I can tell when a tea party adherent authors a letter you publish: They always get the facts wrong. Gary Larson (Nov 25, 2011) seems like a typical Kool-Aid drinking member of the tea party. He claims President Barack Obama has increased the national debt by more than $6 trillion dollars in three years while George W. Bush increased it a mere $3 trillion in eight years. These are fictional figures probably regurgitated from a talking head on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
The facts are: During his eight years in office Bush II, aided by a Republican House and Senate, increased the national debt by $6.656 trillion dollars, effectively doubling the debt he inherited from Bill Clinton to over $11 trillion. Since Obama has occupied the White House the national debt has increased by $4.3 trillion; it is now approximately $15 trillion This is indeed a sizable amount, but understand that the bulk of this is due to the continued involvement of U.S. forces in two wars, two massive tax cuts favoring the wealthy under Bush II, and drastically reduced tax revenue because of high unemployment due to the recession caused by the failed Republican fiscal policy.
It is also interesting to note that under Bush II federal spending increased more than 4 percent each year of his term, while Obama has overseen a decrease of 2.5 percent.
Facts are interesting, aren't they?
Edward F. Murphy
Mesa
Dale Whiting posted at 8:09 am on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Yes, Eddie, facts are interesting and when revealed say a whole lot about those who mistate those facts.
The Tea Party [of 1773] was started by the likes of Samuel Adams. John Adams, Sam's cousin abhored Sam's conduct and distanced himself from the Tea Party. When Sam dumpted that tea into Boston Harbor, it belonged to merchants. So a merchant, John Hancock, joined the Tea Party, took leadership away from Sam Adams and diverted its actions elsewhere. The unpaid tax amounted to less that 1/2 of 1% of the tea's market value. With termination of the Stamp Act, Hancock hoped to avoid war. Bottom line - Sam Adams and his Tea Party Patriots were hooligans.
Today's equivalent of John Hancock are the Koch Brothers. The Tea Party theme is being diverted to serve the interests of BIG BUSINESS. Kill environmental regulations, quash cap and trade, lower taxes, make the federal government less "intrusive" in business so that business can have its way with things. Deregulation is their theme, not Taxed Enought Already. They've been captured.
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 11:27 am on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Yes, you owe the American Revolution and our beloved Republic to a bunch of rebels and hooligans. Isn't it like a Tory to complain about what made this country great.
The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.
The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, closed Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.
To attempt a correlation between the original Tea Party and what you view as the theme of the current Tea Party is absurdity to the extreme. Two different movements with taxation as the only shared theme, but then you never will understand the current Tea Party.
onerebel posted at 12:39 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
I found Edward F. Murphy's challenge of debt facts very interesting. I myself have heard and used numbers that were thrown around, so I took it upon myself to fact check the numbers of both individuals, and this is what I found. I searched and all four independent sites I used seemed to agree with the following numbers. On Bush's watch, 1-1-2000, when he took office the debt was ( 5.7 trillion) when he left 1-1-2008, it was(9.2 trillion) according to my math that's about + 3.5 trillion. Obama then started with the (9.2 trillion) and it is now over (15 trillion) that's about +( 6 trillion), and that is in just 3 years compared to 8 years under Bush. It appears Bush can fund the wars more efficiently then Obama can, According to the facts I found Mr. Murphy's math is not adding up. Maybe Mr. Larson is watching FOX and drinking Kool aid, but it appears Mr. Murphy is watching MSNBC and drinking something considerably stronger !
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:54 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Facts....Facts....you can't handle the ....Facts !!!
On January 20th, 2009 (Inauguration Day), President George Walker Bush (8 years in Office) left the American People with a National Debt of = $10 Trillion Dollars.
On November 27th, 2011, President Barack Hussein Obama (2 years in Office) has saddled the American People with a National Debt of = $15 Trillion Dollars.
Obama blames the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan = President Obama, read your "job description" = you are the Commander in Chief of all of the Armed Forces of the United States of America = you could have pulled the plug at any time...you and only you have that power..."ex-Presidents" do not have that power. Quit blaming Bush and try acting like a President instead of ...."Whiner-in-Chief".
God Bless the American Tea Party because these "concerned", patriotic Citizens have put the brakes on the Democrat "Tax and Spend, Spend, Spend" politics.
Rich posted at 2:03 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
It's right here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
And quite simply, Mr. Murphy is a bit mathematically challenged.
Slabside posted at 2:34 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
@ Rich, "And quite simply, Mr. Murphy is a bit mathematically challenged."
Yes he is Rich.
truth posted at 3:26 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
What you are not considering, G. W. Bush had just ran the Titanic into a iceberg and the Titanic was sinking and it has taking trillions to save the ship and G. W. Bush kept the two failed war off the books
Slabside posted at 3:48 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Are these the same "failed" wars your messiah promised to end Truth?
There is no way Bush could hide war costs... quit been so stupid.
Now for the TRUTH linked and source (unlike the liars of the left post),
The national debt on Jan 19, 2001, the day BEFORE Bush began his first term:
$5,727,776,738,304.64
The national debt on Jan 2007, BEFORE Pelosi and Reid picked up the nation's checkbook:
$8,675,085,083,537.48
a growth of $2,947,308,345,233.84 OR
$491,218,057,538.80 per year for Bush's first 6 years with a Republican controlled congress.
From the day DEMOCRATS took over congress Jan 3 2007 with the debt at:
$8,675,085,083,537.48
the debt grew to
$10,628,881,485,510.23 on the day Bush left office Jan 20 2009
a growth of $1,953,796,401,972.75
or $976,898,200,986.38 for each of the two years Bush had a DEMOCRAT controlled congress.
$976,898,200,986.38 per year with a DEMOCRAT congress vs $491,218,057,538.80 per year with a Republican congress AND the expense of 9/11 and the beginning of the war on terror.
Now compare that with $10,626,877,048,913.08 on Jan 20, 2009 the day Obama took office to $13,056,957,049,453.42 June 6, 2010.
That is $2,430,080,000,540.34 in one year and just under 6 months OR
$1,700,503,755,783.74 for his FIRST YEAR. (that's TRILLION)
ONLY CONGRESS can appropriate and approve federal spending. ONLY CONGRESS!
Or to put it so even a "progressive" can understand it, from Jan 3r 2007, when DEMOCRATS took over Congress, the ONLY branch of the federal government who can approve and appropriate federal spending, till June 6, 2010, the national debt has GROWN:
$4,381,871,965,915.94 (That's TRILLION with a T)
in 3 1/2 years eclipsing ANY spending ANY congress has EVER done in our history.
ALL statistics from:
www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Let's just cut the DEMOCRAT lies, OK
Dale Whiting posted at 4:06 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Well Ed,
Isn't it interesting that your facts got challenged, but mine did not! Even Tea Party Patriot agrees that we "owe the American Revolution and our beloved Republic to a bunch of rebels and hooligans." Wonder if any of these hooligans ever repaid John Hancock for his tea? At least today, we charge hooligans with an obligation to restore damages. I suppose Tea Party Patriot would agree that our modern hooligans, the Wall Street Occupiers, need not repay New York for their expenses of occupancy. How about it TPP?
Accuracy posted at 4:35 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Edward F. Murphy wrote: “The facts are: During his eight years in office Bush II, aided by a Republican House and Senate, increased the national debt by $6.656 trillion dollars, effectively doubling the debt he inherited from Bill Clinton to over $11 trillion. Since Obama has occupied the White House the national debt has increased by $4.3 trillion; it is now approximately $15 trillion.”
Get your facts straight Edward Murphy………
The National Debt was $5.7 trillion in 2001, and President George W. Bush ran up more debt just under $4.9 trillion (NOT $6.656 trillion) during his entire eight years. The National Debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day President Barack Obama took office in 2009 . . . when Obama repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term.
Yes, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, a total of $4.3 trillion in deficit spending has been passed by Barack Obama and Congressional leaders. Meaning, for the third consecutive fiscal year, the federal government’s deficit spending has topped the $1 trillion mark – and NOT a decrease of 2.5 percent each year of Obama’s term.
To continue this unsustainable spending, Obama signed the measure passed by the senate which raises the 14.3 trillion dollar debt by 2.4 trillion dollars through 2012.
Current deficit spending has been, and still is, a big part of the Tea Party anti-spending movement, claiming it will continue to lead to a economic disaster.
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 4:39 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
John Hancock was not the man you discredit him to be Dale. On November 5, Hancock was elected as moderator at a Boston town meeting that resolved that anyone who supported the Tea Act was an "Enemy to America" Hancock and others tried to force the resignation of the agents who had been appointed to receive the tea shipments. Unsuccessful in this, they attempted to prevent the tea from being unloaded after three tea ships had arrived in Boston Harbor. Hancock was at the fateful meeting on December 16, where he reportedly told the crowd, "Let every man do what is right in his own eyes." Hancock did not take part in the Boston Tea Party that night, but he approved of the action, although he was careful not to publicly praise the destruction of private property. He was, after all, a very wealthy merchant.
Only you would compare these OWS morons with American Patriots.
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 4:47 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Well stated Accuracy. Liberals would have us believe that spending ourselves into oblivion will somehow save our country. Tax cuts and drastically decreased spending is the only way to rebuild what these socialists have done to this once great country of ours.
Rich posted at 4:55 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Dale,
There is a difference between wanting your freedom and wanting a handout. I think that we indeed "owe the American Revolution and our beloved Republic to a bunch of rebels and hooligans." And if OWS were even close to idea of freedom I'd join them, they are rather the epitome of what George Bernard Shaw meant when he said: “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” They are there because they are afraid that, on their own, they couldn't make it.
Slabside posted at 6:06 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
@Dale, "Isn't it interesting that your facts got challenged, but mine did not!"
Perhaps if you ever came up with relevant facts we would despute you Dale.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:56 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Slabside,
Is it not relevant that Sam Adams and the early Tea Partiers were dumping goods into Boston Harbor that were owned privately and not by the Crown, and that John Hancock, one of the merchants whose goods were being threatened by these hooligans, took over the movement to give it direction? And now the Koch Brothers have taken over today's version of the Tea Party? The tax on that tea was about 1/2 of 1%, hardy a burdensome amount then or now!
Rich,
Obviously you do not appreciate why the OWS movement is catching on. Your assessments are flying blind guesses as to what motivates this world wide and largely leaderless movement.
Yes, it does have a lot to do with freedom, freedom from politicians who can be and are bought. Freedom in a democracy does not count corporations as citizens having first amendment rights. Each citizen get his right to speak out on the street corner and to make reasonable campaign committments. But where the Koch Brothers, our nation's number 5 and 6 most wealthy citizens, can use money to buy politicians and hyjack movements, and where a lobyist can have members of one party sign an oath of allegiance, not to the US, but to not increasing taxes in this crisis, clearly this democracy is lacking freedom.
onerebel posted at 8:53 pm on Sun, Nov 27, 2011.
Since we are talking about rich peoples influence and hijacking movements, shouldn't we be talking about George Soros and his influence with Obama, and in the Wall street protest thru moveon.org ? Soros has showed up at the White House more times then Obama has showed up to church ! Why doesn't the fact that a known billionaire Socialist has the president ear bother any of the Liberals? Unless the Liberals are truly Socialist themselves ! OOPS did I let the cat out of the bag ?
k33j88 posted at 6:42 am on Mon, Nov 28, 2011.
Hope everyone here had a restful, enjoyable, and peaceful Thanksgiving. Wait a minute!!!-----Something's wrong. We've forgotten about the turkeys' rights. Since when does a politically-correct society celebrate the mass-murder of innocent turkeys. I'm calling PETA! Welcome to the liberal-mindset. Just a side note----If that Boston Tea Party had'nt occured, we'd still be paying hommage to the king of england. Put that in your liberal cup of tea.
Rich posted at 1:31 pm on Mon, Nov 28, 2011.
"Obviously you do not appreciate why the OWS movement is catching on." Sure I do, who turns down a free lunch?
"Yes, it does have a lot to do with freedom, freedom from politicians who can be and are bought. Freedom in a democracy does not count corporations as citizens having first amendment rights. Each citizen get his right to speak out on the street corner and to make reasonable campaign committments. But where the Koch Brothers, our nation's number 5 and 6 most wealthy citizens, can use money to buy politicians and hyjack movements, and where a lobyist can have members of one party sign an oath of allegiance, not to the US, but to not increasing taxes in this crisis, clearly this democracy is lacking freedom." Nice ideas, but when the government becomes the agent to enforce them, it simply creates a greater tyranny. You want some of the Koch brothers money and sitting down and crying, screaming and throwing a hissy fit is the way to get it? As many people as are involved, they could combine their money and expertise incorporate themselves and bring down any financier. I blame Dr. Spock, who apparently taught several generations that crying was the way to get fed.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:35 pm on Mon, Nov 28, 2011.
onerebel,
Who the heck is George Soros and what has he done? Does it amount to much?
k33j88,
I found a good use for all of that left over white turkey meat. I'm modifying my chicken enchilada formula.
Rich,
Free lunch? You've been listening to Faux News again, haven't you! Where you decry government enforcement actions, think about all of those city mayors who are looking for ways to enforce laws to kick people out of the town square. You remember the town square, don't you? It was the corner created for free speech and free assembly back in the good old days! Or have you forgotten about those days, too?
Rich posted at 10:30 pm on Mon, Nov 28, 2011.
Dale,
I assume you're talking about Fox News? I only know it by reputation, I don't watch or listen, just read. Actually I haven't had a T.V. since they went digital. And actually the idea came from a friend, alas deceased. We were involved many years ago in the anti-war and civil rights movements. He observed that if people of his race (don't know the current PC, he called himself black) pooled the resources they spent in drugs and alcohol, they'd be the world's third largest corporation (he backed it up, in the Bryant Street Library, not on the Internet). Free speech is, well, free. What OWS has put into proving to the world that they are selfish, spoiled brats, they might have put into a corporation which would have the free speech they seem to abuse constantly. If they were good enough they could rival the people they are crying about and change things. As it is they are just a carny freak show.
Slabside posted at 12:22 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
"Free lunch? You've been listening to Faux News again, haven't you!"
Spoken like a true Obama Kool-Aid drinking liberal tool.
Rodini posted at 6:11 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
Right On Mr. Murphy. The only people who can't see the lies and deceptions coming from Fox News, Rush, Glenn, Sean and the other right wing nutjobs, are those who prefer ideology to truth and facts!!
Slobside, Tea Party Traitor, No Rebel and their kind all prefer to spout nonsense over fact checking. Or if they actually take a minute to look up a fact, they always go to a biased right-wing think tank for their bogus answers rather than using a non-partisan source like the CBO.
Makes you wonder doesn't it....just what they are afraid of? Since when does the truth and real facts become a scary subject for them?
The answer of course is when it blows their ideology out of the water. That's when the blinders are put back in place and the rose colored glasses adjusted on their very long noses. See: Pinnochio!
Rodini posted at 6:59 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
Also, lets not forget a couple other FACTS! Bush kept the true costs of his wars off the budgets he presented.
AND..Obama has had his presidency hurt badly by the addition of several costly items passed along from the disastrous Bush presidency. Nunber ONE- the unfunded Medicare Part D program continues to suck up federal dollars, the Bush wars will cost American taxpayers billions for years to come in the form of long-term medical expenses taking care of the tensd of thousands of injured servicemen and women and lets not forget the biggest drag left over from Bush....the multi-year recession due to conservative efforts at deregulation allowing the too big to fail banks and Wall Street to run amok and decimate the world economy in general.
If Obama had walked into the cushy spot Bush assumed, having a federal budget surplus left over by Clinton, rather than a fiscal disaster, surely Obama's presidency would be looking real good right now!
Accuracy posted at 10:46 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
Rodini posted: “If Obama had walked into the cushy spot Bush assumed, having a federal budget surplus left over by Clinton, rather than a fiscal disaster, surely Obama's presidency would be looking real good right now!”
Rodini is only babbled about Obama inheriting a huge deficit.
Deficits from Congress, that is. Budgets that come from the Democrats in Congress that took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama who was a member of that very U.S. Senate, and who voted for those massive spending bills.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed President George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, the Democrat controlled Congress passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
Yes, in a nutshell, Obama inherited a deficit that he voted for and then he voted to expand that deficit four-fold since.
Rich posted at 11:04 am on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
"If Obama had walked into the cushy spot Bush assumed, having a federal budget surplus left over by Clinton, rather than a fiscal disaster, surely Obama's presidency would be looking real good right now!"
If a frog had wings it wouldn't flop on it's keester every time it jumped. Obama was handed what he was handed and he blew it, plain, simple, in your face. Arguing, even mentioning fault, blame is irrelevant sophistry. If, if, if (insert anything you want). And it's all (insert anybody you want)'s fault. Face reality, no matter how many ifs you posit, how much blame you spread around, Obama is still a failure.
Slabside posted at 6:49 pm on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
Rich & Accuracy... very well put!
onerebel posted at 7:36 pm on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
Dale, Your always up on current events I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't know who is George Soros and his connection to Obama. You need to search it ! Wow, Rodini did someone pee on your granola bar ? It's ironic your hammering people about hard debt facts while you offer generalizations. I did a search and used 4 different sites for debt totals, give it a try it may be educational. As for the banking and housing collapse remember the banks being forced to give risky loans to low income people that could not pay them back ? That couldn't have been a Liberal idea could it ? About the wars. You Liberals keep cursing Bush for the wars, what about Libya? Is it OK if your guy starts a war ? If we shouldn't have went into Afghanistan after the terrorist then WHAT would you Liberals have done? Lets hear an explanation of What should have done instead of that war was wrong ! You right Rodini about one thing, being afraid. Afraid of what will be left of our country when Obama and the rest the Socialist are done with it !
Rich posted at 11:32 pm on Tue, Nov 29, 2011.
" If we shouldn't have went into Afghanistan after the terrorist then WHAT would you Liberals have done? Lets hear an explanation of What should have done instead of that war was wrong !"
I'm not even close to liberal, but I can answer you. After 9/11 there was only one way to win and that was to continue as we were going, negating the action. As soon as we responded to it we lost. The men who did it died to do it, you can't attack them. But if you respond to their actions with the TSA, the Patriot Act, and two wars that drain your economy, and kill your children, when you trade your liberty for a little temporary security and make air travel a fright and a horror, you've lost and the terrorists have won.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:05 am on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
So no one wants to go on this record telling us about George Soros! Chicken?
Afghanistan:
Knowing that we had pretty much abandoned this country to its internal political strifes after "Charlie Wilson's War," it should have not come to anyones surprise that the Talaban, a group of fundamentalists who opposed all foreign intervention, would take over. And after the 1993 Trade Center Parking Garage and USS Cole bombings, and two embassy bombings in African, it should have been apparent that a minority group of fundamentalists lead by bin Laden was up to no good. And just incase you did not hear, bin Laden pleaded with the Saudis to allow his soldiers ride Kuwate of Husein, not we US infidels. Having the US stage war from Holy Ground was offensive to the fundamentalists. So our problems with bin Laden date back to 1991 and Bush 41. Our conduct of the 1991 counter-insurgency was a gross violation of Muslim Law. When the Republican Guard withdraw, we bombed the daylights out of them. In Islam, retreat must not be taken advantage of. That's why Sadat did not pursue Israel when it withdrew from the Suez Canal. But we don't study Islam so we act in offense to it.
It did not take much to rid Afghanistan of bin Laden. But we had to nation build. Hillary Clinton had visions of freeing repressed Muslim women, as if she had ever met one.
But after sending bin Laden into effective exile [now we know it was Pakistan] we continued on and on with our fruitless and futile nation building in Afghanistan where we, as the foreigners, became the enemy.
Yet, likely because the UN sanctions on Iraq were becoming more and more unpopular in the UN and seeing the means to create a theme of Hussein being tied to bin Laden, a truely insane notions, we drummed up support for the envasion of Iraq. Thank Cheney for that.
Need I explain more?
As a Conservative, one who criticises both Democratic [liberal, if you will] and Republican [Neo-cons almost one and all] support for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would have done what I blogged over and over and over again starting in 2001. Use diplomacy to rid Afghanistan of bin Laden. Heck, realizing that he needed some Taliban support [his only support prior to 9-11 was bought and paid for from two tribal leaders] bin Laden had a small group of his suicide bombers take out the leader of the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's main rival. Yet the Taliban knew bin Laden had overstepped his bounds in planning 9-11 and had we used diplomacy through India or better yet Pakistan, we could have had bin Laden delivered to our doorstep. But we did not even try! The Taliban feared US re-entry into Afghanistan and had nothing against us. After all, we helped them get Russia out of their country.
Now, most of you could not have found Afghanisan on a map before 9-11. Some still cannot. But waging a war on terrorism is like teaching abstinance to maintain virginity. In theory it works, but not in practice!
Accuracy posted at 1:38 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
Dale Whiting posted: “Now, most of you could not have found Afghanisan on a map before 9-11. Some still cannot.”
-------------------------------------
It was President Jimmy Carter that boycotted the U.S. participation in 1980 Olympics, held in Moscow that year, because of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
Most cannot find ‘Afghanisan’ (as Dale spells it) . . . but they certainly did and can find "Afghanistan" after that 1980 Olympics boycott led by Democrat Jimmy Carter.
onerebel posted at 5:41 pm on Wed, Nov 30, 2011.
Gee Dale, whenever I want info on someone that Is unbiased I do a search. George Soros is a billionaire Socialist that uses his wealth to push his agenda. He and his money are behind hundreds of groups like ACORN and MOVEON.ORG, Has given millions to the media like NBC, NEW YORK TIMES, PBS, MEDIA MATTERS. As well as Politicians like, Al Gore, Obama, Clinton's, Charles Rangel, Do we see a trend here ? A trend to the far left ? In his 1987 book The Alchemy of Finance, for instance, he wrote: “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance―to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein.”. One of Soros main goals is for a one world government "Socialist Government ". He is using his power to influence governments and elections world wide to achieve his goal. And this man has been to the White house reportedly over 18 times for a chat with Obama. Don't take my word for it, I suggest that everyone would do a search on this man and understand just what exactly his agenda is !
VofReason posted at 1:48 pm on Thu, Dec 1, 2011.
Yup Obama is the spendthrift protector of the public funds. It is just those evil republicans who want to spend us into oblivian. Thank you for clarrifying. My whole world view is now fixed.