Jebus? Oh, no wait, it'll be Richard Dawkins with Christopher Hitchens as the pontif/false prophet. Muahahahaha. *evil grin* Oh right -->

Be well, ~Alderic

The deficit was not Obama's making alone - 8 years under president Bush left its mark in the deficit as well and it was very high already.

It is pretty one sided to blame Obama for the huge deficit alone, and your style is horribly prejudicial and polemic and you even seem to be gleefully proud of using that particular style. Demagogue comes to mind.

The financial crisis and high unemployment would have been a problem for any president, so don't pretend it is solelly the result of Obama's 7 month presidency. That it asurd

It's also hard to blame it all on Bush.  When taking economy in high school, it was stated in my textbook that most economic problems are the result of something done 8-10 years before, because the economy takes a long time to fully adjust to a policy change.

So, that would mean today's depression is at least partially Clinton's fault.  At any rate it makes sense to me.  The economics book also talked about some of Clinton's rather clever accounting policies.

Did you know that before he was in office, the Social Security system was fine?  What Clinton did was transfer the national debt all onto Social Security, then used the supposed "surplus" to try and bail it back out of the hole he put it in.

Well it is also stupid to sit there and act like Obama is innocent in this matter.  Just look at all the crap he's ramming through Congress these days - bailouts, universal health care, etc.  When it comes to economics, he's a nitwit.  I understand more just from taking high school economics, such as the obvious fact that a bailout wouldn't work for the auto industry, and that universal health care will be expensive.  Imagine that - it will be expensive, but nobody thought to consider that point.  I wonder where that money is going to come from?

I wasn't blaming everything on Bush, I stated that he also had a part in it. I didn't exculpate Obama completely either, I said that he wasn't alone to blame for todays crisis and deficit. It all has a long development behind it and it's absurd to pin it all on one person or expect one person to solve all problems. I find talk like "Obama produced the highest deficit in history" ridiculous, because it implies that before he took over everything was fine and that it was just his policy so far that skyrocketed the national debt.

I can tell you where the money will come from - from you.

What it all comes down to is what sort of society you want to have, and since there is a huge ideological devide between whomever is in power at the moment and the other side, the current administration will always produce complaints and envoke the anger and wrath of the other side. Have you noticed how split your nation really seems to be.. maybe you'll have another seccession war lol, the communist hippies in california and the vegetarian intellectual atheist liberals from the east coast against the meat and potatoe bible belt southern gun loving rednecks, who have the constitution right next to the bible.. Ahem, my imagination ran away for a moment here - and if the seperation took effect the liberals would controll both coasts, so that couldn't be in the interest of the rednecks - red vs blue american style could be in your future

When I was a kid, about 13-14 more than 30 years ago now I started to read about this and then later study it pretty thoroughly.  Yes, it's detailed mostly in the book of Revelation and Daniel as a future event but many bible expositors have written about this for years and years and years. 

But back in the 70's it wasn't even a feasible thing to discuss because it seemed almost impossible. Cash was the norm and the bible says that during the  One World Order that nobody will be able to buy or sell without the number of the beast?  How could that be back then?  Couldn't.  

The world was so large and unreachable in many places.  The cold war prevented us from traveling anywhere we wished as many countries were closed.  It was a big deal for Billy Graham to be able to penetrate these communist countries like he did.  I believe he was God's last prophet.  Nobody's ever done what Billy Graham was able to do.  Nobody.

Anyhow as the world has shrunk with travel and communications and the cold war now over, it's very doable just as was predicted more than 2,000 years now.  And with our economy fast going down the toilet it's very very likely we are now here.

In the book of Daniel, the King of Babylon had a dream of a statue.  Daniel interpreted the dream.  The statue represented the world powers that would take center stage one by one.  First there was Babylon under Nebuchadnezzer represented by the gold head.  Next the silver torso would be the Medio-Persia kingdom who would overthrow Babylon.  Then Greece represented by the belly of brass led by Alexander the Great would be the next world power.  The legs of Iron would represent Rome, who after the death of Alexander the Great, took over. 

The bottom of the statue were the ten toes made of iron and clay.  That's the one world order.  This will be a divided kingdom, partly strong and partly brittle (Daniel 2:41-42).  If you notice each metal got increasingly inferior as each kingdom will. 

That's what I'm talking about when I say NWO or OWO.  Now, how does Obamba fit in?  Listen to what he said in "The Audacity of Hope."

"When the world's sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following." 

When I said he's deliberately taking us down into the red I mean, purposefully.  He knows what he's doing folks. 

He's on a mission to make the U.S. subservient to a U.N. world government.   He's for globalization.  He's for global governance.  Basically it's just another way of saying NWO.  A one world government. 

In an article titled, "And Now for a World Government" published in 2008, Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman stated that for the first time in his life, he believes the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.  Well how about that?  The secular people are now in line with what the bible and its interpretors have been saying for centuries. 

This world government, or NWO would involve much more than cooperation between nations.  There will be some sort of federal head, I'm thinking like what Daniel predicted, with 10 nations at the head backed by a body of laws.  The AC is somehow going to come out of this last kingdom in Daniel.  So coming out of this 10 nation federation will be a leader. 

Obama, while everyone is sleeping, is seeking to create a new international socialist order financed by global taxes on the American people. 

Obama, in a nutshell, desperately wants to put the U.S. under U.N. domination. 

So what we are heading into is some sort of NWO where the U.S. will lose their sovereignty and global governance under a socialist U.N.  My guess, going along with scriptures is that there will be some sort of 10 nation leadership governing all this.  This means that foreign law could very well supercede our Constitution and our Federal laws.  We will still be the U.S. and the other countries will still be there but we will all come under the umbrella of a Federal Head.  Sort of like our country is made up of 50 states.  These individual states can do what they want so long as they don't break our Federal laws.  It will be like that only all the countries of the world will operate under one Federal Head.   We are going into a place of no return right now. 

We voted for change.  We're going to get it.  Obama used the word "change."  Had he used the words "New World Order" do you think he would have been voted in? 

We all know that the bible repeatedly says that "God is patient."  Right?  Well we also know that Satan is in a hurry.  He's a mirror image of God.  So when I see all this happening, I know who's behind it.  Why the rush?  Because he's hurrying to implement his plan.  The sooner and faster he does the harder it is to turn back.  If they slowed down, took their time and checked this all out, it would be obvious just how bad all this is. 

Under Bush we had the lowest unemployment rate in a long time, maybe history, I'm not sure.  There was plenty of work and not enough workers to go around.  Remember?   Under Bush people were spending money left and right.  Under Bush the housing market was going thru the roof.  I know because that was in my line of work.  Houses were selling more than they listed for.  Under Bush, the stock market was booming and people were making money hand over fist.  We did.  We made lots of money. 

Then boom....all the sowing that the Clinton administration did with the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caught up with us. 

Remember it always takes time to reap what one sows. It doesn't happen overnight.  Could Bush have overturned some of Clinton's decisions?  Maybe.  Maybe that's where we can blame Bush.  Maybe Bush should have done more about shoring things up a bit.  Sort of like how Obama is undoing everything Bush put into place now. 

hmpf. You describe things under Bush like they were a virtual paradise, and that the bad bad Democrats are the sole blame for the current situation. It's a little too simplistic.

People were spening money that they didn't have - great thing, isn't it? Spend money you don't have which in turn works to create jobs to produce things you can by with money you don't have. Economy boomed in a soapbubble. My brother was living in Sacramento for a while and people tried to convince him to join the retail frenzy, guaranteed fast money! He is banker by trade and wouldn't go near it, said it was incredibly stupid to think that this system works in the long run. It couldn't have gone good forever, and it's not anybodys specific fault but an error in the system. It had to crash sooner or later. So blame unsathiable consumerism and everybody thinking they could make a lot of money in a hurry.

Well where am I wrong?  Aren't those things I wrote about true? 

Much of what you say I agree with Utemia.  But the fact of the matter is the Dems were/are responsible for most of this mess.  They have a spend it quick mentality.  Always have.  More and more programs and more and more spending. 

Your brother is cautious as is my husband who is a CPA.  We talked quite a bit years ago waiting for this day.  Because of it, little of the crash affected us except for the sale of our home which took longer than expected.   For the most part we were prepared.  Took our money out of the stock market just before it crashed and lost virtually very little except what was tied up in the IRA's. 

 What goes up, must come down.  Common sense.  That's what we're seeing.  But what the government now is doing is nothing more than making a mess of things.  Rather than just letting the market correct itself, they are making some really bad decisions putting us further and further in debt. 

Had there been more regulation beforehand, such a combustible bubble might have not developed in the first place and all the problems that are there now might have been avoided. Selfregulation doesn't really seem to work - didn't exactly that lead to the situation you have right now? Greed gets in the way of selfregulation with common sense, so the common sense has to come from somewhere else. I find that pretty logical. At least in the essential areas, because overregulation and bloated buerauocracy for everything has to be avoided.

It has to be possible to find the golden cut in there, the best compromise - not too much government control but no complete lack thereof. Difficult - no wonder people are are almost tearing each other appart as to what is essential and what isn't. But there is no dialogue at all to find that, everybody just wants their version accepted completely. I am centralist, have best of both.

Socialism operates on the principle that the government should control industry for the "good of all" because "greed inhibits harmony" or whatever.

History tells us that socialism doesn't ever work.

So I'm telling you that more government regulation is a very bad idea.

No.  Greed is the beauty behind the capitalist system - people want to make money.  If they don't self-regulate and use common sense, they won't make money, simple as that.

What we have now is as close to that "golden cut" as you're going to get.  The government doesn't need more control over our lives, if anything it needs less.  Government control doesn't make things better, it makes them worse.  Just look at price controls - the government tried those, and they definitely left teeth marks when they bit back.

Besides, think about what you're saying.  You want the government to have power over industry?  They can't effectively handle what they've got.  It's no big secret that the government is horridly inefficient.

Also, I would argue that regulation is exactly what causes depressions.  Just look at the one we're in now.  Had we decided not to bail out the auto industries, they would have been bankrupted six months to a year eariler.  Without regulation on mortgages and the housing industry bailout, the housing bubble would have already burst.  Instead of being stuck in a depression, we would have gone through a brief recession and would now be climbing out of it.  Instead we're stuck in a depression for who knows how much longer.

I like the example Beck used the other day when he asked when public anything is ever better than private anything?

If you were looking to use a bathroom and had a choice between using a public bathroom or a private which would you choose?

How about a public vs a private school?  Which would you choose if you had the choice to make? 

The Prime Minister of Italy, instead of using the free medical system they had over there, came here to have his heart surgery.  Why?  Again, private is better than public.  That's why.  He could make the choice.  If we go public with our health care, where do we get to go? 

I find it interesting that Congress doesn't want this government health care for themselves. If it's good enough for the people why isn't it good enough for them? Perhaps they know it's crap? They are trying to ram it through fast for one reason. It's like a dead fish, the longer it remains out in the sun the worse it stinks.

The truth is that thie current Congress and Administration are spending money ar a record pace. In the short time this Administration has been in power they have already budgeted to spend more money than all previous administrations combined. In a time of economic crisis spending like a drunken sailor is insane. You simply can't spend your way out of an economic crisis. I wouldn't even mind so much if they were spending money on things that would actually benefit the economy in some way, but millions of dollars to study sheep farts, and various other far left pet projects is just stupid. Only a very small portion of the so-called stimulus bill is for our infrastructure or anything else that would make sense. The lion's share is for stupid pet projects that are a total waste of money in our current situation.

No, the current crisis is not the sole fault of the current Congress or Aministration. It is the result of many, many bad decisions over several decades, made by both sides of the aisle. But this current bunch is doing the exact opposite of what should be done to resolve the problem. The decisions they are making will drive the final nail into the coffin of this economy if something isn't done to divert it. They seem bent on driving as much business out of this country as possible and crippling whatever is left.

Personally, I'd love to see the people vote out every single person up for re-election next year regardless of their party. Toss them all out on their ears.

There are some things that are just beyond satire.

I agree with what Mason said.  We act surprised by the fact that politicians are spending out of control.  The politicians are suppose to represent the population (yeah I know they're not) yet they are acting like the U.S as a whole.  The 'I want it NOW!' attitude.  I  know people who are filing for Chapter 13 bankrupcy.  Essentially, all your debt is null with Chapter 13.  Yeah this kills your credit, but someone has to pay for the debt. I'm not totally against helping people for I know people who had unexpected expenses that just happened/came up and it wasn't like they were trying to go into debt. 

On the subject of congress, why do they get free health care for life (yes I realized its after them getting elected for a second time)? why do they get to vote for their own pay raises? Why does a congressional person need to get an average salary of $175,000 dollars AND when they work about 5-6 months a year (does nothing else needed to get done those other let's just say 3 months? I'm not saying they shouldn't get time off) ? Does ANYONE think any of that is fair?

I can understand the reason behind why a Supreme Court Justice being on board for life.  The Chief Justice gets paid 217,000 a year and associate justices get paid 208,000 a year (oh yeah a little hidden tidbit you won't ever hear is that they also get free housing as well).  The Supreme Court Justices only hears cases 4 days a week.  They have at least 4 months off for summer recess. AND get health care for life.

Yep, I like helping people.........

What about the republicans who let Bush run amock with spending? They must be Dems in disguise, right?