« Lights At Both Ends of the Tunnel | Main | Surprise! Copenhagen ends with a deal »

18 December 2009

Comments

Mikey McD

Just add The American Redistribution and Re-election Act of 2009 to the extremely long list of government atrocities. Imagine the joy around the world if our hopey-changy politician's decided to return the unspent 88% of the ARRA. Imagine the joy if our hopey-changy tyrants actually credited the treasury with the paid back TARP funds (instead of slaying other government birthed dragons). For the life of me I cannot understand where faith in government comes from.

Steve Enos

Hope-changy tyrants?... wasn't it Bush and his buddies that stared the bailouts after it all crashed on his watch? Why no mention of that?

Mikeymcd

Steve, by changy I meant change. My point is just that... Nothing has changed. P. S. I was critical of bush (and his big government "republicans") b4 it was cool. My anger exists because no politicians care about liberty- dems or repubs. And gov continues to grow at the expense of our liberty. Collectivism is code for tyranical.

Mikeymcd

Anyone with children, tax bills, savings, or a love for liberty should be extremely angry (or they are simply not intelligent). Obama would score big points if he gave Americans back the 88% of unspent aara funds- it would show integrity and be very hopy/changy.

Steve Enos

Funny how any mention of how we got here and Bush and his clan don't seem to make it into the discussions. Life did not start the day President Obama took office, but most bash away and never mention what happened for 8 years under Bush.

Dixon Cruickshank

Steve - Bush was not King and we had a Democratic controlled congress just like we do now - only we have a Democrat in the WH too now. Are you going to join Obama in blaming the falling crime rate on Bush too. The Democrats and Obama whined about the defict all during the campaign - where is it now ??? we're sneaking up on a gazillion

Steve Enos

Dixin, do you care to revise your statment that Bush operated under a Demorcatic congress for his terms. You might wnat to check on that.

Russ

Steve,

I am having a hard time with the Democratic position that the Bush economic policies are responsible for the declining economy, and will be for the next four years or more. On the other hand the Democrats make it clear that Reagan was not responsible for any of the economic growth that took place under Clinton. How would you reconcile this discrepancy in logic. How could Reagan policies have no influence to Clinton economy and Bush have extraordinary influence on the Obama economy? Really? Please explain?

Steve Enos

Russ, I do not represent the "Democratic position". The issue I raised was very clear...

Funny how any mention of how we got here and Bush and his clan don't seem to make it into the discussions. Life did not start the day President Obama took office, but most bash away and never mention what happened for 8 years under Bush.

The comments to this entry are closed.