Dear Mr. President,
In light of the newly-stated Obama Doctrine of pre-emptive intervention to prevent what could turn into humanitarian crises anywhere in the world, and that "kinetic military action" (aka war) may be required at any time and place of your choosing, and for reasons as vague and undefinable as when American values are threatened, please feel free to take that action wherever and whenever possible.
But.
I don't want to hear one more word, not one more syllable from you about the need for spending cuts, austerity, and belt-tightening. Not one word about budget deficits. Not one. When you have no problem going through $600 million in one week in Libya, meanwhile; our public education system is in shambles, our infrastructure is crumbling, there are 15-20 million Americans out of work and another 15-20 million working part-time when they would rather work full-time, Social Security recipients are going without a cost of living increase, poor people are having their heating assistance cut, and the list goes on and on. With all due respect sir, you can stick austerity and belt-tightening where the sun never shines.
Have a nice day.
P.S. The Nobel people called. They want their Peace Prize back.
In light of the newly-stated Obama Doctrine of pre-emptive intervention to prevent what could turn into humanitarian crises anywhere in the world, and that "kinetic military action" (aka war) may be required at any time and place of your choosing, and for reasons as vague and undefinable as when American values are threatened, please feel free to take that action wherever and whenever possible.
But.
I don't want to hear one more word, not one more syllable from you about the need for spending cuts, austerity, and belt-tightening. Not one word about budget deficits. Not one. When you have no problem going through $600 million in one week in Libya, meanwhile; our public education system is in shambles, our infrastructure is crumbling, there are 15-20 million Americans out of work and another 15-20 million working part-time when they would rather work full-time, Social Security recipients are going without a cost of living increase, poor people are having their heating assistance cut, and the list goes on and on. With all due respect sir, you can stick austerity and belt-tightening where the sun never shines.
Have a nice day.
P.S. The Nobel people called. They want their Peace Prize back.
that's hilarious!
Did you see me?
I think I'm going to have to say that the Tunisian people inspired people throughout the middle east. President Obama has had his moments but this isn't one of them. Unless, of course, this clip is real...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I95dP2xfpGk
Hard to argue those points...but...I'm not big on Americanism but he inspired me. I get tingly all over when I consider what a purely inspired human being he is.
Hi Alien,
Do you mean am I saying "Not that there's anything wrong with that"! Referring to Muslims? If that is what you meant, of course I wouldn't care if Obama was a Muslim. Why would I?
Doug,
Are you saying "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Hey Carguy,
Surprise! Plan B was Plan A, I think Plan A was Plan B, too...my head hurts!
doug wrote: "Now today their talking about the CIA being there. Of course that is to overthrow Quaddafi."
------------
Coulda saved a lot of lives and a lot of money if we had used Plan "B" as Plan "A".
Alien! He isn't Muslim, nor was his Dad! His Dad is from the Luo tribe in Western Kenya, there's *zero* Muslims in that part of Kenya. Remember he went to Reverend Wright's CHURCH for 20 years, and was absorbing all of those messages according to the right-wingers? It wasn't Reverend Wright's Mosque. It was Reverend Wright's Church!
Obama is no more a Muslim than you or me Alien, but if would be perfectly fine if he was!
Friday night Pizza everybody!
Hi Alien, It's an interesting idea that people around the World have been inspired by Obama to revolt against their Governments, but I don't believe it holds much merit. He does retain lots of popularity around the world but people weren't even that excited by him when I was in Kenya last year, and it is well known there that his Dad was Kenyan. It's tempting to want to think that the rest of the World looks up to and is inspired by America, but they've got there own lives to live, trust me.
No, there's good evidence that the food crisis (people cannot afford to eat for crying out loud!) was behind the revolt. Also, access to Al Jazeera T.V. which is broadly viewed across the Middle East has really educated the people to realities that they've never had spelled out for them. Then Facebook and Twitter come along to give the people the ability to communicate and organize and voila, you have you're revolution. Also revolutions are notoriously catchy. They spread. These people are suffering under dictators, and they've had enough.
Have people considered that the simple reality of a muslim Indonesian/African reigning as American President has inspired the 3rd world to reach for higher heights.
You rightly point out that the U.S. historically has practiced imperialism, no secret there, but, does the world view Obama as a different animal?
Hey Mr. Cars,
In my unprofessional opinion. (un cause I'm not getting paid) I don't know the answer to you're question. I suppose Egypt doesn't fit the profile, because we haven't invaded it. And to tell you the truth, I haven't been following Egypt at all since the fall of Mubarak. I do understand however the internal strife continues. Their situation is a little bit different than Libya in that it is not so much tribal. They have a sophisticated population that is well aware of their role in world history. So..I think the chance of a real democracy taking hold in Egypt is much more likely than Libya. But to be honest with you, I don't have much of a feel for what role the Military is going to play there. But I do think this thing going on in North Africa and the Middle East is the real deal. It's not going to die down-ever. You're either going to get democracy in that region, or you're going to get continued chaos for decades. We're never going back to the situation we just left, where the people are kept down. I hate to always bring this up, because it's so depressing, but global warming induced food shortages look like they'll be the norm for that region, and that can only bring out chaos can't it?
As far as Libya goes specifically, I wrote on what I thought the reasons for us attacking them was earlier in this thread. Don't know if you saw it, cause for some reason it didn't post until last night. Maybe have a look if you're so inclined.
But to as what will happen next, I don't know. Now today their talking about the CIA being there. Of course that is to overthrow Quaddafi. I think that effort will eventually be successful either by air strikes, or you know, paid operatives taking him out, who knows? Then, I think the real battle will begin. I imagine "forces" are going to want to side with the most successful ethnic/tribal groups there. In other words, Nato, the West, and multi-nationals or some combination of these are going to want to control things, (and get a piece of the pie) and will allign with the "winners" (thanks Charlie Sheen) in the conflict. I'm sure the CIA is training and giving material support to these groups right now, in this effort to overthrow Quaddafi.
So this is how the usual pattern goes, BUT I think there is going to be an enormous tension between these tribal groups (undemocratic most likely) and what is going on in the greater region. (a move towards real democracy). How that will play out is hard to predict, but IF these tribal undemocratic groups do not power share with the population, I see them eventually being replaced.
Now how's that for an analysis? Now I'm done honestly. I GOT SHIT TO DO. DON'T YOU ALL?? If I come back here within a week, I'm buying you all pizza!
doug wrote: "Most of our wars and military actions have had as their main driver installing regimes that would allow multinational corporations in to do business."
--------
Of course, you're right there. We used to do a pretty fair job at that. I think we just need to
"ramp up" the interview process and the monitoring of the leaders we choose. That Karzai guy hasn't worked out well.
BTW, who do we have "in line" for Egypt and Libya??? Any idea?
Sprinkle a little democracy on top of our client States fine, as long as this democracy doesn't interfere with the multi-national's ability to do business. But the bottom line is we don't really care too much if it's a democracy or not (sorry to say) It's all about creating the environment for these companies to do business. Sometimes the U.S. feels too much democracy is a bad thing, ie. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He was popularly elected in a very clean election with massive support from the poor. But, guess what...he doesn't like the big multi-nationals coming in, so voila...he's one of our enemies. Sometimes we do act purely for humanitarian purposes. But this is the exception to the rule.
It's mostly about wealth extraction, with a very tiny native elite benefitting. The other 99% of the populations of these countries suffer as a result.
Hey Carguy,
I did get my degree in International Relations and have had a lifelong interest in all things international. I'm going to have to disagree with you on the commonly held view that most of our wars have been motivated by "helping" other Countries/being the world's "policeman". Most of our wars and military actions have had as their main driver installing regimes that would allow multinational corporations in to do business.
But these wars are usually sold to us as humanitarian actions, in order to garner public support for them.
Free porn is good...but watch those Repubtilians, that's there next a** to grind.
At least we got free porn. Now available on your IPhone.
I mean 2012....
Dang, I'm late to the party...and now I have to hit the road and head to work...so all I can say for the moment is, what Loma said!
I don't always agree with his decisions but I believe he was the right choice in 2008 and I hope for a landslide in 2011 because I want to stick it to Boehner and those teabagging a-clowns.
Later, y'all!
Depends on who you are.
Yes, methinks you are correct.
Sad, but true...I'm afraid the really, really good times are over, at least for the foreseeable future.
Well you know what P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
..
There certainly was one born on July 4, 1776. Since 1900 we have been EVERYBODY's rich uncle, and also their brother-in-law who will pick them up at the airport. It HAS driven us to the poor house.
No, I'm with you on that one...Others have to, they simply have to take up their share of responsibility for the survival of the planet. Those others have learned to rely on the U.S. for such matters and as such they are taking advantage of us. If they want stability they should have to pay for it, if not with their own blood at least with their own money. Perhaps, not a lofty view but in the real world a very practical one.
But, shit if you're going to go to war, you should be sure of and firm, and consistent about why you are doing it. It's pathetic that Obama could not just say, "Yes, Secretary of Defense Gates was correct. Libya is not in our vital interests but we feel the action is justified because..."
Once these guys start lying about the reasons for going to war, watch out! There's very likely not a good reason behind it. War isn't something to play with. It's only justified in the most rightious cases, if then. The bar for when you go to war should be VERY VERY HIGH.
If I were Obama I'd set a policy of just destroying all of the arms and weapons and planes that we have sold Quaddafi, then let the Libyans sort everything else out. Take our responsibility out of it.
I think with extrordinarily rare exceptions we should only go to war if we are being attacked. That SHOULD be the standard for when a Country agrees to go to war.
Politics is so abstract. I believe the reason we are attacking Libya is several fold. It is yes because there is an element of protecting their citizens. But also there is fear and pressure on us from the Europeans who want to desperately stop the flow of immigrants that have been coming to Italy and other mediterranean Countries as a result of the civil war. There's fear that they will become terrorists, plus good old xenophobia, and not wanting more people put on the public rolls.
Of course there is that history there as well too, with us having Quaddafi as enemy number one. And of course there is pressure from the military industrial complex and the influence that money has. (The armaments industry must be happy). Maybe as well, we are doing it in part because the U.S. wants to get out ahead of the revolutions that are spreading in the Middle East and North Africa. Kind of create some good public relations among those people, even though it's unclear they would view this as a positive. So..I think the reason for us attacking Libya is probably pretty complex.
But..what is so pathetic about our politics is that so much attention has to be given to public relations, that how the media frames things DRIVES the policies often times. I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday morning and saw Secretary of Defense Gates accidently speak the truth...He said Libya was NOT in our vital interests. Right away I knew this was a major faux pas on the part of the administration and was going to be served up on a platter for the Republicans, who then could bash Obama with it, and say "Why are we attacking Libya when it's not a vital interest"?
So what does Obama say during his speech on Monday night? He says Libya is in our vital interest! He HAD to say that even though it was untrue, lest he be attacked by the Republicans and well...the left.
So, when you really think about it, so much policy is driven by what the media chooses (and they do choose) how to interpret things. That's another reason right there why we need to up end the apple cart!
WOW!...32...like the good ol' days.
Des wrote: In the president’s speech he talked about helping Libyans build the institutions of government in a post-Qaddafi Libya. Who do you think that responsibility will fall on? Now we’re nation building again. Afghanistan?
----------
IF we are gonna get ALL WRAPPED UP in this "nation building" fustercluck, wouldn't it be MUCH easier and cheaper if these countries were..like...adjacent to each other??? Maybe we could get a "twoofer"??? Where the hell is Morocco???
That’s all well and good. But if we’re going to go around the world playing Dudley Do-Right and rescuing every Nell from every Snidely Whiplash there will have to be some tradeoffs. That means we decide that we don’t need teachers, and infrastructure, and that we accept a permanent 10% unemployment rate, and that we’ll work ‘til we’re 70 for Social Security and Medicare---since NOBODY is going to raise taxes to pay for any of this future intervention---and the cost will fall on, as with everything else, the backs of those who can least afford to pay it.
Another thing to consider. Since the bar for foreign intervention has now been significantly lowered to preventing POTENTIAL humanitarian crises and when American values are threatened, what happens when the next Republican president decides to use that same rationalization to attack where-the-hell-ever? You may share Obama’s view of what American values means, but do you share what President Gingrich or Palin or Bachmann consider American values? Probably not.
doug wrote: Just keeping score, but so far three people have responded to my question, and none of them have really answered it. ..... both Democrats and Republicans has already CROSSED THAT LINE. You know this, and that's why you will not identify what you're bottom line standard is.
---------
OK, I'm the guy. I'm gonna give you an answer. I am willing to draw that "line in the sand" and stick to it. I am a man of my word. An honorable man. I will hold President Obama to a standard and shall not waiver....waver?? (sp?).
Now...where did I put my sword?????????? Crap, I though it was next to my weed-wacker???? Damn, I need some more line I'm almost out. Oh forget it. I say, IF Obama invades Canada, I'm not voting for him again.
I don't really care what you think of Ralph Nadar Alien. I'm just looking for somebody, anybody, to answer the question: What positions would the democratic party have to take for you to no longer support them?
Nobody has answered this.
I believe I've made my point and won't bother people about this anymore.
Des,
Everything you say is a possibility. China, Soviet Union, they are part of the world also. I haven't understood why pro-freedom entities don't at least 'publicly' appeal to the other almost superpowers to help solve problems that are very much their problems as well. That is, until, I read the Ugandan President's recent statement. It becomes apparent that authoritarian individuals running authoritarian regimes govern so because they truly believe that humankind's best interests are exposed by smashing individual freedoms into its own blood and dirt. It's not a judgment of higher good or evil, it's a woefully myopic personal judgment of what's best for society.
As is so obvious to ALL others a gaping blind chasm resides in these disturbed personalities. It's the highly touted, in this case, very wide LINE that Doug speaks of...the line between "I" and 'you'.
As long as that blindness exists AND it always will as that is its very nature, someone will have to carry the burden of helping correct nature's mistakes.
Loma,
Congrats on great posts!
Ok Doug, here's an answer you can identify with...I wouldn't vote for the Green Party because Ralph Nader is an asshole, much like most Repubtilians.
At one time I respected his views and his approach against the 'man'...then I learned what he was really made of, mostly bombast and nastiness. Not my kind of human being!
Des - It could have been much worse with "We are all Georgians" McCain and Company. Libya is a lesser, shared doom in comparison.
Yeah Bill, I get a little passionate about this “Libya thing.” It’s because I’ve seen this movie before and I don’t like the ending. Take a look today. The “rebels” (whoever they are, and we’re not real sure of that) have been pushed back from Sirte:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29libya.html?_r=1&hp
They can’t advance without our air cover. So in effect now we’re the rebel air force. Hillary’s talking about finding a loophole in the UNSC resolution to arm the rebels.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels
We’ve taken a side in a civil war. Vietnam?
The NATO commander is talking about putting troops on the ground:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/nato-chief-opens-the-door-to-libya-ground-troops/
In the president’s speech he talked about helping Libyans build the institutions of government in a post-Qaddafi Libya. Who do you think that responsibility will fall on? Now we’re nation building again. Afghanistan?
What we Democrats and Independents fail to understand is that the Republican Party and all of it's lesser entities have one thing in common. They are on a war footing with their opponents and will do anything to maintain power and influence in the face of populism. They are egoists with a vengeance and dangle exclusivity as a prize to be had by anyone willing to be bought out and shelved within their massive armory of conceited souls.
Make no mistake - unless we wage the same kind of battle with them, there will be no respite and fear and ruin will be the consequence under the rule of these tyrannical psychotics.
We have paid them enough protection money, and it didn't work, so it is time to stand up and demand repayment for the theft of our savings, our dreams, and our future.
Oh and Doug,
I deny nothing, but I do blame myself repeatedly for having been too busy trying to stay afloat with a job and a roof over my head to get out and march to Washington with posters and bumper stickers and megaphones.
But I did vote in the mid-terms for:
(1)Democrats
(2)Independents, and where necessary, nobody else running
(3)Libertarians
I tell you it's our own damn fault that politicians have nothing more to do than self-serving tasks, for we demand so little of them as a voting block. We are truly pathetic, and thus deserve the disdain from them. We have failed miserably in this American experiment of democracy.
Well, I'll have to tell all of you amigos that I will definitely vote for Obama again in the hopes of a landslide re-election. Anything short of that is going to destroy what is left of civility and sanity in our country.
Furthermore, if we did give the President such a massive vote of confidence, his courage in the face of GOP outrages would be immediately visible. We left him hanging in the mid-term, and it is our fault for not organizing for all that we were worth to oust the Republicans.
We deserved to be dropped like hot potatoes from his priority list. He saw us let ourselves down.
Just keeping score, but so far three people have responded to my question, and none of them have really answered it. Just like I predicted. And I believe the reason for that is simple. Because what they are doing, both Democrats and Republicans has already CROSSED THAT LINE. You know this, and that's why you will not identify what you're bottom line standard is.
It should be easy right? LIke you could say.."Well...if the president waged war on a Country that had done absolutely nothing to us, then I'd agree to vote for the Green Party" Or...you could say, well...."if the president cut Social Security....then I would no longer support him".
Because you will not identify an issue or a policy that crosses the line for you, you are revealed. Now...prove me wrong.
How evil does the lesser of two evils have to get for you, hmmmmmm?
You know, Doug, I am not an apologist, nor do I have Obama remorse. Given the choice we had, I truly believe we would be worse off with Grumpy McCain and Her Holy Highness Sister Sarah.
Personally, I think being President is much harder than campaigning, and I believe that a campaign should speak to our dreams and aspirations. President Obama spoke to my dreams and aspirations. As with any job, once you get into the mud, you see how truly dirty it all is. I do not presume to understand why he does things I disagree with, but I have to believe he loves our country and wants what is best. I want him to be the man I voted for, and will keep pushing him to be better than he is right now.
If one wonders what else it could be, tune in to Sean Hannity sometime and hear what the other side wants.
Hi Carolsb,
Thanks for responding. I do have an answer for you actually. It is the Green Party. They have been on the ballot for the Presidency for several cycles now. If you are unfamiliar with them, that is the party that Ralph Nadar was with when he ran the first time around. They have an international base, and just did VERY WELL in the German election. What seems impossible today, with a little belief and hard work, can be reality tomorrow. But this underscrores the NEED to support this party, even if the odds are next to impossible. The national Republican and Democratic parties are on a path to barely put a dent in climate change. They are going to let us DIE in our boots before they'll change.
Wouldn't it feel REALLY GOOD to actually vote for a party that represented your views? Yes it does. I've been doing it for going on 20 years now, and I've never regretted it..
but for sh*ts and grins...read the Ugandan President's appraisal of whatzz his name and world politics
Hey Doug,
A conservative friend of mine asked me that question BEFORE Obama was elected. Seems we all have a view of A line long before we choose where to draw it.
I believe that most of what is assumed about Obama is inaccurate today as it was when he was campaigning. So far he hasn't done anything that cannot be construed in anyway one chooses to screw it. I'm waiting for his memoirs before I decide he is the Devil's Advocate...that's where my line is. I believe in him...I believe that his life's lessons, learned and matured within a uncommon spirit have taught him things only you and I can debate about.
Lol Carguy! Leave it to you to lighten things up around here! Good job (:
Wow! You've really got a h**d on for this Libya thing. Take a look at the Huffington Post front page article on Misrata. We have a chance to stop and hopefully facilitate the death of one of the truly evil people in this world. We have a chance to keep the emergence of democracy in the Middle East alive - look what's happening in Syria. It's a small cost to pay for what we stand to gain. Don't confuse it with Iraq.
As far as GE and Exxon, they're just taking advantage of the tax code. Change the code and enforce it, that is if Republicans in the House will go along.
Well, Doug...if things don't change in a big way, the chances are slim that I would vote for Obama again.
Having said that, can YOU tell me about one person, just ONE FRICKEN' PERSON, out there...on the right or the left - or in the middle - that is a candidate that will do better??? Just ONE!
No...you can't - and don't tell me Ron Paul - Jesus, I live in Brazoria County...ain't gonna happen.
See, that's where we are so screwed...they are all the damn same!!!
WOW!!!! Deja vu.
Well doug, you've got me there. I'm not REAL happy with my wife, at present, but I'm not willing to "jump ship" on her or President Obama yet. Fact is, for me to vote for a republican something really monumental would have to happen. As you know, I consider most of them to be dastardly, despicable, blackhearted bastards. (TM)(c)MMVIII, All rights reserved.
Well doug, you've got me there. I'm not REAL happy with my wife, at present, but I'm not willing to "jump ship" on her or President Obama yet. Fact is, for me to vote for a republican something really monumental would have to happen. As you know, I consider most of them to be dastardly, despicable, blackhearted bastards. (TM)(c)MMVIII, All rights reserved.
The end result of this war effort in Libya will be that multinational corporations will have much greater control of Libyan industries than they currently have.
The Sun will also rise in the east tomorrow morning.
6% is the percentage of federal revenue collected from corporations, not the corporate tax rate, BUT coincidently that 6% number is pretty damn close to the amount they actually pay with all of the tricks, and loopholes they hire their tax accountants to find. In the case of companies like GE they get to move many of their operations overseas so as to not pay their taxes in the U.S. But...they get to use the commons we (as tax payers) provide for them here. Roads, Court systems, e.t.c. e.t.c. e.t.c. e.t.c. Nice work if you can get it.
Isn't the Japanese nuclear plant that is current spewing the most toxic substance on earth-plutonium, a G.E. built plant? Yes.
A question I have for all Obama apologists by the way, is...where do YOU draw the line in which you say you can no longer support him? I've asked this question to people I know, and pathetically most have NO BOTTOM LINE. Seriously...if we had two parties in the U.S. represented by say..Hitler and Mussolini, these people would vote for Mussolini rather than actively work for a new party, and vote for them.
So I challenge the readers here to actually respond to this question. What position would the democrats in Washington have to take, where you would say...I can no longer support them and will not vote for them next time?
I predict I will not get very many responses to this question because it implies looking in the mirror for many folks. They much prefer spineless denial.
If I INCORPORATE, can I pay 6% taxes??????
Gee, I could be the CEO!
I could write off my trips to Hawaii if it coincides with a convention. I could put one of those magnetic signs on my car and write off ALL the expensews on my '78 Corvette.
..
..
DAMN......I just reemmbered. The car is fiberglass.
..
..
DAMN, I just remembered, I don't have any money to PAY for the "write offs". What I need is some "write ons". Or, maybe, a government grant. What did I do with Sheila Jackson Lees' phone number??????????
GE? I seem to recall that they were a major beneficiary of bailout loot, and that their CEO is one of Obama’s financial advisors. Funny how that works out.
...Gadhafi, Gadhaffy, Gadhaffi, GawdAwful...
Me, I'm in the same boat as Carol. I do realize that this guy has faced many situations where there was NO good alterntive. Just the "least worst". I'd like to THINK he MEANS well.
They say that all a president DOES in his first term is run for a second term. Maybe that is what's happening here. H-E double hockey sticks, I don't know.
In addition to all the "other stuff" I am one of those really miffed that NOBODY involved in the banking scandal has even been indicted. And that we have who knows how many "detainees" at Gitmo. Detained for......what exactly and for how long???
Ya' know, you could HOUSE a lot of homeless, FEED a lot of hungry kids, HELP a lot of seniors living in poverty with $600 MILLION.
There are no more Trumans, not any that have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected president anyway. Anyone who doesn’t have the stamp of approval from the special interests won’t get anywhere near the nomination. The special interests bankroll the campaigns and once it’s over they expect payback. And they get it. There are enough minor differences in the candidates to make us think we actually have a choice, but on the major issues---taxes, national security, Wall Street---they’re all the same.
Is it any wonder why more people don’t bother to vote?
Well, an I learned a little fun fact via the New York Times a few days back in it's story on how General Electric paid zero taxes last year..it was this;
The percentage of taxes that the Federal Government collects from corporations in the 1950's (when we had a thriving economy by the way) was 30%. Got that? 30% of the revenue the Government collected was from corporations. Do you know what it is today? 6%
SIX PERCENT!
Yet Obama wants to CUT the corporate tax rate... Rather than RAISE the corporate tax rate (and fill the coffers) he wants to make the poor suffer through these draconian budget cuts...........(this is on top of a 35% income tax rate on the wealthiest earners, a 15% tax on investments, and a 0% estate tax currently. In other words the rich and corporations are robbing you blind....
The EXCUSE "they" are using to make these budget cuts is that it will stimulate the economy by lowering the deficit. NO CREDIBLE ECONOMIST believes that cutting government spending (especially in sectors that have shown to be the most stimulative) will boost the economy. Many of us said six months ago to watch England as an example of this. They cut their spending (of course on working people as well) and where are they at today?? Ask the 500,000 people that marched on London over the weekend. FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
Of course England's GDP has gone DOWN as a result of these cuts. Greece and Ireland are in awful shape as well after employing these austerity measures.
If the people reading this understand these facts to be true, and you vote for Obama next time, you get what you deserve. I've been reading a lot of U.S. history lately, and we used to be a Country of heros. We shame the memory of the people that made American great, by sitting on our ass, and hoping for change, instead of making it..
Oh, and on the new war on Libya? The New York Times had a very good piece yesterday about how the U.S. is MUCH more involved than has been reported to date. Lots more bombing....
Think were leaving soon? Think again. NATO is just a cover.
I won't say the word that comes to mind. But when our Government has been hijacked by corporate fascists, and the usual measures don't work to save the Country, well....other measures are called for...
Des, I have tried to think of something - anything - to say in disagreement with this and I can find nothing.
I am disheartened by the lack of common sense, and common decency, that is prevalent in politics today and we are getting so very screwed in the process.
I want Harry Truman back. I want someone who will stand up and say NO.
I want a leader not a follower.
*sigh*
Hey Des,
I feel your frustration...the belt tightening words are for the ignorant among us (spelled R-E-P-U-B-T-I-L-I-A-N-S). What Obama wants is a thriving economy but is forced to play these stupid political games because he's not Kaddafi/Qaddahfi/Kaddafy/Qaddafy...etc.
He is every bit as disgusted by this raging stupidity as you are! I'll bet he's doubled up on his indigestion meds.