Darwin your ignorance continues. Our nation has not been debt free since ~1830; that is more than 175 years ago. Sad that a self reported research assistant still can't look up her own facts.

RAF, you might want to go back past the Bush years to other debts and deficits. Are you really this much of a self-righteous ignoramous that you can't even look at the facts of the past. Your policy ideas will only return us to a recession, however, when that happens I am sure you and the rest will do the cowardly thing and shirk responsibility while blaming everyone else.

Wow, the ignorant keep peddling ridicules statements, "Every debt and deficit has been wiped out in the past from growth"

If this was even close to true our nation would not be +13 trillion dollars in debt and growing.

There are no similarities with regard to the circumstances of the WWII debt and today's debt. Consider the reasons for of each debt; to whom the debt was/is owed; our spirit as a nation and our relative standing in the world. This current debt is more like a Ponzi scheme -- frantically working to hide the sad truth that what everyone believed to have been genuine economic gain was merely an illusion financed by debt. There are no similarities. None, zip, nadda...

RAF, your comment wasn't the dumbest thing I ever read, but you are competing with the other dimwits. Every debt and deficit has been wiped out in the past from growth: WWII debt and deficits which were the largest in our nations history were wiped out after the war was over because of growth. Again, those pesky facts getting in the way of your conservative dogma.

I don't know either, Mudsill. I'd rather cling to optimistic Pollyanna visions of apple pie and the land of the free but my money is on there being some sort of revolution in our future. We remain the greatest nation on Earth as discouraging trends keep piling up. Meanwhile, pockets scattered around the world are experiencing positive trends, exactly opposite of ours. Good for them - bad for us. A few years ago, I sat down the kids and grandkids to offer one piece of advice -- that someday they may find themselves faced with an opportunity to leave the United States for what promises to be a better place to call home. If and when that does happen, many Americans will remain blindly patriotic and loyal, while all the evidence is telling them otherwise. Where liberty exists isn't important. It's not the land that makes a nation great. Happy liberty day!

werpknarly, you are confusing deficits with debt.

Deficits are based on just a single budget year; outlays vs. receipts. A surplus would mean the government received more than they spent.

Debt is totals of all deficits.

The fallacy of being debt free under clinton is a big one. There were periods that receipts eclipsed outlays (surplus) under the terms of that budget; while the country still had a large debt. When in theory, any collected receipts beyond the budget should go directly to debt payoff or back to the tax payers.

The claims of budget surplus are just that a math/accounting statement not met by realistic money management.

I don't know about that being Darwin1's worst post. Maybe we should put it to a vote. He is 100% correct about uncertainty, though. That is the elephant in the room. Who knows what bizarro world initiative our clowns in Washington will push forward next? As for growing out of this debt, the best we can hope for is some unforeseen snafu befalling Southeast Asia. Baring that, I anticipate many years of decline and stagnation ahead of us here at home, while hoping that I am dead wrong on that. Happy 4th.

werpknarly - where are your numbers coming from? 9 years ago we were about $5.7 trillion in debt.

before anyone assumes, we needed to defeate those who attacked us on 9/11.... BUT we did not two take our eyes off the ball and chase imaginary "yellow cake" and WMD in IRAQ. now we have to messes instead of one sucess... anyone remember that even Iran was on our side in afganistan?.. they had just elected a western leaning president and were demanding more freedoms... UNTIL a foregin power had armies on both their eastern and western boarder.

RAF.... why are we in this much debt? we were near zero 9 years ago... what happened? two wars (how'd overextended war work for any nation?), Tax breaks for the rich ( how did trickle down economics work during reagen terms, like getting pee'd on? )... LETS give the country back to those who ran it into this ditch... Without goverment spending, who will make things happen that will improve the economy.. AND if those dollars are spent on infrustucture, NOT war, the results will be a much stronger economy in the future.

"Every deficit in the past was wiped out rather quickly by growth."
-
This is close to the dumbest thing you have ever said. If the deficits were wiped out the country would not be +13 Trillion in debt.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with deficit spending. There is a reason even Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter because they don't. Every deficit in the past was wiped out rather quickly by growth. However, growth is difficult when there is so much uncertainty in the political process. The Republicans just oppose everything because that is the easy route; too busy keeping up the tan, mistress or apologizing to BP. Actually drafting legislation would be the hard part. According the the Economist, the banks are banking on the Republicans. Anyways, if deficits were an actual problem we would have inflation and a depreciating dollar, we have neither. Strange how facts get in the way of Republican ideology.

Like blinders to that fact that what Republicans were for, and pushing to get into law, when Bush was President are now deemed off limits because the Democrats are in charge? Examples are health care reform, with the insurance mandate, also immigration reform. There were Republicans calling for both of those until the Party decided to say "no". Across the board cuts will hurt programs that are doing what they are supposed to be doing, while cutting the wasteful, most expensive(Defense, tax cuts, unfunded Medicare, the wars) parts of the budget will only be minimally trimmed. You have to cut where the big money is, not concentrate on the small things only. Any "wasteful' program should be cut, but who decides if it is wasteful?

"the Republicans have offered nothing to help this country out"
-
Another fallacy. Proposals have been made. Compromises have been offered. Continually wearing blinders will prevent you from seeing things that are there.

"What spending do you want to cut"
-
"If" congress cannot stop the wasteful spending then all of it across the board.

"if you lose income(tax cuts) you reduce spending".. Did they? No, and it has led to increased deficits and debt. What spending do you want to cut, the wars, Medicare(Republicans howling already even though they offered the same cuts), defense? There is only so much to cut, according to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities , $500 billion of the deficit last year was directly from the tax cuts and the wars. Counting the AMT fix, over 40% of the Stimulus were tax cuts, a conservatives best friend, yet Obama was excoriated for it. Talk about hypocrisy! I don`t agree with everything that Obama and the Democrats are doing, but the Republicans have offered nothing to help this country out of the recession. A trillion for the wars, two trillion in tax cuts, a trillion for the 2003 Medicare bill, and all the increased costs associated with borrowing that money, and it was all borrowed, and we wonder where the deficits come from. It`s staring us in the face! But, let`s not borrow a few billion for unemployment because of the deficit we already created. The Party that turned a possibility of paying off the debt in ten years when they came into the Presidency in 2001 into multi trillion dollar debt now pretending to be deficit conscious is what is ludicrous!

Its seem everytime Pharm makes a good point the subject gets changed.

Pharm spending is the ONLY way to increase, create, or add to deficits (that create debt), it is truly sad the left, many on these blogs, and most politicians cant grasp that.

To make it simple, if you don't spend money you have not created debt. Adding entitlements such as the new healthcare bill is the same as spending; it REQUIRES payments from the government.

Not sure why those that oppose letting people keep their own money insist on saying it causes government debt....just ludicrous.

The only way you can personally create a home budget deficit is to spend more money than you make. If you lose income you reduce your spending...not hard math.

Control spending and there is no problem...since politicians live to hand out money (spend) there are problems that never end. Until the voters stand-up and complain taxes will increase as will spending. Of course leaving your head in the sand pretending it is ok or will change won't fix it.

The Federal and state, governments have dictated the way business operates for years. Laws are rules.

The government is just writing rules, as before, and as the states do. There is no takeover.

For the completely unschooled, tax cuts, with no spending cuts, increase, add to, and balloon deficits and debt.

For the unschooled, tax cuts don't add to, increase, or create deficits; spending does.

Correction, the quote attributed to Robert Bixby of the Concord coalition was actually uttered by Concord Coalition Chief Economist Diane Lim Rogers. She went on to add, "President Obama and Congress face a policy choice regarding extensions of the expiring tax cuts. In fact, Congress will have to write and pass new legislation,which President Obama will have to sign, in order to keep any of the Bush tax cuts beyond 12/31/2010. They will then become the Obama tax cuts, and not the Bush tax cuts, and they will still add nearly $2 trillion to the deficits." From the Concord Coalition website dated 3/20/2009.

CBO? Where did I say that? If you can prove any of those people or organizations I quoted wrong, go ahead. Haven`t had much time to read these postings, my girlfriend has terminal cancer, just home from hospice, and I`ve been dealing with our jumbled health care system.

I know I`ve said this before but, the only way I know to put up a link is to copy it on paper and then type it in. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I gave the names of those quoted, along with their organizations, if you want you can find it.You could always just believe me!(snicker, snicker!) I don`t want to put up a link like yours that is provably false with one glance. Concord Coalition, CBPP, American Enterprise Institute, OMB, they are not hard to find.

kiowamohican, M3 has negative growth the likes of which haven't been seen since the early 1930s. That means the overall money supply is going down.

I agree that we don't want HUGE inflation, but the Fed has tools to combat that. With interest rates as low as they are now, they don't have the proper tools to combat deflation. Even though a lot of people think its a bad word- some inflation is good for economic growth and especially getting people back to work.

Funny how that Heritage chart shows Bush as having surpluses for 2000, and 2001, when he didn`t propose a budget, or have one passed for either of those years. The only thing he contributed to the year 2001 was to cut the surplus by the amount, about $40 billion, of his first tax rebate.

To those that argue tax cuts increase revenue to the government, Alan D. Viard, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. Tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, but it doesn`t mean that they(the cuts) gained revenue." Since 1962, only in five years has revenue gone down, and three of those years were 2001,2,3. Revenue wet up the fourth year, to the level of Clinton`s last year, but it only reached 18.4% of GDP, right where OMB says the 40 year average lies. As for the Reagan tax cut in 1981, don`t forget he raised taxes three times in 1982 and 1983,, one of those the largest peacetime(yes, larger than Clinton`s!) raise ever, before the revenue grew. Hard to credit a cut versus three raises for revenue growth.

When Bush`s first budget started, October 1, 2001, the Federal debt was $5.8 trillion. When his last budget ended, September 30, 2009, with a $1.4 trillion deficit, $200 billion because of Obama`s stimulus, the debt was $11.9 trillion. Can you show me where Obama has tripled or quadrupled the debt, or even the deficit? According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, February 7, 2010, "Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous(Bush) administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade." $7-8 trillion will be added to the debt because of the recession, the wars, the unfunded 2003 Medicare bill, and most of all, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. If Obama extends the Bush tax cuts he deserves to be blamed for growing the debt higher than it should be. 3/20/2009. from the Executive Director of the Concord Coalition, Robert L. Bixby, " The biggest single proposal in the Obama budget contributing to the deterioration in the 10 year budget outlook is not spending on bailouts, or stimulus, or even longer term health care reform, and not temporary tax cuts that are designed to provide immediate stimulus to the economy at only near term cost, but rather permanent extension of most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts." Simple to balance the budget, stop the wars, repeal the tax cuts, pay for the Medicare Drug bill, and grow our way out of the recession. Do you really think Obama, or McCain, or anybody else can pass those things now?

No use arguing amongst yourselves about a budget surplus under Clinton when the Federal government, the Office of Management and Budget, in their official government reports,say that Clinton had four budget surpluses, amounting to $559 billion. It was used to pay down public debt. Argue with the way the government does their accounting if you disagree.

The Feds money supply has actually increased near three fold in 2009. Normally that would spur huge inflation; however, the money has no velocity behind it. It's simply parked in the banks. They are to scared to loan it, and have simply used it to shore up their balance sheets. If you ever do have a economic recovery, you will then have major inflation fears, as all that $$$$ will come up of parking so to speak, and have velocity behind it. Keep in mind that throughout history huge inflation problems usually always arise post a period of deflation.

RAF said, "I doubt spending levels will stay where they are now when a new congress is seated". Do you really believe that after the 2000 - 2006 period of Republican control? The only thing that will happen is tax-cuts on dividends, estates, and capital gains will be extended, plus there will be much talk about protecting the 2nd amendment and overturning Roe vs. Wade, but only talk. Per meerkat's comment, I think a better alternative is to remove the upper income thresholds on social security and Medi-care taxes. That won't happen though with a Republican congress.

future, that is one scenario. I doubt spending levels will stay where they are now when a new congress is seated.

This So called Budget crisis. We have to put the word crisis in there, will be used as a tool to raise retirement age, cut social security, take away medicare and all the other little extras for the common people.

Cutting taxes does nothing to the money supply. A market crash does nothing to the money supply. Borrowing money and spending it doesn't add to the money supply.

I'll spare you an Econ 101 lecture, but I have to ask: where did you go to school?

RAF: The last 15 years our economy has grown in large part to additional debt (money) that has been pumped into it by the housing boom. The latter years it was artificially inflated because a lot of that debt (money) was no good. When the market collapsed that money disapeared. There are generally two ways that you can increase the money supply. 1 is to cut taxes (which Obama did) and two is to add spending (which Obama did). Additional money added to the money supply by the stimulus package only partially offset the money that disapeared after the housing collapse. That is why we are worried about deflation more than inflation at the present time. Businesses generally don't grow in deflationary periods. When businesses don't grow they don't hire people. Politicians like to tell people that the end of the world is coming becauses that leads people to the ballot box. Unfortunetly it also leads to the inability for people to sit down and come up with real solutions and instead spout off on how evil the current administration is (no matter which party happens to be in charge).

RetiredAirForce, here's the scenario if we vote out Democratic incumbents in November:

GW tax cuts are extended. Government spending does not change. Deficit accelerates even further.

Obumma!

Here is the reality of where we are and what is coming.

Currently this administration and congressional leadership are spending money at a record pace. They have decided not to put forth a budget this year until after the election, because they don’t want you to see the numbers---afraid of losing their jobs come November. The stimulus (multiple) programs put into practice have resulted in record spending, record deficits, record debt, record size of government, high levels of unemployment, unrest in the financial community, and continued unrest in the investor community. Businesses are not hiring because they have no idea what their expenses will be; health care and taxes (coming). Energy companies are skittish because they don’t know the outcome of pending legislation that will cripple them (cap+trade).

What is next?

Soon after the election, before the lame duck congress leave town, a budget will be announced that will raise tax levels resulting in more crippling of an ailing economy that will still be blamed on the last president...

Really folks, you have to stop it!!!! Obama, and deficit reduction in the same sentence!??!!? C'mon, my sides they are a splittin'!!

Interesting those that claim a budget surplus under a portion of Clinton forget at the same time there still was a national debt. Any surplus, meaning receipts beyond spending during a fiscal year, should be spent directly paying off national debt. Don't let the small things get in the way of reality.

Speaking of lies and distortions...where is the many trillion dollar budged deficit from the Bush era, NVgrf. Come on, you mentioned it earlier...lets see some facts on that. Oh wait, you DISTORTED the facts and used Clintons BUDGET surplus numbers against the TOTAL national debt during the Bush administration. Come on NVgrf, I guess it takes someone who distorts facts to know others who do.

jv92, this isn't my philosophy. This is reality. If government gets serious about reducing debt we need an offset in the money supply. This offset will come in the form of economic growth. As economic growth continues only then can government get serious about reducing debt. Talk of reducing the debt in the short term is just lip service by both parties trying to win votes -or- by politicians who need a course in economics.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or Beck. Just like I don't listen to all the left knobs out there. I open my eyes, look around and see the reality of it. Name calling and sides right now, does nothing. Fact. Obama is a poor President. I don't care if you are a Democrat or a Republican.

NVgrf - Believe it or not, some of us are realistic. We don't need tv, talk shows and name calling do realize the facts. Are you saying the dollars being spent, the reality of the economy, jobs, what it's going to cost Americans and on and on is all false?

spark...The problem at its core is that the facts get in the way of current right wing Republican thinking. They interfere with the lies and distortions offered by their primary sources; Limbaugh and Beck.

andre_linoge, Walter Annenberg (whose money established the center, and whose foundation continues to support it) was a longtime Republican donor and fundraiser and even a personal friend of the Reagans. Do you imagine he would have started a secret liberal think tank? The center itself is run by a university, and is not partisan or engaged in any partisan activities.

Hey Noleftist,
Were you being sarcastic when you used the word "investing?" Sorry, I chuckled when I saw that.

Facts are facts. Complain about where they come from all you want. Like I said, your Congressional Budget Office post is missing one major thing. Obamas record which in the short amount of time is awful. How ironic.

spark....I use the Congressional Budget Office, and you use a right wing publication. Once you righties begin looking at nonpartisan publications, we can talk.

spark: Once I saw that your weblink was to The Heritage Foundation, I read no further. I have nothing wrong with that group, but it is definitely NOT nonpartisan. Yesterday, in fact, I received in the mail my pocket-sized copy of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution from The Heritage Foundation. I found it free on the internet and figured that I would be a better person if I read those documents again. Anyway, The Heritage Foundation has put out a nice freebie and I appreciate it. However, I could have done without the letter that came with it. This Heritage Foundation blames everything except one's happiness on President Obama. I tossed the letter but am keeping my pocket-sized official copy of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. It's really cool; it even has a nice colored cover.

Borrowing is cheap now - you are correct. The thing is, they aren't borrowing and putting it in a money-market account, they're busy investing it in US AID studies of the social mileu of male prostitutes in Vietnam (I am not kidding) and paying Coast Guard officers to delay barges from skimming oil from the Gulf to ensure they have life jackets and fire extinguishers on board (again, I'm not kidding).

The feds under Obama have no intention or plan to ever pay this money back: it's gone. When borrowing costs go up and you can't pay it back, that's when you start having issues.

It's funny - the Greeks said the same thing about their borrowing costs when they were so low, and look where it got them.

Please take your inanities elsewhere.

Hey answer,
What do you think our lenders are planning? Is china an ally? They fully understand the best way to get the US to bow to their interests worldwide is to get us bent over a barrel financially. Your philosophy would have us at the mercy of people who hate us. Great strategy. Another question. Is it good for your personal financial situation to borrow money just because you can? I mean, I can get a credit card right now with 0% interest rate with a credit limit of 25K. Let's rack it up! Make any sense to you? Owe people money and they OWN you.

Actually what Janesvillian said is 100% correct. The government is still borrowing at very low rates. If lenders really saw our current debt as a problem those rates would go up. They aren't. In fact what we have now is deflationary pressure. If the government cut borrowing this would cause a decrease in the money supply, further deflation, and have drastic implications on the economy.

futurerichguy - Read the article closely. They aren't saying one President is better than the other. They are saying, Obama is on the same (actually worse) path as past Presidents for spending. I'm not going to blame past Presidents for every mistake. I'm looking at the current President. He is failing miserably. I don't even want to discuss taxes. We're all going to see what's going to happen to taxes very soon during a time when nobody has any money.

Spark, note that deficit spike in 2009 occurred under GW's fiscal budget, which was passed in Oct. of 2008. The deficit could be eliminated quickly if we made the two GW foreign wars disappear and reversed the GW tax-cuts.

Janesvillean,
When you have communist countries warning you about over spending on social programs, you should pay attention.

I never ever thought somebody would try to convince me that night is actually day.

Rock County unemployment is 10.4%. This is not good, but it's not 18.2%, either.
.
The fact is that business and consumer demand have not recovered, and government stimulus remains needed to pump cash into the economy. The deficit hawks are out in force with their loud, and very wrong, propaganda that we need to cut these deficits. It's not just American politics, either -- it's across the Western world. This is the same conventional wisdom that led to the second recession amid the Great Depression, after the US cut spending in 1937. State and local spending is also declining drastically since most of these entities are on a balanced budget or PAYGO requirement, and tax receipts, as well as other revenue, are down significantly. With this projected decline in spending, unemployment is only due to increase.
.
There is no imminent danger from high spending, as government debt sales (bond prices) remain affordable in comparison to most of the last 30 years. This indicates that the market is comfortable with increased spending, not the opposite.

Here's some facts for you.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past...

NVgrf - That's funny. I can't wait to see that same chart you posted with Obama attached to it when it's all over. Considering his plan was apparently going to cut the deficit in half, yet he has already quadrupled it instead. Now that's a fact.

I doubt if the right wing boys who "contribute" here want to read anything from the Congressional Budget Office because it is nonpartisan when their diet is Fox News, but for those who seek FACTS, here they are:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/du...

The audacity of deceit, pretension, and demagoguery. George W. supersized.

ha ha ha ha ha!!! I couldn't stop laughing after reading just the title of the article and the first sentence - "Obama declared Wednesday he intends to get 'our debt and our deficits under control.'" Stop it!!! Seriously!!!

NVgrf - Your Kool Aid is spiked.

It's just a matter of time before investors and employers realize that the higher taxes they're going to be forced to pay are really for the common good, as defined by well-meaning enlightened Democrats who really appreciate the value of hard work and entrepreneurship.

After they do realize this, you'll see a big jump in investments and jobs (because right now such people, having been swimming in the cesspool called private enterprise, are still ignorant greedy haters). Once they come to realize the errors of their ways, start making decisions not based on their sinful greed and by extension evil capitalist tools like return on investment, the economy will turn around.

Tie this new epiphany amongst the lowly, greedy pivateers with President Obama's stimulus and balooning federal employment and regulations, and new jobs are right around the corner. All you right wing haters will be proven soooooo wrong - just you wait and see!

Get our debt and spending under control? This would be after the $900 billion dollar "stimulus" package that didn't do jack crap to create jobs, despite what the president's economic magicians proclaim. I'm reminded of a saying regarding closing a barn door after the horses are out.

"The president seemed to enjoy the moment. And earlier, on his way into town, Obama found a different slice of happiness. At a pastry shop."

"Eat your jelly donut, you eat it, they're payin for it!" Gunnery Sgt Hartmann Full Metal Jacket.

Sarah,
You make a great point, we don't need them all. I would add to that one point. If you ever go to DC, go up in the Washington Monument, the view is beautiful but also enlightening. There are endless and I do mean endless rows and rows of just government buildings housing programs, bureaus, committees, agencies, agencies to oversee agencies, separate departments to oversee the agencies. Like WI it has become one large employment agency all feeding from the trough of your hard earned tax payer money. Don't worry, none of those entities I listed above ever dies or is phased out, they live on forever, and the cycle continues. Each president republican and democrat adding to the pile. But hey, don't worry, they know what's best for your money. They'll put it to good use.

Sarah you have to change the constitution for that...

One way to start slashing the deficit is to permanently lay off half of the members of the House and Senate. Do we really need so many of them with their minimum $174,000 salaries, goldmine pensions and other benefits?

Look at the quote above him. I thought it was under god not vnder god?

Andre,
You know, you make a great point about the "surplus." We never really cut spending, we just increased taxes to a ridiculous level generating a lot of money coming into federal coffers. People automatically assume that Clinton's "balanced budget" cut spending but that really is not true.

The reason were in this mess is the bank bail outs. That's ok to let the banks play high risk games with everyone money only to lose it. That's ok because the government will have to bail us out(the banks).

That's your intelligent response? You cannot be serious. That's all you have. Do you honestly believe Bill truly created a surplus? Give it to me, I'm waiting for a good laugh.

Bush vs. Obama deficit... http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush...
.
and NVgrf, stop trying to compare Clinton's budget surplus with the total debt during the Bush administration...two totally different things. The US owed more than $5 trillion at the end of the Clinton era.

In order to get our nations finances under control the congress would NEED to put forth a budget this year; a constitutional job requirement. This congress has decided, nope, not going to do one until after the election.

To bad no one in the media is willing to ask the president why this is a good idea.

The answer is easy. After the voters see the next budget, when delayed until after the election, it will be too late to hold those people responsible. The lengths this party will go to is terrible; another stunning example of the failed two party system.

After watching some of that town hall meeting today I was amazed how the man Obama talks down to Americans. He really thinks we have no intelligence except that what he wants you to know. Scary part is many Americans are that gullible and that easy to control.

NVgrf--please read the attached link. All Clinton did was borrow massive amounts of money from the Social Security holdings to pay down the public debt. Even democrats are not stupid enough to play the "A Democratic administration left the Republican administration with a surplus" card because it is in no way true.....
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

jv92...Pleeeeeease!

NVGRF,
That surplus was the result of some very "creative" accounting.

But exfib for a major portion of the population that's how you get re-elected, you promise them things they cannot obtain on their own. Many times these are folks who have made poor decisions, are jealous, or simply down on their luck through no fault of their own. If a person shows up and says hey I'll give you this for free and he'll take from those evil rich people, that guy is going to get elected. They see government's role as a vehicle to engineer and create social justice which is a false hope.

andre....Do some research. We had a surplus when Clinton left office and a multi-trillion deficit when Bush left. Anyone who can honestly sit there and blame our current President for this is either ignorant or a liar.

"Their prescription for every challenge is pretty much the same — and I don't think I'm exaggerating here: basically cut taxes for the wealthy, cut rules for corporations and cut working folks loose to fend for themselves," he said.
-
-
Well, let's see here.... The wealthiest 10% percent of Americans pay 90% of the taxes, so I have no problem with a tax cut here. The corporations that have had the rules cut for them are the ones making the jobs for the citizens. And as far as working folks fending for themselves? That's how it should be! I don't want to rely on the government to tell me what to eat, where to get my healthcare, or to make me buy into a retirement I'll never see a dime of. Thanks but no thanks Mr. President, I'll take care of myself!

OUR president is doing a fine job,this country was left a mess when he took over.(iamLEGALcitizen)are you really legal??????

I'll second that........................I mean third.

The only blahers are the right wingers who hope the President and our nation fails. They are an embarassment to those trying to dig us out of the ruins of the last administration.

And more blah, blah, blah, blah.