Barack Obama bets the farm in $4 trillion poker game | Tim Reid - Times Online
The President believes he can change US politics for a generation. If he's wrong he could bankrupt the whole country.
One of the most seductive elements of Barack Obama's ascent to the White House was his unshakeable conviction that he was being called upon, at a time of epochal peril, to bend the arc of history America's way.
Only a candidate possessed with such boldness and self-belief would have challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination two years after leaving the Illinois state senate, promising in his first campaign speech to “transform a nation and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth.
Only a man who frequently compares himself to America's greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, would declare that when he was elected, “the rise of the oceans will begin to slow. Only someone who believes that America is on the crest of a dangerous historic wave - and that he “can help guide it - would have undertaken a glitzy world tour midway through the campaign.
Such ostentatious gambles underscored his promise to transform US governance, and with his intellect and cool temperament made a combination many found thrilling.
Background
Obama's stimulus plan hinges on job creation
Obama will have to pay for stimulus
Barack Obama to set out high-risk agenda
Congress approves $787bn stimulus bill
In his first month in office he has pushed through an unprecedented $787 billion economic stimulus package, announced plans to save the car industry, stabilise the stricken banking sector and stem the flood of home repossessions.
Then came his near-$4-trillion budget last week. It is a manifesto to usher in a new age of government activism that involves levels of borrowing and spending never before seen in the US and is a document of such staggering ambition and risk that even some of Mr Obama's Democratic supporters are suddenly beginning to feel a little queasy.
A keen poker player, Mr Obama is gambling not only his own presidency, but the future wellbeing of the country. If he pulls it off, they might find room for him on Mount Rushmore. If he fails, he could bankrupt the world's largest economy.
There have been only a few watershed moments in US history, and this is one. In the face of such a dark economic crisis, Mr Obama believes that timidity will beget catastrophe. He believes that the peril of the moment compels him to tackle both the short and long-term financial problems all at once - and quickly.
What he unveiled last week was one of the most audacious agendas announced by a new president. He declared his intention not just to pump trillions of dollars into a short-term rescue for the economy, but also to press ahead with enormously costly plans to trigger a green industrial revolution, transform education and provide health coverage to all Americans. These are issues that have bedevilled Congress and other presidents for decades. Achieving just one would be an extraordinary achievement. Mr Obama wants all three - and fast.
What was most striking about the budget - including that it will explode the federal deficit to $1.75trillion this year, its highest since the Second World War - was that it was a ruthless declaration of how Mr Obama intends fundamentally to change the American social contract, from Right to Left.
Its goal is not just to rescue the economy. It is to crush conservatism, end the age of anti-tax, anti-regulation policies that have been the guiding philosophies of US governance for a generation, and usher in a fresh “epoch, as his aides call it, of New Deal-Great Society wealth redistribution and central intervention that were repudiated by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago. Much of his agenda will be paid for by a ten-year, $1 trillion tax increase on families earning more than $250,000 a year, beginning in 2011, a move that critics say risks stunting the economic recovery.
Mr Obama and his aides are particularly attracted to the notion, put forward by the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek, that most of the truly transformative US presidents - and there are only a handful - followed failed ones. They include Thomas Jefferson after John Adams, Lincoln after James Buchanan, FranklinD. Roosevelt after Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan after Jimmy Carter.
Their belief is that these presidents were able to reshape, for at least a generation, the governing philosophy and electoral alignment because the public rejected the era that preceded them. Yet presidents who believe that they are governing at such transformational moments - as Mr Obama does - take bigger risks to achieve momentous change. The stakes he has placed on the table with his budget are extraordinary.
What has begun to trouble some even within his own party is that Mr Obama's pledge to spend the US out of recession, while slashing the budget deficit to $533 billion within four years, already looks recklessly optimistic. Few dispute, even among Republicans, the need for healthcare reform or to wean America off foreign oil. It is the scale of debt that Mr Obama is willing to incur to achieve these goals that is causing such heartburn.
And it is not just Americans who desperately need him to prevail. As Gordon Brown said in Washington this week, while pledging faith in the President's plans, everyone is watching the US economy. The entire developed world is banking on Mr Obama to succeed.
But much of his promise to rein in the deficit rested on a projection that the recession will cease and the US economy grow next year, but nobody can clearly see an end to this slump. The central question - how to stop the banking sector from collapse - is still a work in progress. They prefer huge injections of cash to stop the banks dying - but stop short of nationalisation - while they try to work out how to rid them of at least $2 trillion of toxic assets. There is still a significant chance that the scale of debt involved could devour Mr Obama's presidency.
The markets are so unnerved about Mr Obama's ability to rescue the financial sector, and by the numerous bailouts that have had little effect, that wealth is being destroyed on Wall Street at a rate not seen since the 1930s. The President said on Tuesday that he does not worry about “the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market, but investors have made it clear that his economic prescriptions have so far failed to reassure them.
Mr Obama also says that much of his programme will be paid for by reducing the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he has just ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan for a war that his Defence Secretary says will be a long and difficult slog, and he is still groping for a strategy in Pakistan.
“We are always better off on the high wire, David Plouffe, Mr Obama's campaign manager, said last year. Now Mr Obama is President, watching from below has become both enthralling and terrifying.
Tim Reid is Washington Correspondent of The Times
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
So, according to this America is gambling on a gamblers ability to keep the country from doing a nose dive ?
He took over America on the brink of bankruptcy .
He took over America on the brink of bankruptcy .
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
scholle-kid;1152044 wrote: So, according to this America is gambling on a gamblers ability to keep the country from doing a nose dive ?
He took over America on the brink of bankruptcy .
I would say no one can prove that now. President Obama has taken such drastic measures that no one will ever be able to say for certain where things would have ended up. Its like taking an asprin for a fever. How do you know the fever wasn't about to break just as you took the aprin. Only difference is the economy had a fever and he's amputated its legs to make the hands feel better.
Before taking on the largest budget in the world, what budget did our President manage?
He took over America on the brink of bankruptcy .
I would say no one can prove that now. President Obama has taken such drastic measures that no one will ever be able to say for certain where things would have ended up. Its like taking an asprin for a fever. How do you know the fever wasn't about to break just as you took the aprin. Only difference is the economy had a fever and he's amputated its legs to make the hands feel better.
Before taking on the largest budget in the world, what budget did our President manage?
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
Jester;1152088 wrote: Ok so he borrowed a TRILLION dollars on top of near bankruptcy, did anyone approve this loan? He probably got talked into it by one of those real estate agents with promises that he could sell America for more money in 2 years...:-3
I sure didn't.
A trillion here and a trillion there... before you know it, it adds up to real money. In this case it's okay because the "wealthy" will be picking up the tab. Oh, wait a minute...they were the ones who used to have money to provide jobs...ooops!:o
I sure didn't.
A trillion here and a trillion there... before you know it, it adds up to real money. In this case it's okay because the "wealthy" will be picking up the tab. Oh, wait a minute...they were the ones who used to have money to provide jobs...ooops!:o
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
While surfing around i came across a couple of things .I thought you might get a grin out of the one and no surprize on the reported story.
TheHill.com - Cabinet picks throw wrench into message
Cabinet picks throw wrench into message
Cabinet members are going rogue on President Obama, making policy pronouncements before clearing them with the White House and giving the administration a new kind of headache.
The president experienced several problems filling his top bench of advisers, but now he’s having trouble with those members who have already been confirmed.
In the short time Obama has been in office, his administration has faced a number of questions about statements made by Cabinet officials that seemed to contradict his policies or put the White House in an awkward position.
One of the more recent examples happened last week when Attorney General Eric Holder said that the president would seek to reinstate the assault-weapons ban, an assertion that surely sent chills up the spines of Blue Dog Democrats and checks pouring in to the National Rifle Association.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons, Holder said, according to ABC News.
The White House immediately referred follow-up questions to the Justice Department, but the pronouncement was quickly tamped down by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said no when asked if she had discussed the issue with the administration.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now, Pelosi said last week. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.
Despite this and other examples of high-ranking administration officials who seem to be going rogue on various policy positions, the White House said Monday that the president has the “highest confidence in the Cabinet he has put in place.
“The president has the highest confidence in the highly credentialed, bipartisan Cabinet he has assembled to devise and implement the policies that he believes will put our people back to work, get our economy back on track and keep our citizens safe, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s suggestion that the federal government consider a tax on drivers’ mileage drew a quick dismissal from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who in turn was rebuked by a congressman.
After LaHood told The Associated Press that a mileage tax is something the administration “should look at, Gibbs said at his daily briefing that a mileage tax “is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration.
Gibbs’s contradiction of LaHood, one of the few Republicans in the Obama administration, prompted Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) to tell Congressional Quarterly that LaHood should not “get slapped down by know-nothings.
“I’ve got news for you, transportation policy isn’t going to be written in the press room of the White House, Oberstar told CQ.
CIA Director Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have also drawn the ire of some in recent days, though their statements did not draw any pushback from the White House.
Panetta’s statement that the global economic crisis could lead to instability in Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela led Argentina Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana to call the former congressman and White House chief of staff’s remarks “unfounded and irresponsible, especially from an agency that has a sad history of meddling in the affairs of countries in the region, according to Reuters.
And Clinton, the former senator and presidential contender, drew angry responses from some Jewish leaders when she criticized Israel for dragging its feet on delivering aid to Gaza.
Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University and an expert on the presidency, said such missteps are not uncommon historically, and “harmony ... takes practice.
“It’s understandable that it would be more prevalent in a new administration, Baker said. “You’ve got people who are gathered in this chorus who have been singing by themselves for a long time.
He added: “In some of these cases, they might not even know what the policy is.
While Baker noted that “it’s fairly common to have miscommunication between the agencies and the White House, more often than not it’s handled with a retraction.
“If it’s something really egregious, the chief of staff sort of takes them to the woodshed, Baker said. “In a lesser case, they tend to just back off and say, ‘I misspoke.’
Between his speech writing staff and his cabnet members
he needs a 'touch up' on his make up .
TheHill.com - Cabinet picks throw wrench into message
Cabinet picks throw wrench into message
Cabinet members are going rogue on President Obama, making policy pronouncements before clearing them with the White House and giving the administration a new kind of headache.
The president experienced several problems filling his top bench of advisers, but now he’s having trouble with those members who have already been confirmed.
In the short time Obama has been in office, his administration has faced a number of questions about statements made by Cabinet officials that seemed to contradict his policies or put the White House in an awkward position.
One of the more recent examples happened last week when Attorney General Eric Holder said that the president would seek to reinstate the assault-weapons ban, an assertion that surely sent chills up the spines of Blue Dog Democrats and checks pouring in to the National Rifle Association.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons, Holder said, according to ABC News.
The White House immediately referred follow-up questions to the Justice Department, but the pronouncement was quickly tamped down by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said no when asked if she had discussed the issue with the administration.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now, Pelosi said last week. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.
Despite this and other examples of high-ranking administration officials who seem to be going rogue on various policy positions, the White House said Monday that the president has the “highest confidence in the Cabinet he has put in place.
“The president has the highest confidence in the highly credentialed, bipartisan Cabinet he has assembled to devise and implement the policies that he believes will put our people back to work, get our economy back on track and keep our citizens safe, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s suggestion that the federal government consider a tax on drivers’ mileage drew a quick dismissal from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who in turn was rebuked by a congressman.
After LaHood told The Associated Press that a mileage tax is something the administration “should look at, Gibbs said at his daily briefing that a mileage tax “is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration.
Gibbs’s contradiction of LaHood, one of the few Republicans in the Obama administration, prompted Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) to tell Congressional Quarterly that LaHood should not “get slapped down by know-nothings.
“I’ve got news for you, transportation policy isn’t going to be written in the press room of the White House, Oberstar told CQ.
CIA Director Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have also drawn the ire of some in recent days, though their statements did not draw any pushback from the White House.
Panetta’s statement that the global economic crisis could lead to instability in Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela led Argentina Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana to call the former congressman and White House chief of staff’s remarks “unfounded and irresponsible, especially from an agency that has a sad history of meddling in the affairs of countries in the region, according to Reuters.
And Clinton, the former senator and presidential contender, drew angry responses from some Jewish leaders when she criticized Israel for dragging its feet on delivering aid to Gaza.
Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University and an expert on the presidency, said such missteps are not uncommon historically, and “harmony ... takes practice.
“It’s understandable that it would be more prevalent in a new administration, Baker said. “You’ve got people who are gathered in this chorus who have been singing by themselves for a long time.
He added: “In some of these cases, they might not even know what the policy is.
While Baker noted that “it’s fairly common to have miscommunication between the agencies and the White House, more often than not it’s handled with a retraction.
“If it’s something really egregious, the chief of staff sort of takes them to the woodshed, Baker said. “In a lesser case, they tend to just back off and say, ‘I misspoke.’
Between his speech writing staff and his cabnet members
he needs a 'touch up' on his make up .
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
Jester;1152088 wrote: Ok so he borrowed a TRILLION dollars on top of near bankruptcy, did anyone approve this loan? He probably got talked into it by one of those real estate agents with promises that he could sell America for more money in 2 years...:-3
I sure didn't.
Clint;1152105 wrote: A trillion here and a trillion there... before you know it, it adds up to real money. In this case it's okay because the "wealthy" will be picking up the tab. Oh, wait a minute...they were the ones who used to have money to provide jobs...ooops!:o
And if this guy is right , it's only just begun,,
Earmark repository
COMMENTARY:
Nine thousand pork barrel earmarks were buried in the $410 billion omnibus budget that passed the House last week - giving bureaucrats 9 percent more money to spend in the remainder of this fiscal year.
President Obama told Congress the day before it passed that he was happy it didn't contain any earmarks, eliciting gales of laughter from the Republican side of the chamber who knew better.
Earmarks like $22 million for an addition to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, money for tattoo removal and something called "wood utilization." The latter item will cost taxpayers $4.8 million, compared to $4.5 million last year. These pork projects appear in the budget year after year, inching higher every year, deficit or no deficit, recession or no recession.
Tom Schatz, the waste watch warrior at Citizens Against Government, tells me taxpayers have been bilked out of $95 billion since 1985 to research new wood technologies for the furniture companies in 11 states. This begs the question, why shouldn't furniture companies pay for their own research? But that's the whole point of pork - to get ordinary taxpayers to shell out money so others can keep their own.
Barack Obama will sign this bill with nary a peep about billions being spent on the subprime spending projects stuffed into this bill by powerful, well-heeled special interests who live by this code: "Why pay for anything when you can reach into federal till and let the taxpayers foot the bill?"
Mr. Obama lives by the same code. The mortgage bailout plan he and his advisers unveiled a week ago will subsidize renegotiated and redesigned mortgages to save the owners the indignity of going into foreclosure after buying a home they couldn't afford in the first place.
Who is to pay this subsidy? The beleaguered taxpayers who live within their means. CNBC's Chicago Board of Trade analyst Rick Santelli said Mr. Obama's plan was "rewarding bad behavior." By my count, the administration last month already put the government - i.e., the taxpayers - deeper into hock to the tune of $2.5 trillion over and above what we already owed.
But, wait, it gets worse. Contrary to Mr. Obama's budget-cutting rhetoric at last week's White House budget conference, the president is proposing a laundry list of new spending as far as the eye can see: for national health insurance, energy research and development, increased aid to education, more social welfare spending and dozens of other costly initiatives.
If there's a problem on this Earth, Mr. Obama has a spending plan to deal with it, and it is going to cost us more money, lots of it, for today's taxpayers and for generations of taxpayers to come.
All this while the economy is flat on its back gasping for breath, families struggle to make ends meet, and tax revenues have plummeted - driving up the deficit and sending the Treasury into the bond markets to borrow trillions of dollars that will make the federal debt under President Bush look frugal by comparison.
Mr. Obama has already signaled how he intends to pay for his four-year spending spree. He will borrow unprecedented amounts from the capital markets, he will raise taxes on people, investors and anything else that still shows signs of life in this bleak economic environment. Both will seriously undermine any recovery in our economy.
Cash-strapped businesses desperately in need of money will find themselves competing in capital markets with the U.S. Treasury, which will crowd out private investment. This will slow economic growth in future years, according an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
He intends to let two of Mr. Bush's across-the-board tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. That means the top two income tax rates will automatically increase to a new high of 40 percent when state taxes are included. Mr. Obama said this will tax the rich who do not pay their fair share. In fact, taxpayers in the top 10 percent not only pay most of all federal income taxes, their share of the tax revenue pie has been growing.
But Mr. Obama's tax increases do not just hit individuals. They will hit millions of small, unincorporated, often family-owned businesses that pay their taxes through the personal income tax system just like everyone else. Hitting them with a 40 percent rate will kill job creation because this sector accounts for a huge share of the jobs in this country.
Actually, recent policy decisions by the administration have already been killing jobs left and right. The protectionist "buy American" mandates in the $800 billion spending stimulus bill he just signed have already triggered reprisals from trading partners at a time when U.S. exports are collapsing.
Then came the decision to stop new oil exploration and drilling in the Gulf, along with new restrictions on existing drilling, that instantly killed any new jobs that would have been created in a critical industry. Look for oil prices to rise accordingly.
This is the change Barack Obama was talking about.
Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Washington Times - LAMBRO: Earmark repository
I sure didn't.
Clint;1152105 wrote: A trillion here and a trillion there... before you know it, it adds up to real money. In this case it's okay because the "wealthy" will be picking up the tab. Oh, wait a minute...they were the ones who used to have money to provide jobs...ooops!:o
And if this guy is right , it's only just begun,,
Earmark repository
COMMENTARY:
Nine thousand pork barrel earmarks were buried in the $410 billion omnibus budget that passed the House last week - giving bureaucrats 9 percent more money to spend in the remainder of this fiscal year.
President Obama told Congress the day before it passed that he was happy it didn't contain any earmarks, eliciting gales of laughter from the Republican side of the chamber who knew better.
Earmarks like $22 million for an addition to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, money for tattoo removal and something called "wood utilization." The latter item will cost taxpayers $4.8 million, compared to $4.5 million last year. These pork projects appear in the budget year after year, inching higher every year, deficit or no deficit, recession or no recession.
Tom Schatz, the waste watch warrior at Citizens Against Government, tells me taxpayers have been bilked out of $95 billion since 1985 to research new wood technologies for the furniture companies in 11 states. This begs the question, why shouldn't furniture companies pay for their own research? But that's the whole point of pork - to get ordinary taxpayers to shell out money so others can keep their own.
Barack Obama will sign this bill with nary a peep about billions being spent on the subprime spending projects stuffed into this bill by powerful, well-heeled special interests who live by this code: "Why pay for anything when you can reach into federal till and let the taxpayers foot the bill?"
Mr. Obama lives by the same code. The mortgage bailout plan he and his advisers unveiled a week ago will subsidize renegotiated and redesigned mortgages to save the owners the indignity of going into foreclosure after buying a home they couldn't afford in the first place.
Who is to pay this subsidy? The beleaguered taxpayers who live within their means. CNBC's Chicago Board of Trade analyst Rick Santelli said Mr. Obama's plan was "rewarding bad behavior." By my count, the administration last month already put the government - i.e., the taxpayers - deeper into hock to the tune of $2.5 trillion over and above what we already owed.
But, wait, it gets worse. Contrary to Mr. Obama's budget-cutting rhetoric at last week's White House budget conference, the president is proposing a laundry list of new spending as far as the eye can see: for national health insurance, energy research and development, increased aid to education, more social welfare spending and dozens of other costly initiatives.
If there's a problem on this Earth, Mr. Obama has a spending plan to deal with it, and it is going to cost us more money, lots of it, for today's taxpayers and for generations of taxpayers to come.
All this while the economy is flat on its back gasping for breath, families struggle to make ends meet, and tax revenues have plummeted - driving up the deficit and sending the Treasury into the bond markets to borrow trillions of dollars that will make the federal debt under President Bush look frugal by comparison.
Mr. Obama has already signaled how he intends to pay for his four-year spending spree. He will borrow unprecedented amounts from the capital markets, he will raise taxes on people, investors and anything else that still shows signs of life in this bleak economic environment. Both will seriously undermine any recovery in our economy.
Cash-strapped businesses desperately in need of money will find themselves competing in capital markets with the U.S. Treasury, which will crowd out private investment. This will slow economic growth in future years, according an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
He intends to let two of Mr. Bush's across-the-board tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. That means the top two income tax rates will automatically increase to a new high of 40 percent when state taxes are included. Mr. Obama said this will tax the rich who do not pay their fair share. In fact, taxpayers in the top 10 percent not only pay most of all federal income taxes, their share of the tax revenue pie has been growing.
But Mr. Obama's tax increases do not just hit individuals. They will hit millions of small, unincorporated, often family-owned businesses that pay their taxes through the personal income tax system just like everyone else. Hitting them with a 40 percent rate will kill job creation because this sector accounts for a huge share of the jobs in this country.
Actually, recent policy decisions by the administration have already been killing jobs left and right. The protectionist "buy American" mandates in the $800 billion spending stimulus bill he just signed have already triggered reprisals from trading partners at a time when U.S. exports are collapsing.
Then came the decision to stop new oil exploration and drilling in the Gulf, along with new restrictions on existing drilling, that instantly killed any new jobs that would have been created in a critical industry. Look for oil prices to rise accordingly.
This is the change Barack Obama was talking about.
Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Washington Times - LAMBRO: Earmark repository
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
I just can't understand americans. Your country is almost bankrupt because of right wing economic policies and you still think the cure is more of the same? He's only been there a couple of months, how can any of your economic malaise be down to Obama? You've had a pretty close brush with fascism-just be glad you live in a liberal democracy where the people get to have a say.:sneaky:
and Oscar-bet you can't wait for the hyper inflation gordon brown is about to cause in the UK. How much proof do you need that the man is a complete imbecile.
and Oscar-bet you can't wait for the hyper inflation gordon brown is about to cause in the UK. How much proof do you need that the man is a complete imbecile.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
If Obama is wrong, he can bankrupt America
gmc;1152187 wrote: I just can't understand americans. Your country is almost bankrupt because of right wing economic policies and you still think the cure is more of the same? He's only been there a couple of months, how can any of your economic malaise be down to Obama? You've had a pretty close brush with fascism-just be glad you live in a liberal democracy where the people get to have a say.:sneaky:
and Oscar-bet you can't wait for the hyper inflation gordon brown is about to cause in the UK. How much proof do you need that the man is a complete imbecile. Just a quickie auld yin as i have to go out. Fact......... inflation under this government has been the lowest for 50 years. Of course it's going to rise, don't be a Rodney. The budget will see further tax cuts for the lower paid. Suits me :yh_rotfl GO GORDON.
and Oscar-bet you can't wait for the hyper inflation gordon brown is about to cause in the UK. How much proof do you need that the man is a complete imbecile. Just a quickie auld yin as i have to go out. Fact......... inflation under this government has been the lowest for 50 years. Of course it's going to rise, don't be a Rodney. The budget will see further tax cuts for the lower paid. Suits me :yh_rotfl GO GORDON.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon