Hard working citizens need to STOP the Marxist big government Obama agenda dead in its tracks

We, in Michigan appreciate the avoidance of the loss of millions of jobs in the auto sector. Much of the tarp has been payed back.

It is the responsibility of the president to fund current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons must be innumerated here because even Joe Scarboro has decided it is time to cut and run. As ill-advised as those wars were, to cut war funding leaves our troops facing and emboldened enemy while having less resources. A draw-down of forces costs more than maintaining those forces over the short term. Obama's response in Afghanistan, giving the military the surge and reviewing the result in one year, was the good choice of all poor choices available. If the military can help Afghanistan, the signs should be evident in that year. If this is a quagmire, that will also be evident. The losses and sacrifice of our military should not be walked away from without giving them a chance for success. But the war cannot be allowed to proceede with the current aims and strategy if there is to be no end. Lots of money there that may be wasted but I see no GOP offered strategy that continues pressure on Osama Bin Laden and ends the war. Obama must be credited with the Iraq war draw-down. It was only after he visited the country that Bush signaled the end of combat operations. (quibblers be advised that there is a DOD definition of "Combat Operations")

The health plan doesn't increase the deficit, in spite the self-serving predictions of the GOP to the contrary. Saving will be realized while profit of insurance companies will be held to 15%. Those that give huge bonuses to executives will have to compete with those who do not. The crying from BMW drivers will be audible, but they are only crying over the loss of one of their 8 vacation homes.

"Preparing for political life after a bruising election, President Barack Obama will put greater emphasis on fiscal discipline"

And we're supposed to believe that a wild spender will magically become a fiscal conservative??????????????

Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

In 8 full years, G W Bush increased the Public Debt by $2.4 Trillion, while Obama has increased it by over $3.2 in only 2 years.

Sorry Roy, but you're wrong. The debt increased by a massive $5 trillion under Bush 43. Ands he is the ONLY president to reduces taxes in a time of war. More spending and less revenues lead to higher debts. You can't play the fiscal conservative card when it suits you and be taken seriously.

The Republicans and the Democrats have yet to put forth a detailed plan to eliminate the budget deficit and reduce the national debt.

Todd M "Sorry Roy, but you're wrong."

Here is the information from the government records on the Public Debt at the end of each Fiscal Year;

Public Debt in 2000 = $3.405 Trillion.
Public Debt in 2008 = $5.809 Trillion.
Public Debt in 2010 = $9.023 Trillion.

Do the math for yourself.

Well Roy, here's where we have to debate. I am referencing numbers directly from the Treasury dept (, bureau of the debt)website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

This is the debt for the last decade. You can also reference the history of the debt. The debt is tallied at Sep 30, the end of the gov't fiscal year. as you can see the debt went from $1 trillion on Sep 30, 1981 (I'm giving Reagan some time because he was only in office for 8 months) to $2.6 trillion on 9/30/88 before he left office. Bush 41 increased it to $4.0 trillion before he left office in 4 years.

Bush 43 got it at $5.7 trillion in 2000(it didn't change between '99 and '00) and at 9/30/2008 it was at $10 trillion, but htius was before TARP which was passed in October 2008. So you can tack on another few billion, luckily though, in the end most of TARP will have been paid back. So let's sy $.3 trillion for Bush 43 in 8 years.

If you can provide a more reliable source of numbers for the debt than the Treasury depts bureau of the debt, then I would gladly discuss with you. The public portion of the debt is treasuries held by outsiders. The debt is treauries held by everyone, especially the federal reserve. What happens is the Fed buys the treasures to print more money for the government. While it seems like "fake" money, it is very real and the effect on the economy and the debt is very real. if the US Government was to default on any debt, even those held by the Federal Reserve, the effect would be cataclysmic.

I had a clreical error. I meant to type "$4.3 Trillion increase for Bush 43"

Todd M

Here is my source;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

I was referencing "Debt Held by the Public", which is the actual amount of money that we have borrowed from foreigners and investors. The difference between our figures is that you are including money that one government agency has borrowed from another government agency - Intragovernmental Holdings (in effect money that taxpayers owe themselves). The changes in the Debt Held by the Public is much more reflective of the Deficits each year.

I would argue that money we owe to third parties (other foreign governments and investors) is more important than money we owe ourselves. Borrowing from one government agency by another government agency has been going on for over 50 years.

Todd M "if the US Government was to default on any debt, even those held by the Federal Reserve, the effect would be cataclysmic."

With the power to print money at will, how could the Fed possibly 'default'? The answer is that they can't - they would merely start the printing presses and devalue the debt, which is how governments have always handled this problem in the past - See Weimar Republic in Germany or what's happening in Zimbabwe right now.

No country needs to default when they can pay their debts with worthless paper, and if we don't put a stop to the current Administration's wild spending, that could well be where we are heading.

Well Amy, don't you find it interesting how the Democratic Party is beginning to implode from within?

and the liberal pundits indicate the reverse? What spins the liberals do.

Sometimes the rats win.

It is up to the private sector to create jobs. As long a Republican business people refuse to hire, there will be NO jobs. They are using that as a political weapon.

SJC, I totally agree with you. I believe it is part of the strategy that was set forth by the republicans just after the president was elected, remember Limbaugh, McConnell, Demint and the others?

Well Ken, let's hope this never happens. I currently pay more for fuel that the average citizen, unless you also reside in CA, and my company fuel costs are high now. But I pay the cost and don't lay off workers who use the company cars. We don't have to detox the american consumer from imoported energy if we use American resources to provide our own fuel. We do have those resources, but the tree huggers, a small minority, control the congress on this presently.

Proven fact from the EU - clean fuel sources are more costly than fossil fuel. Carbon jobs end when alternative energy jobs are expanded.

Corn is not an inexpensive fule alternative. Look at the costs and the energy required to produce and deliver the raw materials.