Change, what change Obama is just another politician who makes promises he cannot fulfill. It would be nice if he really just started to taking the job serious and skip the late night comedy acts. Said it once and will say it again, he is caught in the elevated trappings of being President, like a kid in a candy store with $5 to burn, he should govern instead.
Read AP: Analysis: Obama rhetoric, reality clash
6 comments:
IV: Thanks for the story and allowing us to form our own opinion.
Even with your little "dig" at the President, now what was it you called him, oh, yes: "Candidate to Hypocrite-in-Chief." Nice...
But the heart of the linked AP story I think is critically important is this:
"Once in the White House, [all] presidents quickly learn they are only one part of the political system, not in charge of it. They discover the trade-offs they must make and the parties they must please to get things done. Inevitably, they find out that it's impossible to follow through completely on their campaign proposals."
It then comes down to what: Trying hard to bring about change that Mr. Obama sees as needed. And, may I add, in times as nearly hard as the Great Depression.
I know about those times: I recall the stories my Dad and Grandpa told me about those days ... they are burned in my mind.
And, if Mr. Obama has only $5 to burn in a candy store as you say, it's due in part to the fact that the $5 bucks is all Geo. W. Bush and the GOP from 1995 to 2006 and 2001-2008 left him to spend on that candy bar that now costs $7 when it used to cost $1 ...
~ Greedy on...
O'cmon Dan, so your point is GW spent too much, thus leaving Obama too little. While now you and yours support all this record spending that O is shoving through your gulping mouths.
Such inconsistancy makes it difficult to understand what it is that you are trying to say.
Let me review history according to you. Bush was a wild spender. Obama's spending is a good thing. Please tell me what the hell you are talking about.
Anon 12:17 >>> As usual you missed my point and post something I did not say or imply.
The BL: Mr. Obama is trying to fix a very, very serious (critical actually) problem, and yes, it may take lots of spending (as much as I hate lots of spending) ... but ...
If any GOPer thinks less spending, fewer taxes and a couple of more wars, wild-ass spending and tons of foreign borrowing is the answer, just reexamine the last 8 years under Bush and 1995-2006 under the GOP congress.
In any case, get off my ass with your wild spin on my posts ... I'm quite capable of screwing up myself w/o your help.
~ Scurry on
So if Bush would have spend less, that would have left Obama better positioned to spend more, which would supposedly helped us out of our current situation. Is that what you're trying to say, Dan?
So GW spent too much and O Great One is thusly now forced to spend too little? That's what you said. I don't understand it. I'm just trying to figure it out.
You guys are outta your minds.Spending money we don't have and indebting the next 3 generations is not how you fix this.And that by the way should be illegal.Obama has been preaching doom for a year and a half now. that's how he won.He himself and the democrat party has scared the shit out of the country.Most economists say this reccesion is mostly perception and I agree.You can fight over tax cuts all you want but if he don't get rid of the fear, he can print all the money he wants and spend all he can and it just adds to the fear of us and our kids having to pay for it. Either way it's a lose/lose for everyone.
danny obviously doesn't know what he thinks
he always is all over the place
He needs to grow up and smartin up
Post a Comment