http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html?hpt=T1

There you go conservatives.  You wanted him to try to combat deficit spending and he is now trying to do so.  A spending freeze to try to prevent the deficit from increasing further is more fiscally conservative than the ballooning deficits Bush or Reagan did.

He can kiss 2012 goodbye now!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/disgust.gif

Something to consider before you listen to President Obama's ration of boolsheet he will present as tonight's "State of the Union."

Chris Hedges: Democracy in America is a Useful Fiction

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/democracy_in_america_is_a_useful_fiction_20100124/

I present this link with one caveat.  If you agree with all or any part of this article, you do not understand how much Big Brother loves you and how badly you have failed Him.  Report to Room 101.  You do understand Big Brother loves you, don't you?  In time, you will.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

I applaud this effort by the President.  In my mind it is "not enough" but we gotta start somewhere, so kudos to President O'bama.

HOWEVER...

Congressmen and congrersswomen from BOTH sides of the aisle are going to gut whatever effort that the President is trying to do here.  Every single line item is "special" to a member of congress, and will be dodged by back-room deals and earmarks.  Public-sector unions will have a hissy fit, too.

My thought?  O'bama and congressional leaders need to sign a joint moratorium on earmarks as part of this effort, basically to "lock shut the back door"

I applaud this effort by the President.  In my mind it is "not enough" but we gotta start somewhere, so kudos to President O'bama.

HOWEVER...

Congressmen and congrersswomen from BOTH sides of the aisle are going to gut whatever effort that the President is trying to do here.  Every single line item is "special" to a member of congress, and will be dodged by back-room deals and earmarks.  Public-sector unions will have a hissy fit, too.

My thought?  O'bama and congressional leaders need to sign a joint moratorium on earmarks as part of this effort, basically to "lock shut the back door"


Sorry if I offend here, but Obama is turning out to be Bill Clinton dipped in chocolate.

Like Clinton, Obama manifested as a good-looking charismatic leader who wanted to help the folks out, and like Clinton, Obama assumed office with nothing but the love of his supporters and the promise of national healing after a rotten bastard named Bush lied us into recession and war.  And like Clinton, Obama showed up with no political clout, no one who mattered fearing him, and HOPE -- hope not to make any political enemies.  We don't need another Bill Clinton.

We need another Lyndon Johnson.  LBJ was a crude, ugly, scary corrupt m*th*rf*ck*r, but he got the job done.  He didn't climb from his origins as the son of a Texas dirt farmer to being the U.S. Senate Majority Leader by being Mr. Rogers.  No, he was Mr. Johnson.  He understood Machiavelli's familiar principle that it is better to be feared than to be loved, and Jack Kennedy didn't pick LBJ because he loved him.  He picked LBJ for VP because LBJ could get the job done.  Johnson could work as a populist because he could shove any penny ante congressman against the wall, twist his arm, and say, "If you f**k with me, you'll get no bacon to bring home.  No farm subsidies, no defense contracts, no federal highway funds.  Nothing.  Now, how're you gonna explain yourself to your constituents when you go home next recess with nothing?"  People ask why Obama can't do that too.  If he did, they'd laugh at him because he couldn't make good on the threat.  He knows it and they know it.  Johnson's Waterloo, so to speak, was Vietnam.  He wasn't prepared to deal with that.
::)

Sorry if I offend here, but Obama is turning out to be Bill Clinton dipped in chocolate.


Bill Clinton was our "First Black President" if you believe the hype.  ;D

As for LBJ, he also had a secret weapon that neither Clinton nor O'bama had... J. Edgar Hoover.

Bill Clinton was our "First Black President" if you believe the hype.  ;D

As for LBJ, he also had a secret weapon that neither Clinton nor O'bama had... J. Edgar Hoover.


"I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in!"

--LBJ, regarding J. Edgar Hoover

Cutting government spending is a good thing.  Whether or not it will actually happen is another thing entirely....

Sorry if I offend here, but Obama is turning out to be Bill Clinton dipped in chocolate.

Like Clinton, Obama manifested as a good-looking charismatic leader who wanted to help the folks out, and like Clinton, Obama assumed office with nothing but the love of his supporters and the promise of national healing after a rotten bastard named Bush lied us into recession and war.  And like Clinton, Obama showed up with no political clout, no one who mattered fearing him, and HOPE -- hope not to make any political enemies.  We don't need another Bill Clinton.

We need another Lyndon Johnson.  LBJ was a crude, ugly, scary corrupt m*th*rf*ck*r, but he got the job done.  He didn't climb from his origins as the son of a Texas dirt farmer to being the U.S. Senate Majority Leader by being Mr. Rogers.  No, he was Mr. Johnson.  He understood Machiavelli's familiar principle that it is better to be feared than to be loved, and Jack Kennedy didn't pick LBJ because he loved him.  He picked LBJ for VP because LBJ could get the job done.  Johnson could work as a populist because he could shove any penny ante congressman against the wall, twist his arm, and say, "If you f**k with me, you'll get no bacon to bring home.  No farm subsidies, no defense contracts, no federal highway funds.  Nothing.  Now, how're you gonna explain yourself to your constituents when you go home next recess with nothing?"  People ask why Obama can't do that too.  If he did, they'd laugh at him because he couldn't make good on the threat.  He knows it and they know it.  Johnson's Waterloo, so to speak, was Vietnam.  He wasn't prepared to deal with that.
::)
I think Lyndon B. Johnson and the early Clinton are bad examples for Obama to follow. Why? Let me explain:

Johnson: The guy didn;t even run against Nixon for President in 1968 or 1969 because Johnson was so hated. I donlt doubt Johnson was a good senate majority leader. He must have been smiling in his grave when the "Louisiana Purchase(Mary Landreiu) and the "Cornhusker Kickback"(Ben Nelson) happened.

The early Clinton years: Clinton had a 46% approval rating right before the 1994 mid-term elections  and Cllinton lost 53 house democratic sheld house seats in that election I think. If they liked Clinton that much back then the "The Gingrich/Republican Revolution of 1994" would have never happened.

Now Obama has a 48% approval rating because he governs to far too the left for more than half of independent voters and most "Republicans".

What do you want Obama too do start spending money out of control? Why do the liberals always like big spending but hated when Bush(W.) was doing it? I don;t get it.

As for Obama cutting spending please  freeze all pork barrel(project) spending.

The early Clinton years: Clinton had a 46% approval rating right before the 1994 mid-term elections  and Cllinton lost 53 house democratic sheld house seats in that election I think. If they liked Clinton that much back then the "The Gingrich/Republican Revolution of 1994" would have never happened.



A big part of the loss of seats in 1994 was due to the fact that Clinton could not keep his wife in check.  He had her lead the massively-disatrous health care initiative, and millions of voters were outraged at Hillary's presumption of power and that was seen as the Democrats being out of control.  An associate of mine at the time was on one of Hillary's task forces and could not stop blathering on about "Hillary is gonna do this, and Hillary is gonna do that", and generated untold ill will towards the First Lady as a result.  This was a big mistake on Bill's part, but at least he had the common sense to cut her loose once it was clear that things were going badly.  Unfortunately for him, by then the damage was done.  (On the other hand, it DID keep Hillary busy, so that Bill could, *ahem* focus on other pressing matters unfettered...  ;D )

Now that said, Clinton was by far a better "politician" than O'bama, which does not bode well for the next round of congressional elections  (ie, the dems could lose even more seats in 2010 than they did in 1994).  The sharks are already circling in O'bama's adopted home state of Illinois, where the Governor's position, as well as O'bama's vacated Senate seat, are within easy reach of the Repubs...  If both those seats get taken by Repubs in 2010, O'bama might well be destined as a 1-term prez.

The lesson to be learned from 1994 and 2010, as well as 2008, is that when any single party gets a clear majority and then abuses it, the American voters have a tendency to "throw the bums out".

The lesson to be learned from 1994 and 2010, as well as 2008, is that when any single party gets a clear majority and then abuses it, the American voters have a tendency to "throw the bums out".


Well yeah...  that's been true for a much longer time than that.  The only difference is that 94 was a more dramatic party switch than previous ones -- so was 2008.

What do you want Obama too do start spending money out of control? Why do the liberals always like big spending but hated when Bush(W.) was doing it? I don;t get it.
It duh-pends on the reason the money is being spent.  If it is being spent on health care, I'm all for it.  If it being spent on public works and education, awesome.  However, if it being spent to bail out giant investment banks, for building useless war machines, and getting our guys killed in unnecessary conflicts abroad, we have a problem!

There is no way in hell I am going to vote for Obama again.


As for Obama cutting spending please  freeze all pork barrel(project) spending.


Amen.  But remember, it's only pork barrel if it's in the other guy's district!

A big part of the loss of seats in 1994 was due to the fact that Clinton could not keep his wife in check.  He had her lead the massively-disatrous health care initiative, and millions of voters were outraged at Hillary's presumption of power and that was seen as the Democrats being out of control.  An associate of mine at the time was on one of Hillary's task forces and could not stop blathering on about "Hillary is gonna do this, and Hillary is gonna do that", and generated untold ill will towards the First Lady as a result.  This was a big mistake on Bill's part, but at least he had the common sense to cut her loose once it was clear that things were going badly.  Unfortunately for him, by then the damage was done.  (On the other hand, it DID keep Hillary busy, so that Bill could, *ahem* focus on other pressing matters unfettered...  ;D )

Now that said, Clinton was by far a better "politician" than O'bama, which does not bode well for the next round of congressional elections  (ie, the dems could lose even more seats in 2010 than they did in 1994).  The sharks are already circling in O'bama's adopted home state of Illinois, where the Governor's position, as well as O'bama's vacated Senate seat, are within easy reach of the Repubs...  If both those seats get taken by Repubs in 2010, O'bama might well be destined as a 1-term prez.

The lesson to be learned from 1994 and 2010, as well as 2008, is that when any single party gets a clear majority and then abuses it, the American voters have a tendency to "throw the bums out".


They throw the bums out for other bums working for the same paymasters.  Clinton took on the health insurance corporations in 1994.  Squashed.  Obama took on the health insurance corporations in 2009.  Squashed.

Meanwhile, no American politician who wants to climb the ladder dares to suggest capitalism isn't the penultimate achievement of mankind.
::)

What do you want Obama too do start spending money out of control? Why do the liberals always like big spending but hated when Bush(W.) was doing it? I don;t get it.

As for Obama cutting spending please  freeze all pork barrel(project) spending.


There is clearly a difference between a "tax and spend" liberal and a "borrow and spend" conservative.  Remember Plonious - "neither a borrower or a lender be". 

It duh-pends on the reason the money is being spent.  If it is being spent on health care, I'm all for it.  If it being spent on public works and education, awesome.  However, if it being spent to bail out giant investment banks, for building useless war machines, and getting our guys killed in unnecessary conflicts abroad, we have a problem!

There is no way in hell I am going to vote for Obama again.

Amen.  But remember, it's only pork barrel if it's in the other guy's district!

Well we had to baliout the banks because they were in terrible shape. As for the wars we had one good one(Afghanistan) and than the bad one in Iraq. I agree with you  about building unnecessary war machines.

I agree with you on the "pork". :)

Well we had to baliout the banks because they were in terrible shape.

Too big to fail = to big for free market.

The government has spent more money in the past 24 months bailing out private, for-profit business than it has bailing out government, federal or state.  That, my friend, is the way of American fascism.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_sunny.gif