« We hope smokers quit | Main | By the books … »

March 29, 2009

Government out of control

American International Group bonuses and millions of taxpayer dollars sent to European banks continues to distract us, and the mainstream media keeps it in the forefront while a discreet outrage is going on. The Treasury has the printing presses on overload, printing money and devaluing the dollar. Runaway inflation is next — right before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bankrupts the U.S.

We, the people, are in charge, and the executive office and Congress serve at our discretion. We need to exercise our constitutional rights and hold them responsible and accountable. Aren’t you sick of the lies?

Do we allow the Congress and executive office to treat us like we are too stupid to recognize that the Constitution is being ripped apart and that the American way of life is being destroyed? Do we allow the mainstream media to continue to occupy us with things that are surely important and maybe even newsworthy while the “behind-the-scenes” strategies continue to erode our economy, our livelihood and the future of our children and grandchildren?

I don’t believe that this out-of-control government has delivered the “change” the country needs. Do you?

J.G. Loman
Kansas City



It is very understandable while both Democratic Senator Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ratings are going down? They both secretly stripped E-Verify from the Stimulus/Omnibus spending bills. As an amendment E-Verify would have been refunded for another 5 years. Fact is they removed it so illegal aliens can still steal jobs, from 10 million jobless American Workers.


Obama's plan will work soundly.Continue to loan money to deadbeats. Continue to advocate consumers live at 125% of their incomes. Continue to advocate divorce and promiscuity. Continue to blindly send money that does not exist. While I thought Bush was horrid with spending, this administration is by far the worst ever witnessed in our history. I hope it gets even worse, I will relish watching the suferrage and hope we have a major invasion and collapse. Hopefully everyone will eventually be bankrupted and all ousing, food supplies and employment camps will be run by the Almighty Lawyer Thug himself.

Pub 17

Hardly. This isn't business as usual. This is like debating the merits of Best Buy vs. Circuit City--sorry, the question's moot, since Circuit City's now padlocked. The Keynesians may not be 100% right, but the Chicago School boys are currently in intellectual receivership. The time for debate was back when the Friedmanites were letting the dogs out; they were wrong, they've apologized, we're still several years from knowing just how much damage they've caused because there's still rotten assets floating to the surface. NOW the economic and political right wants to talk. TFB. They had a fair chance to make their theories work, and the worst that could happen happened. Sorry. Get out of the way now and let the grownups clean up the mess.



That has to be one of the poorest responses I've seen from you on this blog. Congrats, you've now staked your claim on the side that insists that there's "no time" to debate, just write the blank check already.


Pub 17

That's double-talk, Engineer. All did not receive equal tax cuts: the rich benefited vastly more than the middle class under Bush. That's definitionally a redistibution of wealth to the wealthy.

And yes, Bush was severely criticized by the left. However, the right is now severely criticizing Obama on the same deficit spending they applauded under Bush. Where were they in 2000-2008?

Marctnts--time is of the essence. You hire the best firemen and get the hell out of the way and let them deal with the fire. You can also choose to talk the fire to death.


If so, you need to turn off Olbermann and DailyKos as much as some of our other friends need to turn off Rush and Hannity.


"...I'm dubious at any insistence on "reasonable debate."

Okay, so what reasoning do you use to dismiss the calls for reasonable debate from those who are not republicans, or is it your contention that everyone other than republicans (independants, moderates, democrats) are fully on board with the whole of proposals to this point.


Pub 17
Bush was severely criticized by the left on this blog, in Congress and in the press for his deficits. I don't see how you can contest that. Now some of the same people, on this blog, in Congress and in the press, are supportive of Obama's much larger and longer lasting deficits. Bush did not take money from one sector to give it to another. Tax cuts just let the person who earned the money keep it. That is a much different thing than taking money from some by taxes and sending it to others.
Regarding another point, I note that you have not contested the concept that Obama is embarked on a massive program of wealth redistribution.


“Actually, to stay with the metaphor…” – Pub17

Actually to stay in the relevant metaphor, you have no intentions to balance the check book, you’re spending more money than your spouse ever did and you're blaming your actions on your spouse.

Pub 17

Sigh. You buy 'em books and buy 'em books, and all they do is eat the covers.

No, see, Snarker Than Me, if Obama were SITTING in the bus, perhaps towards the back, someone so minded might find some racial slight in there.

And the randomness of George Bush's spending isn't the issue. The issue is his unwillingness to pay for his spending out of then-current revenues, which was zero nil zip zilch. He saw no problem, and Dick Cheney affirmed, with running up a deficit and shifting the spending forward in time to the next administration, because raising taxes would ruin the economy.

But you're not going to read this anyway, as you didn't read the previous post.

Smarter Than You

Since you’re sharing I gotta ask; did you, Pub, spend an inordinate amount of time on a short bus? That would explain your half-cocked bus analogy (and several of your other posts). Is it really politically correct to make our first black president into your metaphoric bus driver? I would call that bad juju. The ACLU may be apoplectic over your post.

For grins, let’s say Pub’s correct, and Bush was just randomly spending money and driving up debt. How does tripling that amount of debt improve the overall efficacy of the situation?

It's a simple question, Pub. I figure, as usual, you’ll come up with a “simple” answer.

Pub 17

Oh, BTW, Engineer--other than a general impression, you have any specifics on that "severe" criticism of George Bush for running deficits? I'm particularly interested in criticism from either the popular right-wing broadcasters or the more vocal of the Republican political right (deLay, Cheney, Gingrich, Lott, and similar).

Pub 17

I await your admission that you did not, in fact, protest George Bush's massive programs for redistribution of wealth. Unless, of course, wealth redistributed by law to the rich is good, while wealth redistributed to the middle class is bad.

Actually, to stay with the metaphor, when I managed the finances, after a considerable struggle with the disaster she'd left me, I was able to balance our checkbook and pay down our debts for a couple of years, until she took over the checkbook again.

You guys make this too easy. I'm bored now.


Pub 17
It is true that Bush did run deficits. He was severely criticized for this. Much of this criticism came from those who are now supporting the much larger and longer lasting deficits proposed by Obama. Obama has stated he is for the redistribution of income and the redistribution of wealth. He proposes to run large deficits for at least the next ten years to support social programs. It is intended that these deficits will be financed to a large extent by borrowing from other countries. As US bonds and notes are in the final analysis secured by the private wealth of US citizens this constitutes a redistribution of wealth.


Pub -

"My unlamented first spouse was educated, intelligent, and had a screw loose when it came to balancing the old checkbook: basically, if the check needed to be written, it needed to be written, regardless of whether there were funds to cover."

I didn't know you were married to Nancy Pelosi.


“According to Pub, no amount of fiscal conservancy is warranted or allowable at this point, because heck, "the other guy did it too", and our only concern right now should be "spend, spend, spend." Even though the other guy did it and it helped put us where we are right now, it won't happen this time.” - Posted by: Marctnts | Mar 30, 2009 9:56:57 AM

“Do Republicans know how to run a country without gallons of red ink? Not much of a history of that in the past fifty years, is there? What are Republicans bringing to the table in a reasonable debate?” - Posted by: Pub 17 | Mar 30, 2009 1:36:11 PM

Marctnts, you really should thank Pub17 for making you look good.

Sadly Pub17 your over sharing would have been relevant had neither of you ever balanced the checkbook and you were upset because your spouse was spending less money than you wanted to.


Good afternoon Marctnts,

BuddyT is not kidding. As usual he is taking an insane position, but he is serious.

Pub 17

My unlamented first spouse was educated, intelligent, and had a screw loose when it came to balancing the old checkbook: basically, if the check needed to be written, it needed to be written, regardless of whether there were funds to cover.

She demanded to keep the household accounts as a recognition of the mutuality of the marriage.

Every month, there'd be a flood of NSF charges, yelling, and an inevitable thin-lipped insistence that there had been mistakes made, but as an educated, intelligent adult she was CERTAINLY capable of balancing the checking account in the following month.

And so it went...

This bit of oversharing speaks to why I'm dubious at any insistence on "reasonable debate." Do Republicans know how to run a country without gallons of red ink? Not much of a history of that in the past fifty years, is there? What are Republicans bringing to the table in a reasonable debate? Ike's been gone a while.



I agree that the sudden cries of "fiscal responsibility" ring hollow from republicans who supported the previous administration's policy. I just don't see how hypocrisy on either side translates to loss of reasonable debate and needs to equate to a "blank check" for anyone.

"...market down another 200 points as of now."


You've got to be kidding with that 200-point down crap.

A little help. There's this little thing called the G20 summit going on, and so far it's been full of world leader's pessimistic predictions for recovery. Do you think that could possibly have had an effect on the world's markets (since the US isn't the only one down today)?

Stifled Freedom

Govt has been out of control and dancing to the March of Folly since the 1970s. None of this is new.

And what you going to do....protest? Americans have no sand for protest today. Everyone has just a little too much too lose....and that is exactly where they want you.

Poeple did not vote for constitionality in November 2008. They voted for more partisan political games. You got it. Want change? Change the way you vote.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright