Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Boehner: American dream under seige

By REUTERS
October 8, 2010

House minority leader John Boehner

The “American Dream” is under siege by an out-of-control federal government that doesn’t listen to its people, U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leader John Boehner said on Friday.

Boehner said Americans can make themselves heard by voting in the November 2 election to replace President Barack Obama’s Democrats in Congress with a new Republican majority.

“Americans have been crystal clear about what they want: more jobs, less spending and a more open Congress that respects and abides by the Constitution,” Boehner said in a speech prepared for delivery at a small manufacturing company in his congressional district in West Chester, Ohio.

“If those things are going to happen, then we need a new majority in Congress that will stand up to President Barack Obama and insist that he start listening to the people,” Boehner said.

With just weeks to go before Election Day, polls show Republicans appear headed toward taking control of the House and perhaps the Senate, largely because of voter anger about the weak U.S. economy.

If Republicans capture the House after four years of Democratic rule, Boehner is in line to become the chamber’s speaker.

Boehner, in excerpts of his speech released by his office, recalled a meeting Republicans had last February with Obama on the president’s plan to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system over their objections.

“President Obama told us it’s OK to have deep philosophical differences and different visions for where we’d lead our country. ‘That’s what elections are for,'” Boehner recalled the president as saying.

“Ladies and gentlemen, your government hasn’t been listening. Your government is disrespecting you, your family, your job, your children. Your government is out of control. Do you have to accept it? Do you have to take it? Of course you don’t. That’s what elections are for,” Boehner said.

In his speech, Boehner recalled his days as a small businessman in Ohio before being elected to Congress in 1990.

Boehner said small businesses employ a quarter of U.S. workers and created most of the new jobs in the past decade.

“Small businesses like these are essential to the American dream. And right now that dream is under siege.”

“Elected officials with no understanding of how our economy works spent money with reckless abandon, running up the deficit and telling us we could pay for it all by raising taxes.”

“It was clear they believed the engine of prosperity in America is government itself. The thinking went like this: if you want more jobs, then spend more money. Collect more taxes, and redistribute them from the federal level. Make government bigger.”

“If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the Obama administration, this thinking may sound familiar. It’s not ‘new.’ In fact there’s nothing ‘new’ about it. And anyone who’s ever created a private sector job in America can tell you it is dead wrong.”

Copyright © 2010 Reuters

Enhanced by Zemanta

38 Responses to Boehner: American dream under seige

  1. Almandine

    October 8, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Collectivism is slavery.

    • Thomas Bonsell

      October 8, 2010 at 2:27 pm

      Dear Almandine:

      If collectivism amounts to slavery, how do you justify the Republican Party acting in unison on nearly every issue?

      That is collectivism in the worse sense and reminds me of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party practicing what it called “democratic centralism.” That is, once party leaders reached an agreement on what action the party was to take, no party member was allowed to deviate from that position. Any reluctance to go along would result in expulsion from the party and loss of all privileges that party membership afforded.

      The modern Republican party (i.e. conservative movement) operates on the same principles as the USSR Communists and is therefore just as dangerous.

      You agree?

      • Almandine

        October 10, 2010 at 5:18 pm

        NO, I don’t.

        Read up on collectivism… socialism, communism, central control of the means of production, the market. social mechanisms, etc. Then get back.

  2. Cassandra

    October 8, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Both of the major U.S. political parties are responsible for the demise of the “American Dream” during the past 30 years. Whatever happened to the “peace dividend” America was to experience with the fall of the Soviet Union? It has been squandered and sent abroad by those under the influence of international financiers, such as George Soros, who controls our current “Campaigner-In-Chief.”

    With the Democrats’ take-over of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, that demise has been hastened by federal governmental policies, such as, the take-over of the health care industry, and close to two years of the most anti-business and anti-U.S. presidential administration in our history.

    The fact that Congressman Boehner has been in Congress throughout many years of the decline does not make his claim incorrect that we, the People of the United States, need to reassert our freedoms during this election and end the excessive intrusions into our lives by the current elitist political class.

    • neondog

      October 11, 2010 at 10:27 pm

      Remembering America as it wasn’t…

      Should we get back with dairy subsidies? Or some other federal commodites program? Maybe we can get back with a subsidized ethanol program. How long has the Department of Agriculture been controlling farm production?

  3. Thomas Bonsell

    October 8, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    The problem is that the government listens too much to “the people.”

    In 1980, George Bush the Daddy told Americans that Ronald Reagan offered “voodoo” economics. The Republic Party wanted the voodoo. In the general election, the American public overwhelmingly wanted voodoo economics. Government gave it to them.

    In 1984, Walter Mondale said it would require some taxes to ward off the coming disaster. Reagan said “stay the course” and a miracle is just around the corner. American voters wanted more voodoo economics, and government listened.

    George Bush the Daddy praised voodoo economics in 1988 to keep his job and the public responded, but then warmed up to small tax increases (Mondale’s mantra) years later to address the problem with voodoo economics. The American public tossed him out.

    When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, voodoo economics was still producing deficits, so he was retained. But in 2000 when Clinton had overcome voodoo economics and produced surpluses, the American people turned to new voodoo economics from George Bush the Deluded. The government gave it to the people who then re-elected him in 2004 because voodoo economics was again producing monumental deficits.

    Listening to voters who would back the likes of Boehner would again produce disastrous results.

    • Almandine

      October 10, 2010 at 5:21 pm

      The govt listens too much to the people?

      Govt is supposed to exist ONLY as the voice of the people.

      Your kinda communist, eh Thomas?

      • Thomas Bonsell

        October 11, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        Guess I am, Almandine.

        “You wrote: “Read up on collectivism… socialism, communism, central control of the means of production, the market. social mechanisms, etc. Then get back.”

        I’m back.

        I spent several years back when I was young and adorable as an intelligence agent defending your ignorance from any and all hostile foreign nations. I also spend considerable time in the graduate school of one of America’s elite universities studying the Marxist philosophy as well as our constitutional history and philosophy so I am well aware of the differences between the two and know the results of collectivism and such, and that is why I can easily see the similarities between Marxism and Tea Partyism of the right wing of the Republican Party.

        Do you think it is only accidental the Christopher Buckley was ousted from the magazine his father founder only because he vowed to vote for Obama? Is it an accident that David Frum was jettisoned from the American Enterprise Institute for suggesting the GOP took a wrong approach in opposing healthcare reform and Bruce Bartlett was canned from another right-wing think tank for criticizing Bush the Deluded’s administration? That is political collectivism and an exact copy of USSR practices.

        It seems you only know what the right-wing propaganda machine has told you to know.

        • Almandine

          October 11, 2010 at 3:52 pm

          Guess again, big boy. I spent my own youth defending you and yours from the same hostile forces and much time in grad school, as well. To claim that Republicans are tantamount to Marxists is totally laughable.

          It takes little imagination to see that whomever has been ousted from whatever “right-wing” associations they have had is because of their hewing to the line of “our” left-leaning US political party, a position for which no apology is good enough, given the dichotomy in principles.

          Face it… our socialist Dems are the party with collectivist yearnings, not the least of which is shown by the health care mandate, govt takeover of private businesses, buying union votes with card-check and such, and their assault on our Constitution. You can try to put your lipstick on the Republican pig, but it won’t change the fact that – as an institution – Democrats are the true collectivists in this country.

          As for the USSR… and even China, there is no political comparison to be made whatsoever. Those were / are malignantly repressive regimes, at the hands of which one could end up in jail for mere dissent. Totalitarianism was / is their modus operandi; Tea Parties could not even exist. Even today, a Nobel Peace Prize is met with govt consternation.

          One final clarification: The national debt increased every year Bill Clinton was in office.

          http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

          • griff

            October 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm

            To the tune of 1.54 trillion during his tenure, urban myths not withstanding, of course.

          • Thomas Bonsell

            October 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm

            Should have studied harder when you were in school.

            Clinton produced four years of surpluses – that is fact. When you claim that the debt increased under him you are misreading everything in front of you. It was the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 that confuses you. That was the Reagan theft of payroll taxes to mask his ever increasing deficits. That law required all surplus Social Security and Medicare taxes be used to buy Treasury instruments rather than sit by as savings. So what you read is only the amount of Treasury instruments issued in order to use payroll taxes for other uses. That is not a balance sheet.

            The left as collectivists? That is ludicrous on its face. The left can’t even get a majority to agree where to go to lunch. There has never been an act of Congress in which here was 100% left agreement; there wasn’t true in healthcare reform, takeover of any business in which no business was taken over. but the right has often been 100% for or against proposals.

            Ousting of righties from righty position is because there is a uniform pattern of conservative belief. Everyone is expected to think the same, say the same, do the same and when one doesn’t that person is punished. That practice is exactly the same as the Bolshevik practice.

            Please explain how the left has assaulted the Constitution and as a constitutional-law “scholar” in grad school I will show you how you are full of bull-tikki.

            You are engaging in what behavior scientists call transference – that is transferring to others what you find so odious in yourself.

            By the way: How many Tea Party rallies have had to be held in “free speech zones”?

          • Thomas Bonsell

            October 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm

            You and Griff need to get a grasp on reality.

            A refresher course is in order.

            Clinton inherited a $290-billion deficit from George Bush the Daddy. In the first year of his budgeting – which every single member of the GOP collective voted against – he reduced the deficit to about $250 billion, then $200 billion the next year. His next budget reduced the deficit to about $160 billion, then close to $100 billion. From then on out he had surpluses which he handed off the George Bush the Incompetent. That means his surpluses and deficits produced pretty much a break-even wash.

            Now read the matter of the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, below, to see how the debt increased. Griff said there was $1,54 trillion growth in debt during Clinton’s term. Since deficits and surpluses cancelled each other out under Clinton, that means there was a $1.54-trillion SURPLUS in payroll taxes, and that surplus was legally forced into Treasury instruments, hence the rise in Treasury instruments, i.e. debt.

            And you know-nothings whine about such a surplus.

  4. Carl Nemo

    October 8, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Solid economic analysis Mr. Bonsell concerning the Republicans and their failed economic paradigm known as “voodoo economics”. Also your comments to the article titled “Democrats being the party of food stamps” was good too. : )

    Unfortunately I truly think they’ve merged in terms of the end results and I no longer trust either to do what’s necessary to save our nation from the impending currency and jobs crisis.

    Maybe people will wake up when there’s no longer any Federally supported unemployment bennies, minimal to no food stamps, SS cut by 50% while our terminally corrupt Congressional contingent regardless of party affiliation continue to pitch more evermore money to the MIC in order to support our never-ending warring adventurism in far off places.

    Ike warned us about the unchecked control of the MIC’s influence over our nation facitilated by a fawning Congressional contingent and its consequences relative to our freedom and the economic bottom line.

    Our nation has become the premier welfare/warfare state and is soon headed for the ash bin of history.

    Carl Nemo **==

    • Almandine

      October 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm

      Solid analysis? Shame on you Carl.

      • Carl Nemo

        October 10, 2010 at 6:59 pm

        I should have disqualified Thomas Bonsell’s first sentence referencing the government listening too much to the people, but I thought his analysis of “voodoo economics” was accurate.

        Personally I think its rare that our leadership ever listens to the people unless they use their pleas to political advantage as in “voodoo economics” of continually running up the tab without ever countenancing the fact that accounts must be squared up at some time in the future. The general citizenry abuse personal credit no different than our out of control government so in that since “we are one” to paraphrase Spock doing the “mind meld”.

        Carl Nemo **==

        • Almandine

          October 10, 2010 at 7:55 pm

          Yeah, I know. Pols of every description screw us like we deserve it.

          BUT, Thomas is way out there.

  5. woody188

    October 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Boehner talks the talk, but judging from his voting record, he doesn’t walk it. Ask yourselves, why didn’t John Boehner insist on cutting spending and listening to constituents while he was in office and his party had complete control from 2000 until 2006?

    Why did the Contract with America come off the rails once Junior was elected President?

    How can he say with a straight face that he will protect the Constitution after he voted to make the PATRIOT Act permanent?

    Why doesn’t Reuters or any corporate “journalists” ask him these questions and hold him to his record versus his word?

    Frankly, his word is worthless.

  6. Thomas Bonsell

    October 9, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Woody:

    Mindlessly cutting government spending solves nothing.

    A responder above asked whatever happened to the “peace dividend?”

    It was used and bad things happened.

    With the fall of the Berlin Wall the George Bush the Daddy administration thought it could cut defense spending and started whacking off defense programs under a plan drawn up by Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, but most of the cuts were left to the incoming Clinton administration.

    At the time the US was struggling to come out of a recession and $30 billion in defense spending in California was eliminated. That recession became a depression in California with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs and hundreds of thousands of other Californians losing their jobs because defense-industry workers no longer could fully participate in the economy.

    California is still an economic basket case.

    So when some politician tries to tell you that economic paradise looms if we just cut government spending, dismiss this idiot. It aint that easy.

    PS: even though Cheney and Powell drew up the plans to slash spending in the Bush administration the GOP attacked Clinton for “destroying” our military.

    • woody188

      October 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm

      Mindlessly? It’s hard to gripe about TARP and other spending when the unnecessary war we were lied into fighting in the Middle East has cost over a trillion and counting, and while defense spending ticks up to nearly $800 billion a year. What defense cuts?

      Rumsfeld cut defense even further preferring fast and light special forces units to any other. Gates continues to cut, but there are never cost savings. Cost cutting to Gates meant an increase of 1% in the budget instead of the 5-7% they have received every year over the last decade.

      The three largest Federal expenditures are Social Security, defense, and debt service. If more attention was paid to the last two, we might just get out of this economic crisis. But I’m not counting on it with these Keynesian fools in charge.

      This is exactly what happened to the Soviet Union. Military spending, particularly in the Middle East, brought down their whole government. Think about that, because that is the path we are on. If the whole things collapses, how would that help California defense contractors?

      • Thomas Bonsell

        October 12, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        If you think military spending was the sole reason the Soviet Union collapsed, please think about why the political right has been running up debt for three decades to almost unsustainable levels in this country, leaving it to the left to try to solve the problem. Is it to cause the collapse of the US of A? Such as making government so weak it can be drowned in a bathtub.

        There were other reasons the Soviet Union collapsed, one being that Soviet military troops stationed in Europe after the war would go home and tell everyone how the nations they were occupying had living standards far superior to Soviet standards. That caused great unrest in the USSR which Gorbachev tried to address but was too late.

        I know, you righties want to credit Ronald Reagan as the sole reason the Soviet Union collapsed because he had some sort of fairy dust he scattered to the wind. That raises the question: If he had some sort of magic formula, why didn’t he use it against China, Cuba, Vietnam or other nations you claim are communist?

        • woody188

          October 18, 2010 at 8:44 pm

          Military spending was the main factor in the Soviet default on debt that started the cascade of reform for that nation. The same will hold true for the USA.

          Aren’t our soldiers coming home and asking everyone why we are putting them in harms way in a desert to guard poppy fields for people that do not want us there? Why have we spent over a trillion dollars and sent over 300,000 people around the world chasing down 3,000 alleged terrorists? Will the War on Terror ever end? Doesn’t this foment the same unrest?

          It has been a stated goal of the very far right to spend us so deeply into debt that they would be forced to cancel social programs like Social Security in the name of “austerity measures” to rein in debt. We are well on that pathway thanks to both parities shared reckless spending.

          Yes, I’m a “righty” so far as a Jeffersonian Liberal is considered on the right nowadays. I don’t recall mentioning Reagan or even giving him any credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s something you’ve come up with on your own.

          It would be a good idea to stop blaming the other side and see both parties are guilty and in need of a shake down if anything is to ever change. If you are caught up in finger pointing across the aisle, then you are a part of the problem and not part of the solution.

  7. Eve

    October 9, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    How can he say with a straight face that he will protect the Constitution after he voted to make the PATRIOT Act permanent?

    Frankly, his word is worthless.
    -Woody188

    Excellent point Woody. Well said.

    Americans have been asleep too long. ESPN and American Idol equate to “bread and circuses” in the time of Rome.

    Rome didn’t end so well.

    • Carl Nemo

      October 9, 2010 at 10:00 pm

      “Rome didn’t end so well”…extract from post

      Spot-on Eve. : ) We have economic barbarians at the gate right now and soon we’ll be reduced to an abject “banana republic” under permanent martial law with a “stongman” running the country with a bunch of hand-clapping simps; the U.S. Congress rubber stamping the “dear leader’s” policies. : |

      Carl Nemo **==

  8. Almandine

    October 10, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    Boehner and the rest of his ilk need to be informed that they will be dismissed em masse if they don’t come thru with their promised reforms.

  9. neondog

    October 11, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    I wouldn’t put much stock in reminding Boehner…especially from those that voted twice for that phoney president “Bailout Bush”.

    For the “Remembering America as it Wasn’t” crowd:
    Bail-outs are nothing new.

    RepubliCON-Nixon/1971- $3.2 Billion-Penn Central Rail Road
    RepubliCON-Nixon/1971- $1.4 Billion-Lockheed

    Democrat Carter/1980- $4.0 Billion-Chrysler

    RepubliCON-Reagan/1984- $9.5 Billion Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Company
    RepubliCON-Bush/1989- $293.3 Billion Savings & Loan Industry

    RepubliCON-Bush/2001- $18.6 Billion The Airline Industry
    RepubliCON-Bush 2008- $30 Billion Bear Stearns
    RepubliCON-Bush 2008- $400 Billion Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
    RepubliCON-Bush 2008- $180 Billion AIG
    RepubliCON-Bush 2008- $25 Billion Auto Industry (including Ford)
    RepubliCON-Bush 2008- $700 Billion Toxic Asset Relief Program
    RepubliCON-Bush 2008- $280 Billion Citigroup
    RepubliCON-Bush 2008- $142.2 Billion Bank of America

    Democrat-Obama 2009- $50 Billion General Motors/$15B Chrysler

  10. Almandine

    October 12, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Don’t forget the $787B NON-stimulus plan, the $150B recovery and reinvestment act, the $75B home affordability plan, the $26B states bailout, and the $100Bs of “quantative easing” pumped into the economy that has had no discernible effect except to put us further into debt. I guess that why the national debt under the big O has increased more than the total accumulated debt from Washington thru Reagan, and with QE2 and QE lite on the way… it’s no wonder that the debt will exceed annual GDP in 2012, if not sooner.

    For perspective: http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/08/Obamas-National-Debt-Dwarfs-Bushs-and-Reagans.html

    • neondog

      October 12, 2010 at 10:59 am

      No mention of the RepubliCON $1 Trillion off the books tax payer funded Iraq war….as for norm, when we need a chuckle You never dissapoint…

      Now remind me once again of how many RepubliCONs oppose the Department of Agriculture’s control of farm production. Followed by another empty dissertation on the evils of Obama socialism?

    • Guardhouse Lawyer

      October 12, 2010 at 11:26 am

      From the blog you cited:

      Under Obama, the new spending along with the projected tax increases that will occur when he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire will lead to a decline in future federal revenues, making the new total debt–nearly half of which has been amassed under the current president alone–something that may handicap the U.S. economy for at least a generation.

      Obama is going to “let” the tax cuts expire? LET? That is a pile of horse puckies about ten feet high. Blame on Obama the failure of the Congress to get off its ass and do something, anything! How anyone could put any stock in what that guy has to say after that.

      But it gets better:

      The increase in taxes will lead to a decrease in Government revenue. Who would have thought! Perhaps I need to tell my boss to cut my salary to zero so my income can go to infinity.

      How can anyone possibly be that muddle-headed twice on one sentence?

      • Almandine

        October 12, 2010 at 1:50 pm

        There you go again… grab a most picayune part of any argument and attack it as if that’s all the meat you can find. Clearly, the size of the current deficit / debt numbers have muddled your mind.

        As for your 2nd point…

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

        • Thomas Bonsell

          October 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm

          Talk about confusion and discredited sources of info.

          Do you not know that a new president’s policies cannot take effect on the day he is inaugurated? It sometimes takes more than a year to start making a difference, maybe longer if the problem is severe. The “deficit” you credit to Barack Obama was from the budget George Bush left him. It takes considerable time to create the budget and the Obama team couldn’t come up with a massive budget in hours, it was several months in making by the previous administration.

          Obama could only ask for supplemental funds to address the problem. TARP was Bush’s baby and some economic experts say it was a success and may even produce a SURPLUS when it is all paid back. That being the only positive act Bush made. Obama’s spending – much of it being planned by Bush’s people – is also credited by those same “experts” as preventing a depression, saving vital US industries and their jobs, saving millions of jobs that state governments were planning to eliminate, etc.

          Did you prefer the 750,000 jobs LOST EACH MONTH under Bush to the meager job growth in the private sector under Obama? The jobs being lost under Obama were government jobs. Thought you righties wanted fewer government jobs. About 350,000 government jobs have gone, according to news reports, which means the meager job growth in the private sector also reflects replacement jobs for government reductions.

          You could also study to find that job growth is the LAST thing to recover when coming out of a recession, and jobs will take longer to come back now because this GOP/conservative recession was extraordinarily severe.

          • Almandine

            October 12, 2010 at 7:11 pm

            The list of spending I cited above had nothing to do with Bush, and the negative effects of O’s spending have taken only 19 months to become reality. TARP was indeed signed by Bush, and the big O and his Treasury Secretary are crowing about the returns that is bringing, as well as the implications of those returns for his own profligacy. I don’t buy that either.

            But perhaps in addition to all your other scholarly credentials… my, they grow at every turn… you can regale us with the nuts and bolts of the Keynesian fallacy that drives such belief in “spending our way out of debt.” Can’t use inflation, though – that’s reserved for the Austrians among us to show why we’re going bankrupt.

            FYI – the difference between payroll tax receipts and offsetting trust fund expenditures for the entire period of 1992 thru 2000 (not just the so-called surplus years) did not produce a $1.54T savings to be turned into Treasury “debt”.

        • Guardhouse Lawyer

          October 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm

          Dearest al person:

          From the article you cited:

          “By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded.”

          The tax cuts that supposedly boosted the economy were not personal income tax cuts.

          And I again ask you to stop with the personal attacks. It is not helpful to discussions and just creates more bad feelings. Tempting though it is, I have not stooped to your level, nor will I do so. But meanness accomplishes exactly nothing.

      • Almandine

        October 12, 2010 at 6:53 pm

        Had the big O told his Dem stooges, “Pass a bill to preserve all Bush tax cuts and I’ll sign it,” it would already be law. So yeah, if they expire it will be because he LET them do so. It was his 2% solution that has kept it from happening… remember – we can’t give the rich a $700B gift.

        As if it was someone else’s money he was talking about.

        • Thomas Bonsell

          October 12, 2010 at 7:48 pm

          Maybe your disregard for Keynesian economics ought to be used to do some research on the Great Depression where it was first tried.

          In eight years (between 1933 and 1941, before the advent of WWII) the economy grew at a rate above 15%. If you disregard the two years lost when FDR gave it to conservative whining and cut spending to balance the budget, the economy grew over the six positive years at better than 20%.

          That to you know-nothings is Keynensian fallacy?

          • Thomas Bonsell

            October 12, 2010 at 8:03 pm

            PS:

            Under “Keynesian fallacy” unemployment fell from 24.9% in fiscal year 1933 to 9.9% in fiscal year 1941. (fiscal years at the time ended in the summer, i.e. fiscal year 1933 began in July 1932 and ended at the end of June 1933. Than means fiscal year 1941 ended in June 1941, many months before WWII, so don’t give me that right-wing crap about the war ending the Great Depression.)

          • Almandine

            October 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm

            Tell it to the Japanese… they still can’t get it right – AND they have the savings to back it up should it work.

            Perhaps a read of America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard would disabuse you of your own fallacy regarding the efficacy of Keynesianism.

            You’re correct – WWII was not the savior.

  11. Carl Nemo

    October 19, 2010 at 11:37 am

    “The “American Dream” is under siege by an out-of-control federal government that doesn’t listen to its people,” …extract fm article

    What’s most interesting about this lead line is that John Boehner has been instrumental in launching the seige against this nation and our way of life. He’s voted for continual war funding at every turn, expensive bailout packages etc.
    Worse yet it’s long since known the war on Iraq was launched on “cooked” intel and our incursion into Afghanistan at current levels is unwarranted and simply wasting our national assets in the form of more debt.

    We’re reading the words of the epitome of a “liar incarnate” in this article.

    What’s tragic is the current batch of “Demoncrats” and their leadership are cut from the same cloth.

    It’s time for every last one of them to flushed from the halls of Congress and start with a new batch. If they don’t work out then we can continuously operate the handle until we get some clear water in the bowl. : |

    Carl Nemo **==

  12. eve

    October 21, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    It’s time for every last one of them to flushed from the halls of Congress and start with a new batch.
    -Carl Nemo

    Truer words were never spoken. Great point Carl.