevate every social-policy goal to a right without reducing every right to just one more policy goal. In 1994, the Clinton Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) enforcement of the Fair Housing Act was so zealous that it demanded that groups opposed to new homeless shelters or drug-treatment facilities in their neighborhoods turn over to federal investigators (who were seeking evidence of discriminatory motives or attitudes) every article, flier, or letter to the editor their leaders had written, as well as the minutes of every public meeting they addressed. The HUD assistant secretary called upon to defend this thuggery compressed six decades of liberal rhetoric into a single op-ed, which explained how the department had to “walk a tightrope between free speech and fair housing. We are ever mindful of the need to maintain the proper balance between these rights.”

(3) Finally, in saying that all this graduate-seminar mumbo-jumbo about natural rights and limited government is a sideshow, Lind is, again, being a good New Deal liberal. The practicalities are what matter, he says. Peter Beinart of The Daily Beast recently concurred: “FDR’s greatness stemmed from his indifference to ideology.” Beinart approvingly quoted Roosevelt’s reply to a question about how he would explain the political philosophy behind the Tennessee Valley Authority: “I’ll tell them it’s neither fish nor fowl, but, whatever it is, it will taste awfully good to the people of the Tennessee Valley.” By the same token, Beinart praised Barack Obama for discovering and giving voice to his inner New Dealer in time to salvage health-care reform by turning “a theoretical debate into a tactile one.”

This tactile aspect of liberalism is the one that causes so many conservatives to pound their heads on the table in frustration. I refer to the moist-eyed, quivering-voiced, morally preening affirmation of the tautology that when the government gives people stuff, the people it gives stuff to wind up with more stuff than they had before the government started giving them stuff. After they calm down, conservatives say, “Fine. Stipulated: Benefits are (or at least can be) beneficial. Now, can we please talk about how we’re going to pay for all these programs? And how we’re going to make sure that the Santa Clausification of American government does not transform us from a republic of free and equal citizens into a nursery of wardens and wards? And, finally, what will be the governing practices that allow us to overcome the correlation of political forces that makes it so much easier to expand failed programs than to euthanize them?”

Given liberals’ disdain for specifying any sort of theoretical limit on how much the government should do, tax, spend, borrow, and regulate, the entire credibility of their assurances that we needn’t worry — that this affirmative government project of ours won’t spiral out of control — rests on the efficacy of the practical constraints, their ability to identify and eliminate instances of Big Government gone bad. It’s especially striking and important, then, that these ad-hoc limitations have also been so unavailing. “It is common sense,” Roosevelt said in 1932, “to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

The problem is that liberals have been so much better about following the “above all, try something” part of FDR’s marching orders than the part about admitting and abandoning failures. Liberals have seen programs like the National Recovery Administration (NRA) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) eliminated as a result of political victories by their opponents. There is no credible case, however, that had the Supreme Court not put the NRA out of its misery in 1935, or had the Republican Congress not done the same to AFDC in 1996, the liberal consensus would have countenanced any changes bigger than perpetual adjustments to fundamentally flawed endeavors.

It’s not just liberal politicians who have followed the path of least resistance, perpetuating programs favored by organized and determined constituencies despite clear evidence that they impair the common good. Liberal writers and intellectuals, who don’t have to worry about primary challenges or vengeful interest groups, have also been reliable team players instead of fearless, let-the-chips-fall truth tellers. Even court-ordered busing for the purpose of racially integrating public schools had — and maybe still has — never-say-die defenders. As late as 1992, The American Prospect not only defended the wisdom and benefits of busing, but lamented a 1974 Supreme Court decision that fell one vote shy of imposing busing on entire metropolitan areas rather than confining it within the limits of individual cities.

“America does not need to choose between James Madison and Woodrow Wilson,” writes Lind. “But it does need to choose between Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.” It needs, he is saying, to respond to modern challenges by rejecting a conservative government too hemmed in by rules and strictures to grapple with our problems. The alternative Lind endorses, however, is by-any-means-necessary liberalism, in which the consent of the governed is of far less political importance than the “vision” of the governors.

C. S. Lewis wrote that since progress means getting closer to your goal, when you’ve taken a wrong turn and are getting farther and farther from your destination, the truly “progressive” response is to turn around and go back to the right road. Most conservatives believe that America took a wrong turn in 1932, one that has led us farther away from the goal of preserving and strengthening republican self-government. Self-styled progressives talked us into that navigational error, and in the subsequent 78 years their liberal disciples have continued on the wrong road, superintending a rolling regime change that has steadily hollowed out our constitutional republic and replaced it with an administrative state, one increasingly indifferent to ordinary citizens’ concerns and insulated from their opposition.

The conservatives now reviving constitutionalism are rightly insistent on the need to retrace our steps, and to undo the mistakes that have supplanted limited with unlimited government. The point is not to go back to 1932 and stay there, compiling a list of things government cannot do and problems it cannot address. The point, rather, is to resume progress on the road not taken: toward a government that is both limited and vigorous, scrupulous about upholding the principles of republicanism but energetic and prudent about working within the framework created by those principles to respond to economic and social changes with policies that advance the people’s prosperity and security.

Caspian, MikeG, MikeQ, robert, fred, Gail, WHERE THE REAL POWER LIES AND WHO WIELDS IT- WITH SADISTIC AND COLD BLOODED PRECISION. Part I


Leaked Agenda of the Bilderberg Group Meeting ’09


Paul Joseph Watson | Prison Planet.com 7,068 views
May 7, 2009
On the eve of the 2009 Bilderberg Group conference, which is due to be held May 14-17 at the 5 star Nafsika Astir Palace Hotel in Vouliagmeni, Greece, investigative reporter Daniel Estulin has uncovered shocking details of what the elitists plan to do with the economy
over the course of the next year.

The Bilderberg Group meeting is an annual confab of around 150 of the world’s most influential powerbrokers in government, industry, banking, media, academia and the military-industrial complex. The secretive group operates under “Chatham House rules,” meaning that no details of what is discussed can ever be leaked to the media, despite editors of the world’s biggest newspapers, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Financial Times, being present at the meeting.

According to Estulin’s sources, which have been proven highly accurate in the past, Bilderberg is divided on whether to put into motion, “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty … or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”

The information takes on added weight when one considers the fact that Estulin’s previous economic forecasts, which were based on leaks from the same sources, have proven deadly accurate. Estulin correctly predicted the housing crash and the 2008 financial meltdown as a result of what his sources inside Bilderberg told him the elite were planning based on what was said at their 2006 meeting in Canada and the 2007 conference in Turkey.

Details of the economic agenda were contained in a pre-meeting booklet being handed out to Bilderberg members. On a more specific note, Estulin warns that Bilderberg are fostering a false picture of economic recovery, suckering investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market again only to later unleash another massive downturn which will create “massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead,” according to a Canada Free Press report.

According to Estulin, Bilderberg is assuming that U.S. unemployment figures will reach around 14% by the end of the year, almost doubling the current official figure of 8.1 per cent.

Estulin’s sources also tell him that Bilderberg will again attempt to push for the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, a key centerpiece of the agenda to fully entrench a federal EU superstate, by forcing the Irish to vote again on the document in September/October despite having rejected it already, along with other European nations, in national referendums.

“One of their concerns is addressing and neutralizing the anti-Lisbon treaty movement called ‘Libertas’ led by Declan Ganley. One of the Bilderberger planned moves is to use a whispering campaign in the US media suggested that Ganley is being funded by arms dealers in the US linked to the US military,” reports CFP.

Daniel Estulin, Jim Tucker, and other sources who have infiltrated Bilderberg meetings in the past have routinely provided information about the Bilderberg agenda that later plays out on the world stage, proving that the organization is not merely a “talking shop” as debunkers claim, but an integral planning forum for the new world order agenda.

Indeed, just last month Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990’s. Bilderberg’s agenda for a European federal superstate and a single currency likely goes back even further. A BBC investigation uncovered documents from the early Bilderberg meetings which confirmed that the European Union was a brainchild of Bilderberg.

In spring 2002, when war hawks in the Bush administration were pushing for a summer invasion of Iraq, Bilderbergers expressed their desire for a delay and the attack was not launched until March the following year.

In 2006, Estulin predicted that the U.S. housing market would be allowed to soar before the bubble was cruelly popped, which is exactly what transpired.

In 2008, Estulin predicted that Bilderberg were creating the conditions for a financial calamity, which is exactly what began a few months later with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Bilderberg has routinely flexed its muscles in establishing its role as kingmaker. The organization routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence.

Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 running mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a glowing speech at the conference in 2004. Bilderberg attendees even broke house rules to applaud Edwards at the end of a speech he gave to the elitists about American politics. The choice of Edwards was shocking to media pundits who had fully expected Dick Gephardt to secure the position. The New York Post even reported that Gephardt had been chosen and “Kerry-Gephardt” stickers were being placed on campaign vehicles before being removed when Edwards was announced as Kerry’s number two.

A 2008 Portuguese newspaper report highlighted the fact that Pedro Santana Lopes and Jose Socrates attended the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy before both going on to become Prime Minster of Portugal.

Several key geopolitical decisions were made at last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Washington DC, again emphasizing the fact that the confab is far more than an informal get-together.

As we reported at the time, Bilderberg were concerned that the price of oil was accelerating too fast after it hit $150 a barrel and wanted to ensure that “oil prices would probably begin to decline”. This is exactly what happened in the latter half of 2008 as oil again sunk below $50 a barrel. We were initially able to predict the rapid rise in oil prices in 2005 when oil was at $40, because Bilderberg had called for prices to rise during that year’s meeting in Munich. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

Also at last year’s meeting, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formalized plans to sign a treaty on installing a U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

Rice was joined at the meeting by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who reportedly encouraged EU globalists to get behind an attack on Iran. Low and behold, days later the EU threatened Iran with sanctions if it did not suspend its nuclear enrichment program.

There was also widespread speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s “secret meeting,” which was accomplished with the aid of cloak and dagger tactics like locking journalists on an airplane to keep them from tracking the two down, took place at the Bilderberg meeting in DC.

It remains to be seen what kind of mainstream media press coverage Bilderberg 2009 will be afforded because, despite the proven track record of Bilderberg having a central role in influencing subsequent geopolitical and financial world events, and despite last year’s meeting being held in Washington DC, the U.S. corporate media oversaw an almost universal blackout of reporting on the conference, its attendees, and what was discussed.

Once again, it will be left to the alternative media to fill the vacuum and educate the people on exactly what the globalists have planned for us over the coming year.
NOW REVIEW EVENTS AS THEY HAVE TRANSPIRED AND THEIR ORDER OF PROGRESSION OVEWR THE PAST YEAR. Hmmmmmm!
-----------
Recap: ***HOW ONE BILDERBERGER GLOATED OVER THE INEVITABILITY OF A TERRORIST EVENT THAT WOULD CHANGE AMERICA FOREVER A WHOLE 11 MONTHS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.
SEE HOW WITHOUT EXCEPTION THIS SAME MAN WAS ABLE TO PREDICT THE COURSES OF EVENTS & THE POLICIES WE HAVE TAKEN THAT SPANNED AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, VENEZUELA,... LISTEN TO HOW HE GLOATED ABOUT AMERICA PAYING FOR A 50YR WAR, ... NOBODY BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY "THE ENEMY", WHILE AMERICA FELL VICTIM TO "ID CHIPPED" ENSLAVEMENT & MONITORING. (10MINUTES)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ
CONTENT:
Start at 26:50

Caspian, MikeG, MikeQ, robert, fred, Gail, Bill F: Make sure you watch the entire video at your leisure so we can all express our viewpoints on these topics and where Obama, like Bush before him are following the agendas of the bilderbergs, Carlyles, and their strongarm CFR are leadiong us over the weekend. THIS IS THE COMPLETE UNEDITED VERSION OF THE 2005 INTERVIEW.

Newly added topics
-the power of the NY FED
-unknowingly cites the importance of Thomas Jefferson and the Bill of Rights to the continuance and future of justice and freedom who was just removed from the Texas version of schoolbooks just this year.
-THE SUPREME COURT RULING THAT GIVES THE CORPORATIONS AND THE BANKS THAT RUN THEM A BLANK CHECK IN FUNDING ELECTIONS.
**** 1:02.00- END

May God Bless America and keep us "all" safe and protected from "tyranny".
_______________
MikeG: This newer version explains why domestic small businesses are doomed to fail.
Gail & Maggie mama: This new version will show you how all of those C Corporation tax exemptions you are currently enjoying can be reversed at any time by the IRS- and you can be made to repay in full retroactively whatever amount they decide to extract.
The war against the middle class, ...and more.

Why private job and innovative research funding is incrimentally being squeezed so that more and more of the population is directed or funneled by necessity into SURVEILLANCE & ENFORCEMENT modules for the coming NWO.

Enjoy everybody! Knowledge is POWER!!!
Know how to read between the lines of MSM deception.

NEVER FEAR!

Don't miss the final four minutes after the credits.

When Obama took office both he and Congress were being threathened with martial law by the shadow banking establishment. THAT EXTORTION OF $874B BELONGS ON THE BUSH LEDGERS.
SINCE THEN "THE IMF" TENTACLE OF THAT SAME CARTEL JUST CONFISCATED ANOTHER $54B UP TO A POSSIBLE $174B FOR THE EURO BAILOUT.
ANOTHER $80B IS STILL BEING EARMARKED FOR THE TAXBREAKS OF THE 1%.
ADMIT THAT UNEMPLOYMENT AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST FEW QUARTERS OF '09 WERE THE CARRY OVER FROM THE BUSH DEPRESSION- $68B.

Now add that up so we all can have an accurate assessment of the facts.

=====================

John,

Excellent points exposing the "Powers That Be"!

Obama is still guilty of bailing out Wall Street without bailing out "We The People"!

I will watch the full movie later.

“Obama has thus far proven to be no match for their insidiousness, nor their downright hostile attitude toward us citizens. he thinks that by playing along with them eventually he will get something in return.”-John

John, I wish someone could convince me that Obama is trying to do what is in our best interest but I just don’t have that trust. I felt the same way about Clinton and George W. Even before Bush was elected I thought he was nothing like his father. He seemed arrogant and lacked integrity, so I did not trust him. Yet many on the right called him “humble”. I feel the same way about Obama I don’t trust him, I think he lacks integrity and is arrogant. Yet many on the left see him as a man of character trying to do what is in our best interest and at worst case is in over his head like Carter. I thought Carter was a very bad president but not because he lacked integrity, in my opinion, he was among the most honest, at the time he served.

So what happened to us as a nation? Have we changed so much we accept dishonesty? Read all the negative comments about Clinton, Bush and Obama. If any of these accusations are true, wouldn’t they be worse then the crimes Nixon committed and left office for? Yet we continue to elect and defend such leaders. We can blame our government and our corporations for the mess we are in but they really only reflect our overall moral degradation as a society. The best thing we can do is improve our own individual values in order to be able to ascertain the difference between right and wrong. If we except nothing less then complete honesty and integrity from our leaders, regardless of party, then they will be forced to give us that truthfulness in return.

MikeG: "The best thing we can do is improve our own individual values in order to be able to ascertain the difference between right and wrong. If we except nothing less then complete honesty and integrity from our leaders, regardless of party, then they will be forced to give us that truthfulness in return."- MikeG
---
Really Mike, I would never have suspected that you would willing resign your fate to the benevolence of the dark forces, who are hellbent on "chipping" you and everyone else [SEE: FEMA CAMPS] as if you were their property.
Sorry but I give that strategy the same chance of success as we give to lambs passively awaiting a reprieve in the slaughterhouse. Most of todays politicians don't see people when they sell out they only see in two dimensions- "poll ratings" and "collateral damage" and you and I dont have the $$$ to sponsor a spartan candidate to reproach them.

Believe me- there are many options that are still left untried, that have never been presented on our behalf, that "We the people" can place on the table that make the odds of success inevitable.
Think harder. Chat and parlay with the others. I'll get back to you over the weekend.

HINT: Think 4 day work weeks, ...think net. think numbers... think masses, ...THINK OUTSIDE OF "THEIR" INCREASINGLY TIGHTENING DIAMETRICAL BOXES.

Think as if we were all to remain "divided" fighting amongst one another as MSM has all of America doing in one form or another- that each private sector business will systematically be taken over by a megacorp go bankrupt, be taxed into oblivion as unemployment expands or downsized.

THINK BIG!

'Most of todays politicians don't see people when they sell out they only see in two dimensions- "poll ratings" and "collateral damage" and you and I dont have the $$$ to sponsor a spartan candidate to reproach them."

Yes John I suppose you are right. Still, I wonder if Nixon was president today would he have resigned? He did so due to pressure by us, the media and both party's. If there is an obvious wrong being committed and we keep quiet in order to protect our personal interests, then we are enabling that type of behavior. That was my point.

MikeG: Gotcha, sorry. I can't wait to hear Gail's imput she usually has a quirky slant on things that placed in that proper context can be a bit insightful

John, yes no offense intended to Gail but she has a very unique way of posting. A bit difficult for my finite brain to fully comprehend. Interpretation is welcome.

"I wonder if Nixon was president today would he have resigned?"

If you think that at the time the media was really digging into this story,can you imagine what we would be subjected to now,with the 24/7 newscycle?

It would probably be unbearable.

John :

I will check that out,I did log on to youtube and the view count at this moment is over 212 thousand views.

"If you think that at the time the media was really digging into this story,can you imagine what we would be subjected to now,with the 24/7 newscycle?

Robert, interesting thought. I suppose Fox News would have downplayed it and the rest of mainstream media would have hyped it up. Probably the Balloon Boy would have never occurred or gotten caught, if not for Media attention.

My point really had to do with our morals and what we will tolerate. I'm interested in seeing what happens to Rangel. In Nixon's day he would have been viewed as a crook. Today, many consider him an honor to society. I wonder what will be his fate?

Rangel’s Day of Reckoning:

July 28, 2010

When Representative Charles Rangel goes on trial on Thursday it might be the first time that a sitting United States congressman has done so since Jim Traficant was convicted of bribery [1], racketeering and tax evasion in 2002. Rangel and Traficant are kindred spirits of a sort, for each exhibits the kind of imperious arrogance that Americans loathe, especially when it bubbles to the surface among their elected officials. The difference between the two is that Traficant played a bit part among Democrats eight years ago and it was thus easy for the party to wash its hands of him. Rangel, on the other hand, is a stalwart among Democrats, a heavy hitter with strong ties to other heavy hitters, up to and including the Speaker of the House. If Rangel goes through with the trial – and he says he will – it will be a lot harder for Democrats to wish this scandal away than it was in 2002.

Published reports indicate that Dems are desperate for Rangel to cut a deal and avoid trial, but the congressman stubbornly refuses to do so. He wants his day in court [2] and believes that he will be vindicated in the end. That attitude is reminiscent of another prominent Democrat who proclaimed that he wanted nothing more than the opportunity to tell his side of a sordid story, but when ex-governor Rod Blagojevich had his day in court recently it turned out that Blago didn’t have the guts to make his dubious case. Might Rangel also lose his nerve once prosecutors outline the case against him? Probably not. Over the last few years the octogenarian congressman has shown that he has grown increasingly detached from reality. His “watch your back” warning to the president when Obama visited Harlem, his declaration that the only people opposed to the health care bill were white southerners and his stubborn refusal to give up the Ways and Means Committee for so long are all signs that Charles Rangel lives on a planet that only vaguely resembles Earth.

Democrats understand that the longer the Rangel saga plays out, the more damage it will do [3] to them in November, but they don’t really understand why. Voters are upset with Democrats to be sure, but they’re more upset with the overall perception that America is being governed by a detached, self-absorbed “ruling class” that disregards the will of the populace and whose contempt for the average American is poorly concealed indeed. That’s a problem that crosses party lines, which is why the tea party movement is so careful not to directly attach itself to the GOP. Tea partiers will vote for Republicans in overwhelming numbers come November, but their underlying message is clear: they’re voting to get rid of privileged insiders and if the fresh faced Republicans whom the movement hopes to empower during this election cycle fall prey to the same temptations, they will be held accountable as well.The accusations that have been leveled against Rangel are deeply disturbing. Among other things, Rangel has been charged with occupying four rent controlled apartments in New York City and using one as a campaign office, with failing to disclose or pay income taxes on rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic, with trading support of tax breaks for contributions to the Rangel School in New York and with improperly claiming a homestead exemption on property he owns in Washington. Rangel has admitted to and tried to explain away [4] some of these charges. Others he has yet to address. The New York Times, the New York Post and the Washington Post have all, at various times, weighed in with damning stories that paint the congressman in something less than a flattering light with regard to all of these scandals. No matter; Charles Rangel blusters on, apparently convinced that he could not have done anything wrong because – after all – he is Charles Rangel and he must therefore be working for the people.

The Obama administration and its party have stuck to a particular theme in an increasingly vain attempt to explain away their ineffectiveness over the past year and a half. Republicans, they say, drove the national car into the ditch and they have been laboring mightily to extricate it from that sorry predicament. That particular metaphor presupposes that congress, controlled by Democrats during the Bush years, was sitting quietly in the back seat for those eight years and didn’t exert a bit of influence on the choice of roads that America chose. The fact of the matter is that Democrats were firmly in the driver seat as far as the nation’s domestic agenda was concerned and George W. Bush’s greatest fault is that he didn’t do more to wrest the steering wheel out of their incompetent hands.

Charles Rangel is the poster child for the arrogant, incompetent policies and programs that liberal Democrats have foisted upon the American people. Rangel’s day of reckoning is at hand. That will be just a taste of price that liberal Democrats will have to pay for their incompetent, self-absorbed style of governance come November.

How the Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You: (Caspian, John and Robert)

The so-called Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Although some of the cuts retain bipartisan support in Congress and may yet be extended, as of now, Washington has some severe changes in store for you and your family.

Higher Tax Rates for All

You may have been led to believe that only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will go up for everyone -- not just a sliver of the wealthiest Americans. The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. Just a few months ago, it seemed like a safe bet that Congress would make a fix to keep the existing 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rate brackets to help out lower and middle-income folks. That bet is now looking iffy.

mum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains will increase to 20%. The maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6% unless action is taken to limit the rate to 20%, as the president has repeatedly promised. Plan on 39.6%, and hope I'm wrong.

Right now, an unbeatable 0% rate applies to long-term gains and dividends collected by folks in lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15%. Starting next year, those folks will pay 10% on long-term gains and 15% and 28% on dividends (compared with 0% now) unless a change is made. Otherwise, taxes on long-term gains and dividends will go up for everyone.

Return of the Marriage Penalty

Right now, the standard deduction for married joint-filing couples is double the amount for singles. For this, we can thank the Bush tax cuts, which included several provisions to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The penalty can force a married couple to pay more in taxes than when they were single. Starting next year, the joint-filer standard deduction will fall back to about 167% of the amount for singles unless Congress takes action and the president approves. We don't know if that will happen. If not, lots of lower and middle-income couples will face higher tax bills.

Now, the bottom two tax brackets for married joint-filing couples are exactly twice as wide as those for singles. That ratio helps keep the marriage penalty from biting lower- and middle-income couples. Starting next year, the joint-filer tax brackets will contract, causing higher tax bills, unless a change is made.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Itemized Deductions

Before the Bush tax cuts, a nasty phase-out rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual's itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated this year. Next year, it will be back in full force unless Congress takes action -- which is unlikely. So if you itemize and have adjusted gross income above about $170,000 ($85,000 if you use married filing separate status), be ready for this phase-out rule to take a toll.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Personal Exemptions

Before the Bush tax cuts, another nasty phase-out rule could eliminate some or all of a higher-income individual's personal exemption deductions. The rule was gradually cut back and finally eliminated this year. But it will be back with a vengeance next year unless Congress blocks it. So be ready for another tax hike if your adjusted gross income exceeds about $252,000 if you file jointly; about $168,000 if you're single; about $210,000 if you're a head of household; or about $126,000 if you use married filing separate status. (For 2010, personal exemption deductions are $3,650 each, and they will be about the same next year.)

The Bottom Line

The Bush tax cuts don't just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board.

___

Obama Repeating Mistakes From the Great Depression:

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned Thursday that President Obama and congressional Democrats appear to be on the verge of repeating the same mistakes that aggravated the Great Depression, adding that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would prove "very dangerous" for the nation's economy.

Speaking in an exclusive Newsmax interview, Gingrich sounded the alarm that raising taxes could cause serious damage to the economic recovery.

"If we have large tax increases in January," Gingrich told Newsmax.TV, "this economy will sink deeper into recession. There will be higher unemployment. The recovery will be longer.

This was exactly the mistake made in 1937 and 1938, and it created a second mini-depression. I think it's very dangerous, and I think the simple battle cry ought to be no tax increase in 2011, period. Keep current tax law exactly as it is through 2011," Gingrich said.

Gingrich charged that the high unemployment that continues to plague the economy stems from "an administration which consistently has been destroying American jobs."

He cited the financial reform legislation that the president recently signed into law as an example of "one more job-killing bill" Democrats have passed.

"The financial reform law increased the power of Washington, D.C., increased the power of bureaucracies, increased the amount of uncertainty, killed American jobs, and made it easier for Frankfurt, London, Tokyo, and Shanghai to become the financial centers of the world," Gingrich said.

When asked to give his recommendations for curing the nation's ongoing economic woes, the former speaker pointed to the five-point agenda on his AmericanSolutions.com Web site, which is included in the Economic Freedom Act recently submitted to Congress by Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

That legislation calls for:

* A 50 percent cut in the Social Security and Medicare tax, both for the employer and the employee
* Zero capital gains tax, which is the rate in China
* A 12.5 percent corporate tax rate, which is the rate in Ireland
* A 100 percent write-off annually for small businesses to buy new equipment, so workers have the best, most modern equipment
* Permanent elimination of the estate or "death" tax "so people have an incentive to work and save their entire lifetime.

"We think those five tax changes would dramatically accelerate economic growth and help the economy," Gingrich tells Newsmax.

For most of the interview Gingrich focused on national security, Islamic fundamentalism, and the recent publication of sensitive intelligence about the war in Afghanistan.

Among the other key points the former speaker made:

* Radical Islamists hope to impose Islamic law, called Shariah, in the United States, which Gingrich says "would end America as we know it."
* He called for a "serious inquiry" into the U.S. national security apparatus that has been unable to anticipate and thwart attacks such as the Christmas Day bomber and the attempted bombing in Time Square.
* If the United States could defeat radical Islam and compete economically with India and China, it "probably would have no major national security problem in the next 50 years."
* The United States would be much more secure today if authorities initially had identified the war on terrorism as being actually a struggle against radical Islam and the effort to impose Shariah.
* The leaks of the Wikileaks documents on Afghanistan should be considered an "unconscionable" act of treason. It isn't only that the documents were leaked, he said. "I think we should also be very, very strong in our condemnation of the newspapers that published them."
* Regarding the mosque controversy at ground zero, Gingrich urged the president and Congress to declare the area around the World Trade Center site a national military battlefield "because that was a battle and it's part of a real war." More Americans were killed at the World Trade Center than at any battle site in the United States since the Civil War. That justifies designating the area as a national battlefield, he said, where only "appropriate" buildings and uses would be allowed near the battlefield.

Gingrich also told Newsmax he will decide whether to run for president by March 2011, adding he is focused on trying to help as many Republicans as possible win in November.

Asked to evaluate President Barack Obama's performance in office, Gingrich said, "Well, I think he's very good at being a celebrity, and not very good at being president. He's perfect on The View but not too good in the Oval Office."

Yeah, so what. You and your crew wanted to stop the bleeding and force everyone else to pay the difference. You wanted an all or nothing head butt session with the Dems and this is what you got. Tough!
When it was suggested that you and everyone else make their feelings known to congress to up the cut off point to $500,000 TO ALLOW FOR UPWARD MOBILITY you choose to play the dumb card.
Any fool could have scene that the Bush GoBust pipedreams were a disaster. YOU WERE WARNED ABOUT IT DAILY.
Gone are the days of the clinton surplus, which he told us was earmarked for EDUCATION just before he left office. Gone for most of America is HOME EQUITY. Gone as well are tens of millions of JOBS, as the upper 1% you have defended- as if you were their own personal pitbull, choose to place their investment overseas and in offshore taxhavens, leaving our infrastructure and families in tattered ruin.

Bush gave us shit. He swindled us with what had rapidly become his multitude of ponzi schemes
1. OWNERSHIP SOCIETY. Now your too big to fail bankers on topof the fixed pool table are happier than pigs in shit. BANKS OWN THIS SOCIETY.
2. BUSH HEALTHCARE- Strong armed Welfare for the pharmeceuticals. PAY OR DIE PRICE FIXING. Ended "free market" choice for all in procuring medicine.
3. BUSH "DEREGULATION" GAVE WALL STREET THE REST OF "ALL" OUR MONEY that wasn't frittered away-
4.... in his empty headed Wars to Nowhere. Which you fully endorsed but, paid nothing toward.
5. Dare I not forget the indignity of having to pay over 3x the cost for gasoline and heating oil which not only ate up every bit of the supposed Bush FUZZY MATH tax break, ... and more.

YES FOR ALL THIS LUNACY THAT WE WERE FORCED TO SWALLOW- we are now told by your kind, that the bill for such generosity is past due, ... and the US economy is headed into foreclosure without cutting out the basics that are the life blood and structures of our society. YOU ARE ASKING THE 98% BELOW YOU TO ENDURE ONCE MORE "CUT EDUCATION, CUT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CUT INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR" IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU--> YOUR WELFARE BENEFIT.

Get real! There are no more "free lunches" and handouts to be had.

You called for balancing the budget,
...so now it's your turn to contribute like the rest of America.

Bill F: WHEN .IT COMES TO "TRUTH TELLING"- BOY HAVE YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO MANAGE TO SCRAPE THE BOTTOM ON THE CREDIBLILITY SCALE.
READ THEM ALL,...AND WEAP.

HEADING: Govt jobs versus private sector jobs created in the 8yrs of bush

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS379US379&q=Govt+jobs+versus+private+sector+jobs+created+in+the+8yrs+of+bush+

6. BUSH ALSO LEFT US WITH A $9OOBILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR SWISS CHEESE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT EITHER CAN'T OR WON'T WIN ANYTHING- AS DICTATED BY OUR NOBLE OVER CALCULATING, LEVERAGE DEALING, SHADOW BANKING FINANCIERS.
Upped a whooping $800Billion from the $32billion before we got Bush and his no reading comprehension, AWOL August.

Thanks for the memories, Bushie. We were so much better off before your incompetent residency. Your wartime legacy is this-

TIED TOGETHER WITH NERO, FOREVER

6. BUSH ALSO LEFT US WITH A $9OOBILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR SWISS CHEESE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT EITHER CAN'T OR WON'T WIN ANYTHING- AS DICTATED BY OUR NOBLE OVER CALCULATING, LEVERAGE DEALING, SHADOW BANKING FINANCIERS.
Upped a whooping $800Billion from the $32billion before we got Bush and his no reading comprehension, AWOL August.

Thanks for the memories, Bushie. We were so much better off before your incompetent residency. Your wartime legacy is this-

TIED TOGETHER WITH NERO, FOREVER

*How come you never mention this monumental albatross that is added and compounded annually to the deficit thats comprises way more than 1/3 of the total budget of Obama's Federal government budget and is 42% of all mandatory spending. And now thanks to Bush and his band of screw ups it will be decades before we can get the number down to reasonable figures.