I admit freely that I drank from the Democratic/Obama Kool-Aid punch bowl. The taste of that Kool-Aid has now soured beyond the point of drinkability. Make no mistake; the Bush/McCain/Republican punch bowl was much more than soured, it was pure poison. Two things since Obama took office have totally soured my taste for the Democratic/Obama Kool-Aid. The first and most damaging is the commitment of the administration to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. The second is the watered down and probably ineffective "Stimulus Package." I will now examine each of these in detail and why I think the "Glimmer of Hope" that was Obama is now a "Candle in the Wind."

The "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan are myth, public relations fabrications. They are NOT wars. They are invasions and occupations of over matched sovereign countries. The war mongering Right has been allowed to define these illegal and immoral actions in terms that sound patriotic and reasonable. The talking pinheads of the Right abuse the term "Liberal" constantly by characterizing Obama has being a radical Liberal. They have skewed the perceived middle point so far to the right, that traditional Conservatives like Barry Goldwater seem to be radical Liberals. President Obama is no Liberal and the sending of additional troops to Afghanistan is the most obvious proof.

He claims to have been against the Iraqi invasion from the beginning and I take him at his word so far, watching to see if the withdrawals from Iraq happen in a timely fashion. The continuation of construction of permanent bases within Iraq however has raised my level of skepticism. My first active participation in a presidential race was in 1972, with George McGovern running against Tricky **** Nixon. I abhorred the killing and dying in Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia. Today I abhor the killing and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan even more, if that is possible. The best and most patriotic of our young people have died and are dying for no good reason. We as a country have enough blood of innocents, in all three countries, on our hands to rival the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. We have failed to learn from history and the death toll keeps rising. We have seen the face of evil and it stares back from our mirrors.

When Bush/Cheney took office, the country had a surplus and there was a lot of talk of what to do with the "Peace Dividend." Tax cuts were the favorite of the Right because they no longer wanted the "free loading poor" putting their hands out. Never mind the radical overhaul to the Welfare System that took place under Clinton. Then 9/11/2001 occurred. All talk of a Peace Dividend disappeared and the drums of war began to beat loudly. Strangely though, the tax cuts for the rich and corporations stayed with us. The Right proceeded to tax less and spend more. They proved to have no basic arithmetic skills except lining their own bank accounts. The recipe for the ultimate distraction was put into place. We are now faced with economic troubles that may rival the Great Depression of 1920's and 1930's.

We have had tax cuts since Reagan took office in 1981. There is some evidence that for the short term they might help but in the long term they have failed to stave off longer and deeper recessions. Despite being elected with a firm mandate, Obama proposed a Stimulus Package that was flawed through compromise from the beginning. The results of making a third of his package tax cuts were the votes of three Republican Senators and NO Republican Representatives. Comparable money spent to bail out bankers and stockbrokers passed Congress without the same need to compromise. The rich were protected while the poor and middle class were screwed again.

People are worried about their homes, their next paycheck and even their next meal. They don't want to be bothered by the killing, dying and waste of Iraq and Afghanistan. The sleight of hand of keeping the economy in the forefront while the killing and dying continue is despicable. We are in this economic meltdown because of the military spending. Spending on Iraq and Afghanistan will need to stop before real recovery can start at home.

My hope today is that Obama can resist the wind and keep the candle lit. To do that, he must become the radical Liberal that the pinheads accuse him of being. He must embrace the light. Then and only then can the sourness of the Kool-Aid be alleviated.

Permanent Backlink to Post
_______
Support Our Troops -- Bring Them Home NOW
A Proud Liberal—Day in History—Namnesia Antidote


About author
Life long liberal, Actually saw JFK on campaign trail, Defining moment of my life; Day JFK assassinated, Proof system can work: Day Nixon resigned, Proof system can be broken: Day Nixon Pardoned and Continuing revelations of Bush's crimes.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20393

I like Kool Aid and now you have ruined it for me

is that how you feel madman.
or just a post?

I can't sympathize with you, I don"t drink any soft drinks. (It is a soft drink, right?).

psst...no. it's an artificial punch. there is no carbonation in it

Ah,o.k.

and it was what the people of Jonestown poisoned and drank

The right, the right, the right.

There would have been no wars in Afghanistan or Iraq if Clinton would have done something. No one pays attention to history. It is well documented that Clinton had several chances to kill or capture Bin Laden. No debate. Its a fact. Direct action by the US military would not have been required if someone would have payed f'ing attention.

Ahmad Shah Masood was in europe in 2001, and he told EU leaders that the Northern Alliance didn't need money, weapons, or advisers. They needed someone to put pressue on Pakistan to end their support of the Taliban. He said, "Without Pakistan's support, the Taliban's military campaign would not even last a year."

There it is folks. Put some f'ing pressure on pakistan. Oh no.. We can't do that. In fact, one of the few times Clinton did anything, Sandy The Burglar, called Pakistan and told the people propping up the Taliban, that we were launching a cruise missile attack aimed at Bin Laden. How effective that was.

I could go on and on, but what is the point? Bush, the right, Bush,Cheney, the right, Bush, Halliburton, Enron, Bush, Cheney, the right.

laughable..

This is assuming that Bush told us the truth about 911.

the ignorance of that "article" amuses me.

1. there was no "surplus" under clinton. ever. national debt has risen every year since god knows when. if you have a budget surplus, you do not add debt.

2. the bank bailout was written by democrats (reid and pelosi) and the "compromise" was pork on both sides. while bush and the treasury submitted a plan, the congress is responsible for writing the bills.

3. The "compromise" in cutting taxes in the stimulus bill was to achieve the cuts promised by obama on his campaign. The republican votes (specifically specter) declared they would not vote for it if the tax cuts were removed in any way between the senate bill and reconciliation. in the end, 12% were cut out while more spending was put it to keep the democrats that reconciled it happy and he still voted for it.

4. bush's tax cuts were for everyone as were Reagan's though Reagan's were substantially higher for the wealthy who paid in excess of 65% in the highest bracket. that's only fair. in the end, the wealthy still pay a rate 3 times what the poor pay and they make substantially more. of course a cut in the taxes help them most - they pay the most taxes anyway.

5. Military spending are not what got us into this mess. it was irresponsibility by the people. I've argued that countless times.

I never voted for Bill and I have never liked him, but you are wrong young man.
When Clinton left office:
The Office of Management and Budget was projecting a surplus of $5,000bn over the next 10 years, enough to pay off the entire Federal debt and fund Social Security, the state pension scheme, for several more decades.


Then, Along came a spider. A nasty spider. (Bush)

And well the rest is history...
Pay attention this time since you are old enough to realize the facts first-hand!!

want some kool aid little boy????

Here's somthing else for you to ponder,

The booming economy and strict controls over government spending has meant that Mr Clinton also leaves office with the public finances in their strongest shape for decades.


During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output.

The booming US economy has brought economic benefits right across the income spectrum.

The unemployment rate has dropped by half, to 4%, a 40-year-low, while the economy has created some 15 million jobs.


All this from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1110165.stm

Double Whammy: 50-Year Record on Sept. 22. $10 Trillion on Sept. 30, 2008.

The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981. It skyrocketed for 12 years through Bush senior. Clinton reversed it at a peak of 67%. Bush junior crossed that line on Sept. 22 and hit 69% on Sept 30. That's the highest it's been since 1955. (sources)
Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:
1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).
2. He invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan (another $600 B).
3. He deregulated Wall Street speculators. That bailout has now "invested" $1T




http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


Please dont weep!!!!

no, you are incorrect, old man.


look at the national debt history. it's gone up every year. yes, the government as a whole was in the black at the end of the clinton administration, but intergovernmental holdings (aka borrowing from other government agencies) were required in large amounts to do so.

Borrowing billions upon billions from medicare and social security is not balancing the budget because you still owe that money. Total national debt (that $10T figure everyone throws around) includes these intergovernmental holdings that the government essentially owes to itself.

So no, there never was a truly balanced budget or a surplus because we had to borrow to do it. A real surplus would mean your income (taxes) exceeds your expenditures. We have not done that.



As for that joke of a graph from an obviously unbiased (ha!) site, Clinton benefited from a large jump in GDP due to the technology boom in the 1990s - right where his part of the graph begins to fall. That increases GDP and if you keep the increases in spending at a lower rate, debt to GDP ratio falls. That's a nice way to spin numbers because it's obvious that most in this nation do not fully understand GDP or the public debt.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

This is a graph of the ACTUAL national debt. Go ahead. Put your money where your mouth is and show me where the graph falls. Don't make excuses or try to avoid the question by saying who spent more or who is worse. Show me where Clinton's "surplus" made the debt fall.



As for points to ponder, the late 1990s were some of the best economic times in our history and were deficient of any major military conflicts. They also laid the groundwork for the current situation. Irresponsibility during the good times (as in, not preparing for the bad) and passing the legislation that allowed the mortgage crisis (like the one that allowed bundling of mortgages as securities) are what set the foundation. Then, the irresponsibility of the people in our last rise in 2003-2004 set up the house of cards. The mortgage crisis, laid out by the Clinton Administration, blew it down.

Another thing to consider: rising unemployment from an artificially inflated market like we had this decade will result in a higher than normal unemployment on the downfall because in addition to shedding the few percentage points of jobs like the cycle normally would, you also shed those inflated jobs that normally would not have existed. This is part of the reason our unemployment numbers are rising faster than the other signs of the economy. Clinton had the boom to account for the jobs as technology grew. More repair techs were needed, more IT people in businesses, more technicians, more suppliers for the parts, more of everything from the increased confidence that came with the rising stock market (due to the tech stocks and the unfortunate situation that people believe the stock market is a direct indicator of the economy as a whole). Confidence went up as did consumer spending, increasing the total GDP and need for jobs. This also accounts for the fall in debt to GDP ratio.

So please, educate yourself next time as opposed to regurgitating what you read on other sites.

No, didn't you read the "was projecting a surplus of $5,000bn over the next 10 years"? That is how you fix it. You project the damned thing.

also didn't notice that it was $5,000bn. lol we'd have paid off the entire national debt in a year!

Did we not have an oil boom in the Bush years? with oil prices sky high? With your logic then we would have had an artificial job creation in the oil fields and thus we would not be in this economic mess.