Posts Made By: Michael Vineyard

Several points

1. The cost of the Iraq war is less than the $800 Billion porker bill that ensures the growth of government. The cost of the Iraq war has also been spread out over 6 years, vs. 1 large lump sum - which will probably set a new "baseline" for continued spending, therefore the Congressional Budget Office projects that the $800 Billion porker bill will cost almost $4 Trillion over the next 10 years, if we include interest costs and continue the top 20 "programs" on a yearly basis.

2. The cost of the Iraq war is a sore point to those who wish Saddam was still in power, able to terrorize his own people while getting billions of dollars through the corrupt UN "Food for Oil" program ...and while slipping millions of dollars to terrorists. They claim that the people of Iraq would be better off under the rule of Saddam ...

3. The Iraq war is a convenient straw man for liberals to beat upon - if you ignore all the concerns that they had about Saddam, his WMD programs (which he did have), and how he would be a big risk if nothing was done. ONLY when we didn't find ACTIVE WMD programs, did the liberals then claim that they were deceived and that we should never have gone to war. These sort of people would have caused us to loose to Germany and Japan.

4. The typical liberal rant is that Bush spent billions unnecessarily - and then they rant about all the programs that he underfunded ....and they complain about his Education program (No Child Left Behind), Senior Citizen Drug program, and they complain that the programs were too small. Then, after whining about the big budget busting spending, their solution is to ..... spend even more money!!

5. And finally - they complain about how Bush, with his deregulation, caused the financial meltdown ... all while trying to keep the public from finding out how Bush requested - over 20 times, more regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the liberals filibustered any stiffening of regulations. They don't want the public to know that the major "de-regulation" was a bi-partisan plan that was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. They don't want the public to know how much the Community Reinvestment Act (pushed by Carter, expanded by Clinton) was what sowed the seeds of the sub-prime loans, giving NINJA loans to applicants who should never have been given a mortgage, etc .....and all this did was to create an artificial housing price bubble that popped in early 2008 ....and that Bush and Republicans were warning about the problem in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc., but the Democrats stopped any action from happening.

So .... will the $800 Billion porker program work .... that depends on what is expected.
Recall that in 1979 - 1980 - when we had double digit inflation and unemployment - far worse that the problems we are presently having (in spite of the lies that Obama, the Democrats claim) ... Ronald Reagan became President, and cut taxes, cut regulations on private enterprise, encouraged the private sector to grow ...and about 2 1/2 years later, the economy started a long-term boom. Pres. Reagan was successful with a program of smaller government, less spending, etc.

Then recall that in 1933, FDR became president. He continued (and increased) the big government policies of Hoover - more taxes, more government spending, bigger programs (sort of an Obama-lite) ...and 8 years later, he too could look back with success. Their goal wasn't to fix the economy, because unemployment was still high, taxes were high, the depression continued on ....but he created a welfare mentality amongst the populace that would blindly vote Democrat ...and keep the Democrats in power for many many years.

So - Obama's program MIGHT be as successful as FDR ...in generating a nation of sheep who figure big government is the solution - even if it means becoming another socialist Europe, with low job growth, high unemployment and high taxes.
But I don't think the stimulus package will help our nation.

Chris Provost said:

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

"Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Chris

Roger the validity of the quote ....but it doesn't apply to our circumstances - in naming the guilty party!!

The government controls the issue of currency (through the quasi-pseudo independent FED) ...and right now, the government is in the process of monetizing the debt by printing lots more money. This will drive inflation up, and will cause savings to loose value.

The government also is raising the debt by borrowing even more money (yes - Bush was wrong for doing, but now Obama is doing it even worse, more rapidly!! Yet the Obamabots claim that Bush was bad for doing it, but Obama needs to do it to get us out of the problem Bush created. Can you say "DUMB"!!!!)

Ultimately, the results will be the same, but it will be done by the government that a majority elected ... and the majority apparently wants socialism, wealth re-distribution (also more correctly called wealth destruction!) Someone said that we get the government that we deserve. I want to know what we did to deserve a Alinsky-spouting Communist-in-Chief, two corrupt/crooked politicians for leaders of the House and Senate, and new legislation to spend almost $1 Trillion, that is forced through the House and Senate without a formal/final copy of the text. After the Friday vote, the House and Senate aides continued to write/edit/modify the bill over the weekend . . . so obviously, no one in Congress read through the bill before voting.

As to the promises of transparency and openness ...that was a sop to dumb rube voters, and zerObama never intended to keep those promises. His Presidency is already failed, as he pushes for the failed policies of FDR.

The problems that we are facing ARE a result of some of the people in Congress who were there in the past, and are still there now.

Consider the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make sub-prime loans to people who could not afford a mortgage and should never have gotten a mortgage. (Done by Democrats during Carter era.)
Consider how the CRA was expanded under Clinton ...
Consider how giving everyone a mortgage caused housing prices to inflate beyond reason ...causing the housing bubble that was not sustainable.

Then consider how many times REPUBLICANS tried to regulate/rein in the 2 major agencies at the heart of the CRA problem - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ....go to YouTube to HEAR the Republicans warning of impending problems to come ...and HEAR the Democrats - especially Barney Frank - denying the problem, and essentially accusing the Republicans of being hateful and racist for daring to suggest that such "sound" programs as CRA, FannieMae and Freddie Mac be fixed. Consider how Pres. Bush formally asked Congress, no less than 18 times, to do something to fix the impending problem.

A broad brush to paint the past Congress as the problem - and then say let the current Congress fix the problem is trusting in what never was and never will be. The Democrats who caused much of the problems are now even more entrenched and in control, and as evidenced by the Porkulus/Spendulus $1 Trillion bill - they are going to make things worse.

So I find it ironic that the Democrats have successfully completed a near-perfect crime. They set the stage for the problem through new requirements for sub-prime loans. They refused to allow anyone to fix the problem ...then they blame Pres. Bush for causing the problem (ignoring the actual history of the problem) ...and the stupid public re-elects Democrats to fix the problem that the Democrats caused.

Heck - even Forrest Gump had it right - "Stupid is as Stupid Does."