Or does their thirst for political power so blind them to economic reality that they will take the country off the cliff with them?

DING!DING!DING! We have a winner!

That is exactly what this country is facing. Destruction due to narcissistic desire for power, more power, and then some more power.

Only the public with '10 and '12 elections can save us - but who knows if it'll be too late by then?

The real political power will be handed off to ACORN and other far-Left groups, or in the hands of unelected and unchecked 'czars'. The Dems in Congress will just be window dressing and will gleefully throw away the rights of the people in exchange for their cushy lifestyles in Washington.

As a small (micro) business owner I am scared to death. I fear for my survival. I am not spending a dime that I don't have to. Businesses are like the stock market. They price in the future through their actions - and the future sucks. Obama is destroying the country.

We are not a a crossroads. We have already crashed through the matchstick barriers and are only yards from the unfinished edge of a bridge to nowhere that hangs over a deep chasm.

Jim Hoft predicted McCain would win the election.

And just what the hell does that have to do with what's ACTUALLY happening, Adrian?

Come on, man, look at REALITY for a change, instead of happily masturbating to your 'reality-based' fantasies.

California is coming apart at the seams. It needs energy, it needs income. It has promised out too many benefits to too many people who aren't putting anything at all into the system, and you can only raise taxes so much before those who actually produce say "Sod this, I'm bugging out and taking my taxes with me."

California could get billions from drilling for oil - but Pelosi and Feinstein would rather see the state fail. How about solar energy, which the Mojave and southern California has in abundance? Feinstein's BLOCKED that.

Congratulations - you've got 'Progressive' aristocrats who just love making sure their peasants live 'properly', while enjoying luxury that they make sure the peasants never get.

HughS asked - "The challenge is centered on whether Democrats actually care what they are doing to this country. Or does their thirst for political power so blind them to economic reality that they will take the country off the cliff with them?"

And the answer is both 'No' and 'Yes'.

No - in that their ideas are far more important than the RESULTS such ideas engender. As long as they can tell themselves they're doing all the right things, it doesn't MATTER what actually happens. The country's starving for oil, they could get a good chunk of change for leases off the coast and even charge for each barrel pumped out - but they're being 'green' and saving the environment.

And Yes - in that their political power will completely shield them from the results of their stupidity. We no longer have mobs with pitchforks dragging aristocrats to the guillotine, or being less lethal with tar and feathers. THEY believe they're doing the right things, and nobody close by will tell them otherwise. Since everyone's telling them they're doing the right things - isn't it apparent that they ARE?

And yet so many fools think obama is great...and thought when they voted for him that he was going to save the country and the world to boot.

You don't vote in a socialist if you want a good economy. But the bought hook, line, and sinker when the media was selling.

By the way, my husband made a good point with all these bailouts. It isn't a American thing to learn from our failures so the next time around we know what we did wrong and how to make it or manage it better. When I train someone in work, I tell don't be afraid or ashamed of making mistakes, that is the only way you will really learn..

The American people will not stand for unemployment over 10% for very long. It will go through every sector of the economy like a tidal wave. Americans will remember how we survived 9/11 and Katrina and that we might not survive Obamalala's and the liberals economic policies. (Not excluding his foreign policy). Obamalala's shape shifting will not be able to hide the facts when Americans lose more homes or can't put food on the table. Obamalala's dream of a new world only works in liberal La La land. Reality can be such a head kicker don't ya know.

"The challenge is centered on whether Democrats actually care what they are doing to this country."

They don't give a rat's ass about the economy. They're using the economy as an excuse to acquire and maintain their power in government.
They are the 'elite', they will tell us what to do, when to do it, how to do it. We can just STFU, do as we're told and pay taxes.

The challenge is centered on whether Democrats actually care what they are doing to this country.

Of course they care. They're all about caring. And they firmly and earnestly believe that a socialist nanny state is, in fact, best for the country. Mussolini's words are supremely logical to them: The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.

Yes, you let the children play in the kitchen. But you ensure that only government-pre-approved contractors, having obtained the proper government-mandated licenses and having passed through all 7 tiers of government-mandated approvals can access the stove and, should they achieve proper clearance, may set the stove to 'Medium', lest someone accidentally get burned. Because they care that you don't get burned. They really do. And they are convinced that only they know how to keep you from getting burned exercising a dangerous freedom. You don't really NEED the oven hotter than Medium, do you? And with someone there to give you warmish soup, is it really necessary for you to have access to the stove, yourself, even if you like nice, hot soup of a different flavor than what they have determined is best for you? And if that means you have a little less freedom, well, it is only for your own good, after all.

They're just complete idiots.

They refuse to learn from history and millions upon millions slaughtered under the tyranny of socialism. They refuse to note that the worst of the world's post-monarchy monsters led 'compassionate, caring' socialist nations - Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin. Because they are idiots they continue to expect different results from doing the same thing - that THIS time there will be no imprisonment, violent suppression, and slaughter of political opponents, outcasts, or unpopular minorities. THIS time there will be no killing fields, ovens, or gulags. THIS time no smooth talking, disingenuous demagogue will break from the lawful restraints of the people that got him started and seize power that they previously envisioned he would aspire to, let alone obtain willingly from herds of a populace taught to be hungry for change and hopeful through misinformation and propaganda and convinced that a kind word, a firm handshake, and a shoulder to cry on is all that is really needed to keep the wolves at bay.

Oh, wait...

I agree 101% w/you on that Garand.I just cant belive how brain dead some of these idiots are.

"Businesses are like the stock market. They price in the future through their actions - and the future sucks."

That would explain my stock portfolio being up 52% year-to-date.

And also explains the rising cost of oil, which is increasing on the expectation of a rising economy.

Maybe that explains the right wing anger -- you guys actually believe the sputum that conservative bloggers write and therefore miss opportunities such as investing in the stock market last December. Since Obama took office my stock portfolio is literally up 52%. But don't listen to those gains, listen to the blockheads who were (and still are) telling you the US economy is ending.

I just went all cash yesterday, locking in those gains. I probably sold my stock to a conservative. Maybe they had a "backwards B" carved into their cheek -- one can only hope (and then cash in).

I did. Sucks to be you.

That's what I get for writing too much and then proofing too quickly. Please mentally insert the word "never" before "previously envisioned" towards the end of the rant above.

> I just went all cash yesterday, locking in those gains.

So you're giving up on 3.5 more years of Obama? Already bailing on him are you?

The run-up in the stock market and commodities is inflation being priced into the system. IBM's value is the same, the number of dollars to price that value is more. The value of the dollar is less. This is what you are seeing.

I would put those dollars into something else because the value of that paper is falling rapidly as we finance trillions of dollars of Obama-waste.

Unfortunately you posed and answered your questions at the end of your piece. Yes, the left seeks nothing but power and wealth. And no, it has no concern for anything/anyone else.

Yes, Mitch, I locked in my gains, anticipating a near-term correction. I watch the market closely and move in and out. I'm anticipating a 10-15% correction from here, then another move up.

You missed the move since Obama took office? That's too bad. Really, you missed a golden opportunity.

There's no wage pressure, so no inflation.... but please, don't listen to me.

That can begin with a halt in any new spending programs and a roll back of the terribly ineffective Stimulus legislation. The challenge is centered on whether Democrats actually care what they are doing to this country. Or does their thirst for political power so blind them to economic reality that they will take the country off the cliff with them?

Shares of Non-Social Security Federal Spending Paid for by Borrowing
Fiscal 1947 to 2003 (projected)
Truman none
Eisenhower 3%
Kennedy-Johnson 6%
Nixon-Ford 14%
Carter 13%
Reagan 25%
Bush I 28%
Clinton 6%
Bush II, fy 2002 23%
Bush II, fy 2003p 32%

I love after spending us off a cliff for years, you guys have finally found religion on spending. However, the rest of your post was pretty good. The stimulas was certainly needed, but from now on we need to pay as we go. Taxes must be raised and spending must be cut. both have to happen or our debt will overwhelm us. We also have to have entitlement reform. Only a three front solution can help.

Politically compromise has to happen. Democrats, have to give on spending and Republicans have to give on taxes. I don't forsee either happening.

jmc,

When you say "I love after spending us off a cliff for years, you guys have finally found religion on spending", you are clearly confusing grass roots conservatives/Republicans with elected Republican officials. The grass roots have been pissed off at the level of spending throughout the entire Bush administration.

No, the stimulus WAS NOT needed. The stimulus is what is pushing us closer and closer to true disaster. If you want the economy to recover, taxes must be cut and spending must be drastically cut from what Obama plans.

You're missing an 'li' from your name. thought you might want to add them back in.

Obvious One,

Maybe it escapes you, but the stock market cannot survive a state-run economy by definition. The markets are in a long term down-trend. I am glad that you have been able to take advantage of a short term rally but do not expect it to last. It is not sustainable in the face of the One's onslaught. Do you notice the huge volume on the downward spike of two months ago and the decreasing volume on this rally? That is the exact opposite of a bullish indicator. People love a bargain and decided to buy on what they believed to be "cheap." But cheap is relative. This is not the smart money. Keep going long. You are going to lose your shirt.

When you say "I love after spending us off a cliff for years, you guys have finally found religion on spending", you are clearly confusing grass roots conservatives/Republicans with elected Republican officials. The grass roots have been pissed off at the level of spending throughout the entire Bush administration.

Well looking at the above numbers don't you find it ironic that the people you are voting for, the Two Bushes and Reagan have outspent Carter, Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy, in terms of percentage of GDP? And by a large margin. I know you won't but it seems like you should be with the democrats because they have historically a much better record on spending than the GOP. At least if spending were the only issue you were looking at (I realize you probably have disagreements in areas like abortion, foreign policy, etc...)

No, the stimulus WAS NOT needed. The stimulus is what is pushing us closer and closer to true disaster. If you want the economy to recover, taxes must be cut and spending must be drastically cut from what Obama plans.

Well obviously we disagree here and plenty of economist share your view. However, we were in(and still are in my opinion) A liquidity trap. No one was spending. in such a situation i beleive it is neccasary for the Government to step in as the spender of last resort. Otherwise healthy sectors of the economy become in jeopardy because of the lack of spending.

and seriously TAXES need raised AND spending needs cut (once we are out of the liquidity trap) Your idea of cutting taxes is dangerous. Frankly that is why we are doomed. Until your side is willing to give on taxes, and democrats are willing to cut spedning the deficts will never be fixed and we are screwed.

The problem is each side is seeming more and more to have an all or nothing mentality. No compromise means nothing gets done. Which mean spending will stay at it's current level (Democrats are not going to cut school funding and medicaid funding even if needed) So spending will stay to high. and there is no way in hell Republicans won't fight tooth and nail to stop any tax increases which means revenue will be to low) So the fed wil print more money and we are screwed. You will blame me and my mindset. I will blame you and yours and the country will go down the drain.

Anyway, I'm just stating my opinion. I really don't think there is any chance I'm going to convince you. So take it for what it's worth but ask yourself this Reagan and the Bushes.

but ask yourself this Reagan and the Bushes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I meant to cut this out. This part was not germain to what I was saying.

I'm not as doom and gloomy about the economy as others seem to be. The American economy is resilient if nothing else. Only a few democrats are so foolish as to think their tenure in office is not directly related to the health of the economy. James Carville's campaign phrase "It's the economy, stupid" describes a fundamental principle of politics, which is that most people vote their pocketbook before their ideology.

Democrats have used that principle to their advantage in the past with lots of giveaway programs, but they have reached a point where it's become unsustainable. Obama knows this and admits the U.S. is out of money and now wants to revive "pay as you go". Interest rates will have to increase to fund the debt, but they have been held artificially low for way too long.

The government needs to modernize and at the same time streamline the laws that regulate publicly held businesses. Right now it's too costly, too complicated and too time consuming for business to go public, which is why business have come to rely too much on borrowing, which is why high interest rates stop them from expanding.

The whole purpose of having a stock market is to make it easy for capital and businesses to find each other. The stock market needs to move away from the current "casino" style to one where investors make money primarily though dividends and long term growth. That can be accomplished with tax rates that start high and drop the longer you hold a stock. The G20 would need to implement the same "the quicker the profit the higher the tax" rule worldwide to prevent new casino style stock markets from opening elsewhere. With such changes we can have both business growth, historically fair interest rates, and low inflation.

Now all we need to do is figure out how to pay off the national debt and keep from going back into debt. I think we would need some constitutional amendments to force congress to act responsibly including one to sell off most of the land the Federal government owns over maybe 30 years to pay against the debt.

Democrats have used that principle to their advantage in the past with lots of giveaway programs, but they have reached a point where it's become unsustainable.

The fact is that Republicans have done far more deficit spending that democrats. The difference is that tradiotnaly they have not paid as they went, but put it on the country's credit card instead. There is blame to go around but I do find it bizarre, that while spending and borrwing like crazy though three different Republican administrations (to a higher degree than the democrats) You insit in pretending that your side has no culpability in the deficits.

Oh well, one thing I have learned is that no matter how many facts and figure you put out there, people don't change their mind.

The fact is that Republicans have done far more deficit spending that democrats.

I'm not sure that's true and certainly isn't if you count the future liability of entitlement programs. My point was the Democrats have been better at buying votes with government money than republicans, but we have reached a point where there is no more money for such giveaways.

There is blame to go around but I do find it bizarre, that while spending and borrwing like crazy though three different Republican administrations (to a higher degree than the democrats) You insit in pretending that your side has no culpability in the deficits.

So who's making that point? I'm not. The point is that we are now at a point where such deficit spending can't continue regardless of who's to blame. Do you dispute that?

Oh well, one thing I have learned is that no matter how many facts and figure you put out there, people don't change their mind.

That's the way it is in politics and particularly so in economics, both of which try to predict results that are dependent on human nature.

Sheik -

"If you want the economy to recover, taxes must be cut and spending must be drastically cut from what Obama plans."

That's making the assumption that they want the economy to recover.

Taxes cut? That's SO not happening - because it's not the 'progressive' thing to do.

Spending cuts? See above. The spending won't be cut, because more spending will be needed to take care of the people who're forced out of jobs because taxes were raised.

The ultimate 'progressive' vision would seem to be state-run soup kitchens and clinics - serving a population in state-managed and furnished housing, dressing in 'eco-correct' clothing, and not driving at all. Everything free, with loads of leisure time, (since there's no jobs) unless you're working off a stint of thoughtcrime out at a state-managed farm.

Cradle to grave lockstep conformity to what the 'progressives' think best for everyone. Doesn't it sound wonderful?

Doesn't it just sound like a choice slice of hell for anyone with ambition and drive?

Statistics show that Deficit Spending Concern rose suddenly at 12:01 p.m. January 20th 2009.

Analysts are studying why.

Couldn't be because Obama started spending like a drunken sailor, right? (Apologies to drunken sailors everywhere - you're only spending your OWN money, and when you run out you sober up...) Like some dumb-ass who figures as long as there's still checks in the book, there's money in the bank? Like someone told him that he can solve a deficit by spending 4 times the amount he's overdrawn?

Tell me, Adrian - do you even understand what an 'overdraft fee' is? And that we're ALL going to be hit hard with them?

Adrian- when are you going to wise up and realize that your leader, The One, has spent more than all of the last Presidents including your hated Bush combined.
Is liberalism a block to intelligence? It can't be cause I know many smart Lefty's, maybe you have a learning comprehension problem,eh?

Fill in the blank:

I drew the line at Deficit Spending at $_________.

Adrian -

It's hard to believe you're really so dense, but it's apparently possible.

Are you honestly arguing that because people didn't bitch continually about Bush's spending, that we've got no cause to gripe when Obama spends 4X the amount?

I was just wondering at what point continual bitching about Deficit Spending seemed to become necessary. What was the tipping point?

I thought perhaps it would be easier to articulate if you gave it a number rather than explaining it in words.

"What was the tipping point?"

4X what Bush was spending isn't enough for you?

You want a graphic depiction, perhaps?

That picture look good to you, Adrian?

Think you just MIGHT be able to find a 'tipping point' there, Adrian?

By the way, that was with the LOW estimates that the WH was putting out. Now, apparently, the numbers are going to be worse. So drag out the red pen, and color on your monitor and make the lines longer.

So what's Obama's response? We need to spend even more money we don't have have. That'll make it all better!

I wasn't wondering about my own opinion which hasn't changed within the last five or so months.

Hmm, When Reagan spent four times carter Did you complan. When Bush spend 4 times clinton did you complain?

Bush inherited (something he knows something about) a surplus. He wasn't forced to deficit-spend, he did it willingly -- or willfully. : (

Yeah, and that kick in the economic nuts from 9/11 didn't have anything to do with that - did it? I've seen estimates that $1 tril basically evaporated from the US economy from that event. Funny how Bush didn't immediately slap out $4 tril in 'stimulus spending', isn't it?

So just what IS your opinion, Adrian? Is Obama's massive overspending it a GOOD thing or a BAD thing?

Huh. A timely topic of great importance, and the best the other side can come up with is "why weren't you complaining about this before?" or "but,but,but...that other person did something kinda similar!"

As to Obambi's historic spending spree, I think....Oh, look over there! Something shiny to change the subject!

Asswipe Browne

Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enickscipio%2Ecom%2Fpod%2F&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, and that kick in the economic nuts from 9/11 didn't have anything to do with that - did it? I've seen estimates that $1 tril basically evaporated from the US economy from that event.

that has nothing to do with deficit spending which Bush at 4 times a greater rate.

"There's no wage pressure, so no inflation.... but please, don't listen to me."

Okie dokie.

Might I also add there is no Federal Reserve stealing tax money from the American people. Ha!

Men in Black helicopters are stealing my money! Tin-foil hats, quick!

52% year-to-date gains in the stock market since Obama took office.

Sucks to be paranoid, and if you followed the advice of right wing bloggers and ran from the stock market because the sky was falling, you lost.

Sucks to be paranoid, and if you followed the advice of right wing bloggers and ran from the stock market because the sky was falling, you lost.

And yet you sold out. Sounds like you're the one who's now paranoid. If you had taken the advice of right wing bloggers and took a short position right after Obama took office you would have made even more money. Sucks to be you.

JMC 41 -

Damn, dude, that was even less coherent than usual. They screwing with your meds again?

Men in Black helicopters are stealing my money! Tin-foil hats, quick!

Haha! Where do these dolts come from? I am perfectly happy with the gains in my fiat stocks, and how many trillions in bailouts so far? I would where an aluminum foil hat if I could afford it! Hahaha!

dang, *would wear

Now even the Economist is piling on.

The Economist: "Bad as the deficit was under Mr Bush, it will quadruple this year, from $459 billion in 2008 to $1.845 trillion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Mr Obama vows to slash it in half within four years, but that will still leave it bigger than the deficits for which he once lashed Mr Bush. His aides hint that he will get tough when the time is right, but he is reluctant to break campaign promises of tax cuts for all but the rich just yet. The CBO reckons the deficit will still be running at more than $1 trillion a year in 2019."

Oh, yeah. That'll be good for us, won't it?

Obama's caught between a rock and a hard place. He got into office by promising 'tax cuts' - but he can't deliver those and the massive expansion of government services he wants in an affordable fashion. He could just have the Fed print money, of course - but inflation would reduce the value of the dollar pretty damn quick.

Come on, Adrian - what's your opinion on this? Care to tell us just how wonderful it all is, how right it is he's spending all this money we don't have?

"They screwing with your meds again?"

No, Captain Toenails was probably distracted again with another self-pedicure.

Meanwhile Adriane and One looking suspiciously like Thelma and Louise are giving each other thumbs up and smiling straight ahead.

I believe that Americans are being driven by a president under the influence of his own "self-infatuation".

Coming from a nation under the Nuclear protection of your country, I am quite confused and even troubled that with the bulk of the American economy already under the lease to the Chinese, another "welfare" program and continues capital injection by the government to the Free market will truly "initiate" the downfall of the U.S. that even an election cannot change.

I cannot bind the two contradiction your government is doing; having a horrendous deficit but continuously spend money that is under credit from a country who is vowed to take America's standing in the world.

Please wake up! What you are doing now is what has already happened to my country. High deficit, stagnant growth, and even now diminishing global corporations. Japan believed in the American Free-market system, we followed your country in every single step, however, I have been so adamantly oppose to "that" person's policies that I can't mind my peace any more.

My country, and most nations in the world are depending in America to be the purveyor of capitalism and equality. If the U.S. cannot dig herself out of this ditch, then I fear most countries will look to China for guidance.

"America's melting pot is the double edge sword that is already starting to burn it's most righteous citizens"

please change...change "him"!