Obama '08?

You are absolutely right, hawkeye. "Government" accounting is rife with chicanery. Dems and Repubs both have played that shell game. More tomorrow.

The following graph places into perspective the wild spending by Obama, making Bush's deficits seem like childs play. Also, one cannot look at deficits simply by considering who is president, as Congress actually approves the spending. Of note in the following graph are projections by the Whitehouse, and projections by CBO, which are always more than the Whitehouse.

My observation is that deficits are linked principally to economic growth, and without it, coupled with government spending, the deficits balloon quickly. So economic growth depends not upon government spending, as Obama believes, but on stimulating private business. Private businesses are losing jobs, while Obama seemingly looks on with apparent dis-interest, meanwhile his emphasis is on growing government. His philosophy is 180 degrees out of phase with what works in the real world. He considers government spending as "investing." The exact opposite is what is happening. Deficits will continue to expand uncontrollably until the people sweep the current bunch out of office and change course.

this is hella big credit card spending, and while Obama figures that our bankers will not mind carrying us I wonder. Even if they do, owing China and the rest is gonna cost us big. Look at what we have already done, put ourselves on the hook for $7 trillion plus, a lot of it to global firms or foreign firms, because if we don't the rest of the world would have made political and economic demands on us that would have fermented rioting. We are beginning to look a lot like Germany 1920, sucked dry by those who have power over us. And we have two useless political parties that are completely corrupted. The modern American version of the NAZI party can not be far in our future.

hawkeye, I think Obama is one of two things, the first possibility is he is just plain dumb or ignorant in regard to the economy and what works. The second possibility is that he knows his policies will bankrupt the country, and he actually wants that to happen so that he can start over with sort of a Hugo Chavez type maneuver.

Bullshit, our government has been corrupted by the corporate elite especially Wall Street, this is not limited to Obama and is not even differentiated by party. You do us all a disservice by making the corruption a slam on Obama. Once your side wises up and realizes that you need to work with those on the left whom share your concerns, and visa-versa, we as a country will finally be able to move to cut out the leaches that are sucking us dry.

hawkeye, there is corruption on Wall Street, always has been, but the corruption in government far transcends it. Look at the mismanagement of such programs as Social Security, the dishonesty with citizens, the wasteful spending. Look at Fannie and Freddie, the corruption there, but nothing is done, no hearings, nothing. We still do not have an accounting of where the bailout money went. We can fix corporate corruption with reform with strict enforcement and reform, and with tax reform.

An example of why our government is corrupt is the fact that we have a tax cheat in charge of collecting taxes from the rest of us. The entire administration is corrupted, from the top down.

What I said is not bull at all, its the absolute truth, hawkeye. Obama is bankrupting the country, not corporate corruption.

I think the housing meltdown precipitated this situation, and at the center of that storm is Fannie and Freddie. And still nothing done in regard to that. Nothing.

Washington is corrupt, the whole ******* place. Your team no less so than my team. The citizens who support both teams need to come together and rewrite the rules of the game, you need to see the recent events are not a point for the GOP or the DEMS, they are are point for the corrupt leaches.

wake up please, you are a smart fellow.

hawkeye, I wasn't sure what team you were on. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree both parties have failed us, but face it, our politicians mirror society. For example, a more and more irresponsible society will generally elect a more irresponsible government. Politicians that are principled and refuse to compromise constitutional principles, and refuse to promise the citizens more and more, they will not be as likely to be elected. You become elected nowadays by promising all things to all people, example, Obama. Clinton proved you could govern by using polling on virtually everything, to the point of picking a vacation destination based upon what the citizens would admire.

Our government is more and more irresponsible, more in debt, because people live that way as well, they buy groceries with credit cards, which was unheard of decades ago.

I am afraid the country is in for some very hard lessons to learn, the old fashioned hard way, to find out we were pretty well off before the government promised us everything on a silver platter. We are headed for servitude, unless the populace wakes up and reverses course.

I still favor the Republican Party because they offer the best hope for the conservative principles that work, but I admit they have lost much of what they need to overcome the trends. I am not blaming Democrats for every problem, but most of them I do. Democrats lead the way in promising more, growing government, the list is endless, and the people are helpless. We need to realize that Washington is not the answer to our every problem. Moral standards and principles are, and individual freedom and responsibily. That is conservatism.

Yes Okie, we are in for some very hard times, times that almost no one can fathom right now because moderns have lived a spoiled life and don't know their history. You are correct about the moral rot as well. This failure of America does not get fixed until we go through some hard times and the American people wise up and also find some intestinal fortitude. Pain teaches, and sometime nothing else other than pain has the power to teach what must be learned. This is where America is today.

What you need to get through your thick head is that there are many on the left who agree with a lot of what you say, and whom you would agree with substantially if you were to ever get to know us. But you don't, cause you keep your focus on the partisan divisions which are used by the elite to keep those of us who know what they are up to from preventing them from stealing America's birthright.

Parados reads only in the fields of Solar Power and Batman Comic Books.

He obviously does not know that BO(our president) is the biggest spender of all time. Of course, he is a doctrinaire Socialist.

The chart comes from Okie's link 3,847,683. Check his post for the chart

Okie wrote:

The chart places into perspective the wild spending by Obama, making Bush's deficits seem like childs play. Also, one cannot look at deficits simply by considering who is president, as Congress actually approves the spending. Of note in the following graph are projections by the Whitehouse, and projections by CBO, which are always more than the Whitehouse.

My observation is that deficits are linked principally to economic growth, and without it, coupled with government spending, the deficits balloon quickly. So economic growth depends not upon government spending, as Obama believes, but on stimulating private business. Private businesses are losing jobs, while Obama seemingly looks on with apparent dis-interest, meanwhile his emphasis is on growing government. His philosophy is 180 degrees out of phase with what works in the real world. He considers government spending as "investing." The exact opposite is what is happening. Deficits will continue to expand uncontrollably until the people sweep the current bunch out of office and change course.

The time has come to look at the facts. I am not trying to denigrate BO. I am only going to give the facts. I may be accused of being niggardly by being so brief but the post made by Okie is clear. BO IS GIVING US A DEFICIT OF 1.75 TRILLION. That is the way Socialists like BO and Chavez destroy the economies of thier countries.

I find it fascinating that we agree, per your first paragraph, then you add the last paragraph. I have a very good friend that voted Obama, with whom I have had many conversations. He hates Rush Limbaugh, by the way.

You seem to think I have a thick head, but here are a set of questions that puzzle me. I don't know all of your positions on issues, but I will use my friend as an example. I believe he votes on emotion, not facts. He agrees with me on most issues, which best align with Republicans, yet he votes for Obama. Main reason given was Iraq, but on a host of issues, taxes, immigration, fiscal responsibility, what government should do and should not do, abortion, courts, free markets, etc., he agrees with my positions, and I am very certain my opinions are most closely followed by Republicans. On specific issues, and relative to how he lives his life, he is conservative as I am, yet he votes on emotion, he votes for Obama.

I have some explanations for this. He listens to soft music all day, not talk radio, he is not well informed on specifics of policies, and this is evident whenever the details of any issue is discussed. He is a non-confrontational person, he dislikes disagreement, he thinks in a broad general way, that we should spend more money on education instead of war, blah blah blah, but when you get to specifics, such as we are spending more on education now than ever, his eyes glaze over, he has no answers.

I have a theory that America is basically much more conservative than it votes, but the emotion of a broad based cult figure such as Obama can hoodwink millions of voters again and again, by speaking in broad generalities, using demagoguery, and appealing to emotion. If the details of policies were closely examined, and compared to how individual citizens lived their lives, such politicians would not win. I think that possibly applies to you. You seem reasonable and realistic, and there is no way the Democrats are reasonable and realistic today, no way.

We have experienced much the same phenomenon among at least three different couples, all close relatives, with whom we keep in regular contact. On almost all issues, we share common views and values, but somewhere along the way they got it into their heads that it is the Democrats who care about their concerns and that Republicans are the big money, selfish, hateful party. They don't inform themselves through any sources past the headlines or sound bites on the evening television news. Like many on A2K they are not interested in actually discussing the different concepts but focus on demonizing Republicans or conservatives they believe to be evil and they passionately defend those in the Democratic Party. They don't want to hear anything else.

So we just love them and avoid politics at family visitations and gatherings.

Decided to post chart again, to illustrate the above statement. Unless the trend is corrected, economic disaster awaits. A Chicago street organizer with no clue about the economy is now running the country into the ground. Not a realistic scenario, folks, wake up!

And lurking out there is this:

"Social Security and Medicare Seen Failing Faster
Analysts expect both programs could run out of cash sooner than last predicted."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/social-security-medicare-seen-failing-faster/

Remember, Republicans have been warning us about this for a long time, but Democrats have said, "hey, no problem, Republicans are just trying to scare you." Kind of reminds me of the warnings about Fannie and Freddie, hey no problem, folks.

Actually, Social Security and Medicare have been out of money a long time ago, as the money has been borrowed and spent as part of the general fund. Luckily for the general fund spending, more money was being collected for Social Security and Medicare than was being spent on them, so they could rob those funds for their irresponsible budgeting practices, but the day of reckoning in that regard is fast approaching, when that can no longer occur without taxing people even more, or reducing benefits or increasing age of retirement, etc.

Basically, the retirement fund is being run on credit, current payouts being funded by future retirees, not the funds that were paid in originally by current retirees. The government is run by a bunch of crooks, smoke and mirrors. No wonder Fannie and Freddie were disasters, and are still disasters, and should be disbanded for good.

Wow, what big lies you tell when you say the Dems said SS and Medicare were not problems. Please document that.

In fact, the opposite is true. Clinton said that his surpluses were important so that needed funding would be there for those problems in the face of baby boomers hitting retirement. But Bush came in saying that the public was being overtaxed. He then cut taxes despite his massive spending. Remember that the Reps had complete control of the govt. for eight years and did nothing about those programs.

Let's pray we never again give the Reps total control to run the country down and undermine its important programs.

okie usually doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's challenged more often than some other die-hard conservatives. It doesn't take half a memory to remember what happened during Clinton and Bush's tenure; especially Bush when he increased our debt, and didn't bother to increase taxes for the wealthy. Obama will have the responsibility to address this problem during his tenure, because baby-boomers are already beginning to retire, and with job losses in the millions, we have less workers supporting a larger number of retirees while taxes drop to new lows.

One of the things Bush tried to do was fix Social Security, and the Dems pooh poohed the whole thing, and blocked any reform. I do remember that happening, perhaps you don't?

By the way, Social Security is not supposed to be a tax, Advocate, so you are mixing apples and oranges when you talk about Bush cutting taxes. Besides, revenues rose. Tax rates were reduced, but revenues rose, so your argument is fallacious. Spending is the problem, not insufficient taxation.

You talk about Bush's massive spending. If you hate that, how come you aren't demonizing Obama? Obama's spending makes Bush's look like child's play.

okie, You really don't understand how our government works, do you? Bush had the majority in congress for six out of eight years. Your ignorance is over-powering!~