March 20, 2009
Laugh or Cry?

Maybe both.

I'm laughing at this.

I think I may be crying at this, serving as the icing on the cake for the tutorial on "let's see how we can fumble a visit by the Prime Minister of our most important ally."

Sure, it's initially funny - uproariously so. But, when you really think about it, these sort of little mistakes in foreign affairs can end up having meaningful consequences if they serve to offend those with whom our relations are slightly less cordial (there is a reason diplomats routinely speak in bland, non-committal language, where many phrases have universal, agreed upon meanings). That realization is not so humorous in the long-term.

Posted by Eric Earling at March 20, 2009 11:06 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Rubbish. Much ado about absolutely nothing.
After a US President throws-up on a head of state all else pales in comparison.

Posted by: slumdog on March 20, 2009 10:55 AM
2. "...pales in comparison".

To use your own words "rubbish". Being sick is unfortunate, but unintended. The same cannot be said for giving a ridiculous "gift" of dvd's--especially ones that won't even work in England! That is an inexcusable faux pas!

Posted by: Bill H on March 20, 2009 11:02 AM
3. I would be happy to send him a $30 DVD player from the USA to patch things up, but I am sure the State Dept. has already figured that out.

Posted by: David Williams on March 20, 2009 11:06 AM
4. I would be happy to send him a $30 DVD player from the USA to patch things up, but I am sure the State Dept. has already figured that out.

Posted by: David Williams on March 20, 2009 11:06 AM
5. Can you even imagine the vitriol if it was Bush who had made the Special Olympics comment?

Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2009 11:35 AM
6. Or, Dan Quayle?

Obama seems to be screwing up worse than I would have thought. At this point, I cannot and will not ever accept any of his financial 'fixes'. I mean, this guy is making Jimmy Carter look like the better of the two worst presidents.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2009 11:43 AM
7. #6 If Bush had said it, it wouldn't be funny. It would be factual.

Posted by: slumdog on March 20, 2009 11:45 AM
8. We must excuse this oversight as it just demonstrates how unmaterialistic and cerebral our President is.

Posted by: Paul on March 20, 2009 11:58 AM
9. If Bush had said it, it wouldn't be funny. It would be factual.

Bush averaged a 266? Didn't know he was that good.

Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2009 12:00 PM
10. I cannot imagine anybody comparing a man who goes to a state dinner despite being desperately ill, because protocol required him to be there...and who throws up because he is *sick*.....

...and somebody gifting our best ally with a mindless cheapo-schmeapo throwaway gift that could've been bought at bargaindvds.com on sale, and then not even having a proper dinner of state with that same ally, because of being "too tired".

Now, if Bush had shoved his fingers down his throat so as to throw up on purpose, that'd would have been one thing. Throwing up because he was physically ill? That's where things like sympathy and empathy come into play. Not so, with careless gifts.

Posted by: Angela in Bothell on March 20, 2009 12:05 PM
11. Proper protocol for throwing-up at a State dinner is to aim your spew in a direction other than the lap of the host head of State.

Posted by: slumdog on March 20, 2009 12:09 PM
12. #12 Been to a few State Dept. dinners, have you? Or just done a lot of spewing?

Posted by: Paul on March 20, 2009 12:20 PM
13. After hearing a snippet on Rush Limbaugh, I looked up the amazing and inspirational words from Sarah Palin about the special olympics and special needs children.

Contrast that to the words of Pres. Obama, who likes to make fun of those children.

Once again, tell me which is the born leader, the beacon of inspiration, and which is the unthinking mind-numbed rube/boob?

Posted by: travis t on March 20, 2009 12:24 PM
14. You may be pleased to know (#13) that any and spewing I may have done was always controlled. Would you trust the nuclear football to someone who has no control over his spewing. Of course you wouldn't.

Posted by: slumdog on March 20, 2009 12:25 PM
15. David W.

I would be happy to send him a $30 DVD player from the USA to patch things up, but I am sure the State Dept. has already figured that out.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LOL.... Ahh David. You've never been to Eurpoe have you.
They don't use 110 volts. (-:

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 20, 2009 12:38 PM
16. Obama managed a two-fer in that massive insult our oldest and best ally--he returned the bust of Churchill as well as giving a gift of incompatible Walmat DVD's. Good going!

Anyone not deeply ashamed of this incompetent gang of crooks running the administration is either brain dead or living in a drug and/or alcohol stupor. In just a few short weeks, our Special Olympics POTUS has been treated like a naive rube by Medvedev, insulted our oldest ally, alienated Columbia, donated a billion $$ to Hamas, and demonstrated to Iran he will be their bitch.

And that doesn't even cover the incredible damage to the economy this putz is doing.

A truly stupid and shallow creature, this Obama.

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 12:46 PM
17. Now, these are some classic gaffe's from you know who - doesn't get too much better than this.

- "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." -- Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

- "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" -- Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

- "There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -- Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Posted by: slumdog on March 20, 2009 12:55 PM
18. Well, Barack's teleprompter denies responsibility for Barack's latest attempt to eat his foot.

Maybe if TOTUS had arranged the gifts and been available for the presser it would not have been such a disaster for our Special Olympian in Chief.

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 01:09 PM
19. So much for Obama and his open door.
________________________

Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.

This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."

The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.

The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 20, 2009 01:12 PM
20. It's okay if Barack Obama insults the Special Olympics, because he is a democrat. And democrats are allowed to insult others, while criticizing everyone else who insults others. They, however, are so morally superior that when they insult others it is simply allowed. Just because. Get it? (I know their logic is goofy, but that's just the way they think. Get used to it).

Posted by: Michele on March 20, 2009 01:17 PM
21. I'm sorry but no one in the history of politics has given us more fodder for laughter than the Bush clan. Let's face it, they're just funny little dudes.

Posted by: junkie on March 20, 2009 01:20 PM
22. Well, Barack's latest fizzle in international relations--the video valentine to Iran--is up for your viewing pleasure.

While the response from Iran was--shall we say--less than optimal (they want us to surrender now), at least Barack wasn't doing more damage to the economy while he was groveling before the Iranian terror masters.


Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 01:22 PM
23. Bush is old news. Who cares about him when we can watch the train wreck in progress right now! This guy is the improvement we have been hoping for....at least if you are a comedian or an enemy of the USA.

Hey Barack. Figure out how many states there are yet? Maybe if you had graduated from college you might know things like that....

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 01:27 PM
24. Drudge has up today the top 10 gaffes (so far) by Obama and Joe Biden. I particularly noticed the totally weak salute he gave the marine standing next to the Marine One chopper. It's so symptomatic of the sloppiness and ill-informedness of Obama about proper decorum for a president. He doesn't really get it, does he? President Bush had total respect for the office.

Posted by: Michele on March 20, 2009 01:32 PM
25. Agree #24, Bush IS old news. May be President Obama could be schooled more properly by Sarah Palin, the GOP's newest rising star. Now there's a good source of gaffe's.

Posted by: slumdog on March 20, 2009 01:34 PM
26. Michele

That list is great, but I try not to think much about "Plugs" Biden. He is truly the crazy uncle living the White House cellar....

But, at least Biden can tell the difference between a window and a door. Maybe he can teach Obama that little distinction?

Maybe Pelosi can get an earmark for Obama--certainly Obama will approve all earmarks--for foreign language lessons. Again, if Obama is studying the Spanish he wants everyone to know he can only do so much damage. Right?

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 01:42 PM
27. I can hardly wait for this prez of "shining pecs" to throw the first pitch. Mr. Athletic prowess will more than likely hurl from 30'3" and the catcher will have to dive way to his right. (you libs will have to think about that one)
Maybe Michelle has better arms for it.

Posted by: PC on March 20, 2009 01:55 PM
28. After all the galactically stupid comments George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and best of all, Sarah Palin have made over the years, you gotta laugh at these poor folks who think this a somehow a major gaffe.

And to think that Barak Obama could somehow embarrass the country or diminish either the office of the Presidency or our international reputation further than the prior administration is simply absurd.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 02:03 PM
29. It's sad, the Republicans really have nothing and no one to support their dreams. An effort in futility at best.

Posted by: slumdog on March 20, 2009 02:07 PM
30. Witz, you mistooking Fey instead of Palin?

Witz, remember the hammerin' the press and libs did with the few gaffes of Quayle?

And if I recall correctly, we all laughed at Bushisms, too. But, Obama's seem mean-spirited (are you sure he isn't one of those mean and rascally Republicans you are so famous for insulting?).

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2009 02:17 PM
31. @#29, It's not nearly the gaffe it would have been had it been uttered by Bush, Unkl.

Surely even a partisan leftists such as you might take just a moment to reflect upon the double standard that has existed for years.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 02:36 PM
32. Oh look! We have a new leftist troll, "slumdog".

Hmmm, I wonder if this could perhaps be "facts", or "demo-kid"? Possibly "bruce" or "cato"?

The names change, but the patter is the same.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 02:46 PM
33. Swatter:

It wasn't Tina Fey how thought Africa was a country, couldn't name a single newspaper she read, or told us the Russians were invading Alaska airspace. It was your very own, and very "special" Sarah Palin.

Comparing the intellect of Barak Obama to Dan Quayle's is like comparing your high school shortstop to Alex Rodriguez.

If you want to talk about "mean spirited," tune into Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity some time.

Now with the exception of Palin, none of these folks are dummies. But what is it about your party that seems to want to appeal to dim wits like Army Medic/Vet & Michele?

Is that really the kind of brainpower you want running the country?

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 02:51 PM
34. Witzy just wants to live in the past. He just doesn't want to Move-On any longer.

If only Obama would get away from TOTUS more often, it might be even more entertaining. After all, watching the morons in the administration ruin both the economy AND the bailout we have to have something to laugh at. And the more this buffoon screws up, the less likely that any sane person will listen to him.

But let's watch BO grovel again. He does it so well....

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 02:53 PM
35. It's sooooo cute: the party of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and a President who groped the Chancellor of Germany somehow believes it has standing to criticize the rest of us on our behavior. Next, the party of tax cuts for the rich, massive deficits, and endless war will lecture us on the need to balance our public budgets, right? Oh, wait...

I bet you're all still laughing over Bush's "where's the WMD" joke... classy.

Posted by: tensor on March 20, 2009 03:00 PM
36. Sarah Palin did not "think Africa was a country". Jeez, Unkl Witz, you people are really amazing.

Palin did however run circles around a certain Vice Presidential candidate in debate who had earlier claimed that FDR came on television in 1929 to reassure the public about the Great Depression. For the historically challenged, Roosevelt wasn't President in 1929 and no one had a television in their house.

Face it, you lefties blow your stacks about Palin because she is a conservative, accomplished woman. She drives you into fits of hysteria. The campaign you people mounted to destroy Sarah Palin tells us in the most glaring way that what we believe about the left is absolutely accurate.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 03:02 PM
37. Protocol for a state visit and state gifts are typically the responsibility of staff. Obama was stupid to allow the mistakes, but it was his highly educated, super smart, crack staff that caused the initial problems.

It would appear that when putting thought into what they need to do gets in the way of advancing the agenda of what they want to do, they do some quick patchwork so they can get back to their agenda.

What does it say about politicians when they read speeches from teleprompters and don't realize immediately that what they're reading aren't their words? Either they are incompetent and will blindly read anything put up on a teleprompter, or all of their speeches sound so much alike that they can't tell the difference, or perhaps it's both.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 20, 2009 03:07 PM
38. Witz, those supposed gaffes have all been debunked by now. It is quite childish of you. Why aren't you all over the Obama gaffes? As with Bush, you seemed to think it disqualified Bush to be president. Doesn't the same apply to you?

For the record, this stuff is all red cape stuff diverting our attention from the real disaster- Obama is not up for the job of president- either economic nor foreign policy.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2009 03:12 PM
39. I like the handle, slumdog. Let's hope he doesn't go all Democrat and change next week to another handle.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2009 03:13 PM
40. "Sarah Palin did not "think Africa was a country"."

Well, maybe not Bill, we're just going on what the McCain campaign folks told us.

It sure was believable after all the other dumb things she came up with.

If driving us lefties to "fits of hysteria" means hysterical laughter, you're entirely correct.

But seriously, back to my question: Why is your party anti-intellectual? Why do you feel this gun toting, bible thumping fundamentalist, from a right wing, redneck, sh*t hole in Alaska, who's greatest intellectual achievement was to obtain a degree in sports broadcasting after attending a whole series of colleges in several different states would be a better candidate to lead our country than a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

I honestly want to know.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 03:25 PM
41. You just cannot make this stuff up.

Obama bars press from press award ceremony . You have to wonder how the award will get into the White House.

Must be more of that transparency Obama promised up. But there could be an excuse....maybe crazy uncle Joe has to be there. Even the gang that can't find a region 2 DVD set knows never to let Joe in front of the press.

It may be a long 4 years, but at least we will get to watch one of the dumber and more cowardly men in public life trip on the world stage.

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 03:31 PM
42. Perhaps you should simply re-read your own very biased rant, Unkl.
"this gun toting, bible thumping fundamentalist, from a right wing, redneck, sh*t hole in Alaska, who's greatest intellectual achievement was to obtain a degree in sports broadcasting after attending a whole series of colleges"

Do I need to say more? The judgementalism, the prejudice, the pure hatred of rural America. It's all there. It's who you people are. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 03:32 PM
43.
Palin at least graduated from college. No one seems to be able to find Obama's diploma from Columbia, let alone his grades.

Which would explain Obama's confusion about the number of states in the USA. Or maybe Obama thought we were referring to Indonesian provinces.

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 03:35 PM
44.
And how about all those Law Review articles Obama wrote? The first Law Review editor ever who wrote no (zero, zilch, nada) articles. Must have been too demeaning to do any actual work. A very impressive achievement indeed. You need to brag about that more, Witzy. I had forgotten entirely another zero about Zero.

Posted by: iconoclast on March 20, 2009 03:43 PM
45.
Hey Bill:

I was born in, raised in, grew up in, attended college in, and currently reside in "rural America."

I don't hate it at all. And it has nothing to do with my question regarding your party's anti-intellectualism.

Care to take another stab at answering my question?

Why do you hate intellectuals?

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 03:44 PM
46. Laugh or cry indeed. Who could have imagined The One would fail so badly so quickly?

Good news/bad news, good news first - this is a one and done president we are watching. Bad news, more 1400 agonizing days to get there.

Now would someone kindly pass the Kleenex?

Posted by: threeoddnumbers on March 20, 2009 03:44 PM
47. "I was born in, raised in, grew up in, attended college in, and currently reside in "rural America." Unkl Witz #46.

If you say so. Your writing seems to indicate otherwise. As does your snooty assumption that I "hate intellectuals".

You aren't doing your side much good with these poorly though-out, biased posts, Unkl.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 03:52 PM
48. Why do you hate intellectuals?

I don't 'hate' them. I find them to be arrogant, pretentious boors ... which aptly describes you, as well.

Posted by: jimg on March 20, 2009 04:05 PM
49. Meh, if President Bush had given DVDs as a gift, everyone here would say it's just a dumb mistake that is inconsequential. I would agree, as well.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 20, 2009 04:06 PM
50.
It's no more snooty than your assumption that I hate rural America, Bill. Where did that come from?

By the way Bill, your side seems to think that everyone in rural America is conservative and votes Republican, and all those urban intellectuals are libs.

In fact, it's a pretty even split with lots of both types in both places.

But you guys seem to want to pit the rural against the urban and make it a battle rather than unite us against a common foe. As if there is some sort of fence between us.

Howcome?

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 04:11 PM
51. Unkl Witz has the gall the ask if there is "some sort of a fence between us" after writing this:

"this gun toting, bible thumping fundamentalist, from a right wing, redneck, sh*t hole in Alaska, who's greatest intellectual achievement was to obtain a degree in sports broadcasting after attending a whole series of colleges"

I particularly enjoyed the "right wing, redeck, sh*t hole in Alaska" part. No rural prejudice there. No bias. I'd bet a pile of dough that you are a city boy, Unkl Witz. I can't imagine why anything you've written might lead me to that conclusion. Nothing wrong with living in the city, mind you. I live in Seattle myself. Grew up in the country, though.

Your witness.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 04:22 PM
52.
"fraid you'd lose that bet Bill. I'm country all the way. Did live in the city for a while, didn't like it. Too crowded. Glad to hear you're a city boy though, it reinforces my point.

It's not rural vs urban, it's smart vs not so smart. What baffles me is why your side chooses the later, and disdains the former.

But tell me more about why I can't be from the country. Maybe I'll learn something.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 04:30 PM
53.
Or, maybe you should sing me the praises of Wasilla, Alaska. I'm sure it's a wonderful place with lots of nice people.

Better yet, you could convince me Sarah Palin really is a very intelligent and thoughtful individual. That her early years of wandering from college to college were just a lack of focus, a journey that sculpted her into the sensitive and caring politician that we can't see, because the liberal media has somehow decided to demonize her.

Give it a shot. We liberals are very open minded.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 04:37 PM
54. No thanks Unkl Witz. I'll leave you to your narrow, biased little world.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 04:42 PM
55. It's funny. The Marxist Slavers insist on always reverting back to previous Administrations. They can't address the mistakes of their Obamassiah. They cannot bring themselves to admit he screwed up.

The only thing Obama is good at is campaigning. His administration is a disaster so far, his plans are a disaster so far, and he's flubbed more times than one can count.

But he can count on his Marxist Slaver friends to pucker up and kiss his rear!

When you're an incompetent, unprepared, inexperienced political hack there's not much else you can do!

HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 20, 2009 05:23 PM
56. To poster #41--

Have you ever been to Alaska and do you have even a base understanding of what the challenges and opportunities of that state are? My guess is not. If you had been, you'd realize that running that state is not an easy task. The state is huge. The weather is extreme. The populate is diverse and very spread out.

Take just a quick moment to think objectively about the difficulties involved in providing basic services to the population. Now, tell us all how easy and brainless it is to run a state like that.

Or maybe you might think a moment about the special interests that are at play in Alaska?

Never mind the oil exploration and production industries that Palin managed to face down in a way that no other politician in the state ever has before. How about the native Americans population and their unique interests? Or the special interest power of industries like the fishing and mining concerns there?

Now, tell us all how simple and brainless that is to manage and still get an approval rating from your constituents that positively TOWERS over Chris Gregiores in this state?

If you can put your tendency to belittle things you don't undertand aside for just a minute, you might also want to seriously think about the international issues at play in Alaska.

It has a Canadian border larger than any other three or four states put together, as a starting point? Can you begin to understand the issues that can create for a state goverment with an economy heavily based on it's natural resources? Is that all simple to manage and administrate too?

Lets think for a moment about a single issue: International fishing rights. Does that really seem so simple in a part of the world where Japanese, Russian and Chinese fishing boats are as common as U.S. fleets in the heavily fished waters off the Alaskan coast?

Here's something to think about if you can. The former Soviet union and china really are close by?

Okay, okay. Stop laughing about the "I can see Russia from my house" idle joke Palin made and how Tina Fey used it into ridicule. Instead, look at a friggin map. If you think with your brain instead of your bias, you might begin to understand that Russia, China and even the future of the North pole is an issue for Alaska. That's why you'll find a simply incredible military radar system there along with some pretty high powered military assets in that state and if you don't think the military can be a management issue for a state, you are really thinking.

Now, just on those few points, if you think AT ALL objectively, you might see why Palin's success and popularity in that state might have some merit.

But, you've never even tried to understand Alaskas incredible NATIONAL importance as a strategic oil reserve or source for building mateiral, metals, minerals and other natural resources that help drive this countries economy.


Because knee jerk liberals like yourself are inclined to mock rather than think most times and although Alaska isn't far from Washington you probably dismissed it as a backwoods podunk nowhere.

But boy, you sure are impressed with a wonk publication that a bunch of ivy league lawyers and politicians read because that's what REALLY COUNTS in this world right?

Posted by: johnny on March 20, 2009 05:34 PM
57. You've got it nailed johnny. Why is it also that leftists have such difficulty being honest? It should tell the casual reader here something. I like to believe that is one reason we eventually we will prevail.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 05:49 PM
58. Johnny,

You won't get an answer - at least, one that honestly answers the questions you raise! Remember, this is the same hack group that rightly criticized President Bush for his $4 trillion increase of the national debt, and now worships at the feet of a man who plans to add over twice that amount in the next 10 years. Yes, their lord, the Obamassiah, will DOUBLE the national debt ($10 trillion when he took office, it would be $20 trillion when he's done).

They have no center, other than power. And will never address facts or logic, but simply hurl invectives. It's all they can do.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 20, 2009 06:01 PM
59. And Dan, we can perform this experiment endlessly with leftists. They lie. They never admit being wrong. They are routinely angry. They disintegrate into profanity laced personal attacks whenever logic dictates that they might perhaps be mistaken on a particular point or issue. They don't realize that we can predict their behavior. Shooting fish in a barrel is easy by comparison. They are so tightly wound that they don't know that we are teasing them. Liberals don't know what teasing is.

Liberals think they are oh, so sophisticated. In reality they are filled with the biases they have been brainwashed with since childhood.

We can and do illustrate this daily here on this blog.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2009 06:24 PM
60. Sorry Johnny:

But with the exception of cutting a slightly better deal with the oil companies, all the issues you mention are international and hence, dealt with by the federal government, not Ms. Palin's office.

Oh, and yeah, the "diverse" and "spread out" population. The "diverse" and "spread out", and very tiny population. The "diverse" and "spread out", and very tiny population who receive a nice check each year courtesy of the oil companies. All based on the fact that: They just happen to live in Alaska.

Yep, that sounds like a very difficult population to provide services for, especially when your ideology is that providing public services is not the government's job.

In short, I'd have to say being governor of Alaska is right near the bottom of an ascending scale of difficulty among the states. Right in there with Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah. I'd rank it dead last.

At least George Bush managed to run a large state with some real issues.

Credit where credit is due.

So, I remain unimpressed with Ms. Palin.

It was a nice try though Johnny.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 06:27 PM
61. rightly criticized President Bush for his $4 trillion increase of the national debt,

Bush started with the large surplus Clinton had created. Bush, like every other Republican president of the last thirty years, never signed a balanced budget, despite his party's endless caterwauling about how bad government spending was.

Obama starts with the huge debt created by Bush and the corrupt lackeys in the GOP Congress. Unlike Bush, who inherited a sound economy from Clinton, Obama begins with a financial catastrophe, caused entirely by lax federal regulation of the banking and insurance sectors under Bush.

Don't worry; we liberals, under Obama, will fix everything YOU'VE broken in our once-great country, and I'd bet good money that we'll never hear a word of thanks from you. Not that we care about your opinions; the total failure of all your policies ensures our indifference.

By the way, there's a difference - financial and moral -- between blowing huge amounts of money on a needless war, and investing that money in our future. They're not equal, and anyone who claims they are is either ignorant or lying. Perhaps the current holder of the Nobel Prize in Economics can explain it to you: he says Obama's economic recovery program is "one-third of a loaf"; i.e. we should spent much more to get out of the Bush Recession.

Posted by: tensor on March 20, 2009 06:31 PM
62. Don't worry; we liberals, under Obama, will fix everything YOU'VE broken in our once-great country, and I'd bet good money that we'll never hear a word of thanks from you. Not that we care about your opinions; the total failure of all your policies ensures our indifference.

*snort* I just spit my drink all over my monitor. Yeah you commie libs will "fix the country", sure.

Posted by: Crusader on March 20, 2009 06:33 PM
63. Dan:

I must concede we howled like banshee's at Bush's spending habits. But let's take a quick look at what we got for them. Most of it (at least the part we complained about) went for a senseless war in the Middle East. A war that not only cost a trillion dollars, but left hundreds of thousands of dead and injured human beings to deal with. A war that severely diminished our standing and stature in the international community. A war in which we openly gave up the very ideals that used to set us apart from ordinary nations.

At least with the current plans, we get something: like roads, and bridges, and transportation services, and health care and a better education system.

By the way, where were you folks when Bush was busting the budget? Everyone on this website seemed to think it was good idea

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2009 06:44 PM
64. By the way, where were you folks when Bush was busting the budget? Everyone on this website seemed to think it was good idea

Ok you're a certified idiot and liar. SP has been decrying the Bush spending since the beginning. Nobody here ever thought it was a good idea. Asshole!

Posted by: Crusader on March 20, 2009 06:50 PM
65. Re Michele @ 25 How humiliating that they are being cataloged by the UK.

On a happier note, the toddlers teleprompter has its OWN blog!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 20, 2009 07:23 PM
66. and I'd bet good money that we'll never hear a word of thanks from you.

Really, Crusader, you could have waited more than two whole minutes to vindicate my prediction. G.W. Bush made Jim McDermott wait almost three months, you know.

Posted by: tensor on March 20, 2009 07:24 PM
67. It is nice to know that th most powerful man in the world feels so inadequate he must make handicapped people the butt of his jokes.

Posted by: Special Olympics on March 20, 2009 07:38 PM
68. President Barack Hussein Obama had already apologized for his thoughtless and offensive remark before it went on the air. Bush apologized for ... ?

Little wonder you guys are so confused. Having a political leader accept responsibility for his words violates everything you've ever believed.

Posted by: tensor on March 20, 2009 07:42 PM
69. Tensor,

There never was a surplus; that's the biggest lie told by the Left. Clinton never HAD a surplus.

Witz,

We've been howling about spending for decades. The conservative Right has demonized by you leftist Marxists as uncaring SOBs for decades because we wanted to cut spending.

Now your Obamassiah is making George Bush look like a spendthrift! He's planning to blow over a TRILLION dollars a year in deficits.

And what do we hear back from you leftists? "Well, George Bush blew trillions on thing we didn't like!"

It's NOT ABOUT WHAT IT'S SPENT ON! IT'S THE FACT IT'S DEFICIT SPENDING!

So c'mon you Leftists. Decry your Obamassiah's plan to completely bankrupt this nation! His profligate spending will DOUBLE the entire national debt! It took 232 years to get the debt to $10 trillion; he'll DOUBLE it in just two terms...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 20, 2009 07:48 PM
70. Now some special quotes from our empty suit asshole of a president:

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it." - May 9, 2008 campaign stop in Oregon


"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people


Posted by: Special Olympics on March 20, 2009 07:49 PM
71. "President Barack Hussein Obama had already apologized for his thoughtless and offensive remark before it went on the air. Bush apologized for ... ? "

Bush apoligize for throwing in with the Marxists and signing the $700 billion.

Obama is an arrogant asshole who is so fragile in his self esteem he must pick on people who cannot fight back. What a scumbag.

Posted by: Special Olympics on March 20, 2009 07:53 PM
72. Tensor,

Bush started with the large surplus Clinton had created. Bush, like every other Republican president of the last thirty years, never signed a balanced budget, despite his party's endless caterwauling about how bad government spending was.

The last President to pass a balanced budget was Eisenhower, in 1957. Go ahead, prove it wrong. President Clinton NEVER balanced the budget, the national debt increased every year under him. Ike was the last to actually create a slight surplus and pay down the debt.

Obama starts with the huge debt created by Bush and the corrupt lackeys in the GOP Congress.

Bush started with a $6 trillion dollar debt. And for nearly half his Presidency dealt with a Slaver party controlled Senate, House, or both.

Unlike Bush, who inherited a sound economy from Clinton, Obama begins with a financial catastrophe, caused entirely by lax federal regulation of the banking and insurance sectors under Bush.

LIE. The Clinton Recession of 2000, that was ending thanks to the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Not to mention the implosion of the tech bubble; that was in full swing at the end of Clinton's reign.

See, you can't even be honest, and you keep living in the past!

If you are so concerned about spending, then where is your outrage at the Obamassiah blowing TRILLIONS of dollars, stagnating the nation? Even the EU is telling Obama he's being too socialist and too free with the money...

You are simply a partisan, power-mad hack. There can not be any other explanation for someone so willing to ignore the provable FACTS, and to be so hyper-partisan and hypocritical.

HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 20, 2009 07:54 PM
73. I wonder if Obama will be giving back the $200K that AIG gave him. Will the other Democrats give back the money they got from AIG, one of the largest donors to campaigns?

Posted by: AIG Exec on March 20, 2009 07:58 PM
74. Witless scribbled down:

I must concede we howled like banshee's at Bush's spending habits. But let's take a quick look at what we got for them. Most of it (at least the part we complained about) went for a senseless war in the Middle East.

Total Iraq War spending was just over $660 billion when President Bush left office. That's a small percentage of the total of $3.8 trillion in deficit spending under President Bush.

And what we got for it? Completion of the policy of regime change in Iraq, and freedom for 50 million people. What price do you put on freedom? Apparently $13,200 per person is too high...

Oh, and how about the $50 billion spent on AIDS prevention in Africa? More than all previous President's combined? Was that a waste, too? You choose to ignore that?

The problem is that you Slavers pick and choose your pet projects to waste money on. It's OK to spend like drunken sailors in Manila when it's for your pet projects. But let someone else spend - even on the same project - and it's terrible.

Come on, Witless, you can be a bigger person and say it with me:

Obama is recklessly spending this nation into the toilet. His deficits are not just untenable, but irresponsible, and show a lack of understanding of basic economics.

Go ahead, say it. I know you can! Dwelling on the past is not helpful; remember the past, but address the future!

If deficit spending is wrong, it's wrong. REGARDLESS of which party controls the purse strings (which, since 2006, has been the Slavery Party).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 20, 2009 08:00 PM
75. #61

You can be as dismissive as you'd like, but you're actually quite wrong there.

You can be unimpressed too. Frankly, I've already got a feel for what you do find impressive. Someone that talks well and has a lot of unproven ideas.

I think American's have already figured out they've elected the next Jimmy Carter. An incompetent that sounded good on the stump but doesn't know how to handle power once he's got it. Full of reall great ideas that don't work (like socialism) and followed by people who know better than those that have done it when they really haven't done anything.

I am sure he will probably build great cheap houses with volunteer labor some day. I just hope that he doesn't screw up the country too much in the meantime.

And for the record, most people in Alaska think the federal government is the problem - not the solution - to their needs. Most of them would be happy as hell to have the feds leave Alaska entirely as all they do is create laws about things they don't understand.

The idea that anyone would give them any real credit for running Alaska - much less doing anything really positive - would probably make most Alaskans laugh til they peed themselves.

Posted by: johnny on March 20, 2009 08:02 PM
76. Unkl says "Comparing the intellect of Barak Obama to Dan Quayle's is like comparing your high school shortstop to Alex Rodriguez."

There you go insulting your president. You should be ashamed of yourself comparing Obama to a high school shortstop! LOL. Was this a Freudian slip, or were you really trying to insult Obama?

Posted by: Bill H on March 20, 2009 08:18 PM
77. Ha, ha, ha:

There never was a surplus; that's the biggest lie told by the Left. Clinton never HAD a surplus.

and

The last President to pass a balanced budget was Eisenhower, in 1957. Go ahead, prove it wrong.

Next time, at least make it difficult for me:

A big factor that allows Mr. Clinton to claim enough funds to boost savings, while still increasing spending on everything from defense to education, is an ever-improving outlook for budget surpluses. Earlier this month, Mr. Clinton said the surplus for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 would be at least $76 billion, up more than $20 billion from the outlook just a few months earlier.

-- "Plan Seeks to Trim Debt --- Despite Economic Benefits, Goal Is Still Dependent On Optimistic Forecasts", The Wall Street Journal, 20 January 1999, p. A2

and

The federal government notched a $32.67 billion surplus in December, its first surplus of the fiscal year. -- The Wall Street Journal, 23 January 2001

and

The most recent figures on the budget surplus show that it has grown again. -- The Wall Street Journal, 8 January 2001

Well, what do you expect from some commie-lib rag in New York, right? *snicker*

It's NOT ABOUT WHAT IT'S SPENT ON! IT'S THE FACT IT'S DEFICIT SPENDING!

So, going into debt for a college education, or to buy new equipment for a business, is equivalent to blowing the same amount on Caribbean rent boys and illicit OxyContin, huh? No wonder your policies have all failed.

The last President to pass a balanced budget was Eisenhower, in 1957.

He may have been the last Republican President to sign a balanced budget, yes. Republicans have held the Presidency for twenty of the last thirty years, and never once signed a balanced budget. Clinton did, several times.

Go ahead, prove it wrong.

See above.

President Clinton NEVER balanced the budget, the national debt increased every year under him.

When I did my fifteen minutes' of research for the above newspaper quotes, I also found a huge number of editorials from right-wingers, making that same claim. You guys were lying about this as it was happening. Little wonder you've never stopped lying about it.

BTW, the first two quotes were from the Journal's news section; the last is from the editorial page; even they were finally forced to admit it. Someday, maybe you'll get there. Perhaps even before President Barack Hussein Obama has completed his second term, and retired as one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the world.

Well, boys, that's enough for now. My knuckles are feeling sore, and I refuse to continue improving your looks unless you start paying me what a plastic surgeon would get. Even we liberals have limits on our altruistic tendencies, y'know.

Posted by: tensor on March 20, 2009 08:42 PM
78. Hey Uncle WIZ head. Per Obama, we have 57 states,

LOL, Yeah keep talking fool.

PS.. and Iran loves us too.... Really dumb fool!

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 20, 2009 09:05 PM
79. Being the right wing nut job that I am...although I pray it doens't happen...when the infrastructure fails and the citizens are to fend for themselves....and people see that my lights are the only ones working in the hood..I will have my Obama posters and hope and change posters throughout my property...when strangers approach I will ask one question who did you vote for???..I won't go into details but my dogs will be feasting on dead liberals...ahh I feel all fuzzy inside ...goodnite trolls

Posted by: hellpig on March 20, 2009 09:18 PM
80. Ten Cents and Factless,

Here you go, the hard numbers. SHOW ME which year had a lower debt than the previous one? Please.

I'll take your silence or dodging of the question as tacit admission of your error.

Rather than pull out selected quotes of a single month, how about just looking at the raw numbers? Go ahead, show me that FY 2000 ended with less debt than FY 1999. Or 1999 less than 1998, and so on.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 20, 2009 10:23 PM
81. Well, I did want to get my beauty rest, but it so happens that Dan is actually useful for something other than wearying my punching muscles. On the left side of the page he cited, we have a great link ("Schedules of Federal Debt"), via which we can open the actual debt reports. Each one includes figures from three fiscal years. Here's the total debt on the last day of September of each year (the federal government starts each fiscal year on 01 October; figures are in millions of U.S. dollars for that year):

1996: 3,778,759
1997: 3,814,687
1998: 3,761,222
1999: 3,668,380
2000: 3,439,023
2001: 3,339,310

2001 was, of course, the last year for which Clinton had any responsibility. Notice we still had a deficit in 1996, so the figure increases for 1997; after that, the trend is all downward. (Hence the lengthy arguments about how fast to pay off the entire U.S. federal debt, a heated topic during the 2000 election season.) Note that the last figure includes the deficit run by the bribe-taking GOP Congress and irresponsible pResident during their part of 2001, and so was only a hundred thousand million dollars of debt reduction; when Clinton still wielded the veto pen, a reduction of over two hundred billion dollars in a single year did occur.

(Rubs bloody knuckles, sighs, swings again)

Rather than pull out selected quotes of a single month...

Do you mean the month of January 1999, or the month of January 2001? I included quotes from the news section of the Journal from both of those months, to show how the surpluses had gone from projected to actual. As previously explained, the other quote from January 2001 was to show that even the Journal's editorial page writers, who had published over 3,000 (!) columns attacking President Clinton -- more than one per edition of the Journal during his Presidency -- finally had to admit he'd governed responsibly.

I'll take your silence or dodging of the question as tacit admission of your broken jawbone.

Posted by: tensor on March 20, 2009 11:19 PM
82. It would figure that after Tensor and Unkl can't win, we'd get All Facts Support My Delusions entering the fray.

Can you say "sock puppet."

Posted by: johnny on March 20, 2009 11:22 PM
83. 60 days into their new administration it's time for a post-election Obama-Biden Top 10, in reverse order:

10. Just after he's been sworn in by him, the newly-minted Vice President Joe Biden gets the name of Justice John Paul Stephens, "one of the great justices" of the Supreme Court, wrong by calling him "Justice Stewart":

9. Barack Obama jokes about Nancy Reagan having séances in the White House. He later called her to apologise after the AP noted that although she had consulted astrologers, "she did not hold conversations with the dead":

8. Joe Biden forgets the "website number" for the White House internet site designed to show how TARP money is being spent:

7. Barack Obama mixes up the windows and doors at his new home:

6. Joe Biden jokes about Chief Justice John Roberts fluffing the inauguration oath. The president is visibly annoyed with his veep and Biden later apologises:

5. A Marine One double. First, on his maiden Marine One trip Obama breaches protocol and makes life uncomfortable for an enlisted marine by shaking the the serviceman's hand as he's saluting his commander-in-chief:

Then - Gerald Ford, eat your heart out. Barack Obama bangs his head as he boards his helicopter:

4. Joe Biden tells his wife that he had the choice of being either Secretary of State or vice-president - an offer that was news to Obama aides and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when Jill Biden spilled the beans on Oprah:

3. Gordon Brown presents the new President with: a pen holder carved from the timbers of HMS Gannett, a sister ship of HMS Resolute; the commissioning certificate of HMS Resolute; and a seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill. In return, the Prime minister gets 25 DVDS, which don't work in Britain:

2. Joe Biden tells a former Senate colleague who addresses him as "Mr Vice-President" to "give me a f---ing break":

1. The latest one takes the biscuit. Barack Obama jokes about the disabled on the Jay Leno show. Afterwards, he calls the head of the Special Olympics to apologise:

Watch them all here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/20/top_10_gaffes_by_barack_obama_and_joe_biden_

Posted by: Obama Biden Incompetents on March 20, 2009 11:27 PM
84. It looks like Tensor/Unkl/Facts was writing the same time I was....

So this moron (whatever he calls himself at the moment) wants to trumpet the idea that during a time when the birth of the internet was driving an economic growth practically unknown in the history or humanity - with "start-up companies' building book value by the millions overnight - the deficit numbers were moving in a positive direction at a pace that would make a glacier look like a racehore.

And this based on numbers that were highly political in their origination. Clinton was king of generating statistics that met his goals. (Would I say the numbers were lying? Well, I guess that would depend on what the definition of "were" or "is" or something like that.)

As anyone who was not completely stoned during the 2000's knows, that period was what was called a "bubble" and the statistics were based on a whole lot of valuations that were as wrong and dishonest as anything done by Freddy Mac, Citibank or AIG.

All water under the bridge, but looking back, I guess I actually respect Bill Clinton a bit because he was smart enough to realize that his power derived from being able to triangulate reality with idealogy and maneuver himself into a place that match his goals with reality.

Given the first few months of this administration, I can't give Obama the same credit. He doesn't understand where the center is and worse yet, doesn't care. That's a very, very dangerous trait in a politician.

Posted by: johnny on March 20, 2009 11:39 PM
85. Ten cents,

Apparently you don't know how to use that website. For example, select the starting date of October 1, 1999. Select the ending date of September 30, 2000.

You'll see a table, that lists the date, the debt held by the public, intragovernmental holdings, and total public debt outstanding.

On October 1, 1999, the total debt was 5,652,679,330,611.02. on September 30, 2000, the total debt was 5,674,178,209,886.86.

You're looking at at only half the equation. The total public debt never decreased under Clinton. That's the fact.

If you believe the national debt was "only" $3.4 trillion when Clinton left office you're huffing something pretty strong!

So the FACT remains - the debt NEVER dropped under Clinton, year over year. Meaning we never had a surplus. That is one of the biggest lies foisted by the Left and the MSM. Clinton NEVER balanced the budget. Every single year saw more money spent than came in, consistently.

The last President to actually reduce the national debt was Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1957. It's been 52 years of deficit spending since then, and apparently the current Administration believes that doubling the entire debt accumulated in the first 232 years is just a goal to set for their own proposed 8 year spending spree.

On January 20th, 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It's now at $11 trillion and climbing ($400 billion blown in 8 weeks). If the Obamassiah gets his way, it'll be $20 trillion by the time he would leave office in 8 years. That's DOUBLE what it was when he took office, and adds FOUR TIMES the debt that George Bush did. It means every man, woman and child in the US will owe nearly $70,000. A family of four will own over $250,000 in national debt.

Anyway, thank you for your apology about being wrong about the debt and the fictional Clinton surplus, now you can go to sleep (it's a nice, sunny, warm day here in Shanghai, the night promises to be good).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 20, 2009 11:43 PM
86. the deficit numbers were moving in a positive direction at a pace that would make a glacier look like a racehore.

Wow, someone actually admitted the deficit numbers were moving in the right direction! I thought only us liberals (I post under only one name) could do that here. Now, I happen to think two hundred billion dollars in a single year of debt relief is a rather large amount of money, but we can disagree on that. However, we cannot disagree that Alan Greenspan publicly worried about us paying off our entire debt too quickly, so maybe you can take that up with him.

Would I say the numbers were lying?

Would I say that you were getting desperate?

As anyone who was not completely stoned during the 2000's knows, that period was what was called a "bubble" and the statistics were based on a whole lot of valuations that were as wrong and dishonest as anything done by Freddy Mac, Citibank or AIG.

Well, the valuations of Enron shares were artificially inflated by the felony frauds King George's moneybuddy, 'Kenny-Boy', committed, yes; but most of the economic gains were sound -- even with frauds at Enron and Worldcom, and a bubble in telecommunications stocks. As I recall, Chairman Greenspan credited the increasing productivity of American workers during the period in question, but I'm quoting that from memory.

(Please note the difference between the market's bubble of tech stocks -- those companies were honestly reporting their shaky finances -- and the deliberate frauds committed by Republicans Kenneth Lay and Bernard Ebbers. In a time when the phrase 'Republican criminality' comes straight from the Department of Redundancy Department, you could at least get that right.)

... I actually respect Bill Clinton a bit because he was smart enough to realize that his power derived from being able to triangulate reality with idealogy and maneuver himself into a place that match his goals with reality.

As opposed to the hard ideology of the past eight years, which undid all of the progress Bill Clinton made. Glad to read we agree on something.

He doesn't understand where the center is and worse yet, doesn't care. That's a very, very dangerous trait in a politician.

Eight years late, and several trillion dollars short, but I guess it's something.

Meanwhile, back to the catty irrelevancies which were the topic of this post, before we libs starting polluting your safe space with reality's well-known bias in our favor:

it's time for a post-election Obama-Biden Top 10, in reverse order:

I couldn't find "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court fails to quote Constitution correctly in front of two billion television viewers"; could you help with that? Thanks!

Posted by: tensor on March 21, 2009 12:08 AM
87. 1. Our relatinship with the UK is significant and important. The White House protocol office and the state department know this. The Pm's treatment by Obama is a signal to the UK that the relationship is no different than any other country. This is change in US foriegn policy, And it is a mistake.

2. No right mind in the GOP would say that the President doesn't have good acedmic credentials. But being smart and being wise are too different things. Obama treatment of the UK, his spending, his failure to take responsibility for Earmarks, and for AIG, shows a lack of wisdom,and is a failure of leadership.


Posted by: Procuratio on March 21, 2009 12:35 AM
88. Dan,

(Deep sigh.) Try looking in the proper column. (It's the first column for a reason.) You're counting the wrong thing, as the explanatory notes higher up in the document detailed, had you bothered to read them. Since you seem to suffer a severe inability to notice even the most obvious of citations, I'll graciously highlight their appropriate sections for you:

Debt held by the public and debt held by federal entities are very different.
Debt held by the public approximates the federal government's competition
with other sectors in the credit markets. This competition affects current
interest rates and private capital accumulation. In addition, interest on debt
held by the public is a current burden on taxpayers. In contrast, debt held
by federal entities performs an accounting function, but it typically does
not constitute the government's total future commitment to trust fund
financed programs.
It represents the cumulative annual surpluses of those
trust funds plus accrued interest and also reflects a future claim on the U.S.
Treasury. It does not have the current economic effects of borrowing from
the public and does not currently compete with the private sector for
available funds in the credit market.
However, when trust funds redeem
Treasury securities to obtain cash to fund expenditures, they compete with
the private sector and thus have an effect on the economy.
As we reported in May 1999,1 although the federal government has carried
debt throughout virtually all of U.S. history, large annual budget deficits
over the past two decades sharply increased the total amount of debt owed
to the public and its associated annual interest payments. Policymakers
responded to the historically high debt levels in recent years by passing
several deficit reduction initiatives. These actions, along with economic
growth, helped shrink annual deficits and bring about the 1999 and 1998
surpluses.
-- "Bureau of the Public
Debt's Fiscal Years
1999 and 1998
Schedules of Federal
Debt", p. 4.

(You're really putting me in danger of carpal-tunnel syndrome here, Dan!)

Anyway, thank you for your apology about being wrong about the debt and the fictional Clinton surplus,

Why Dan, yes, January 1999 was a different month from January 2001! You see, you can learn something! (And the universe has yet to collapse!) Here, I thought you lacked the character necessary to admit huge and obvious error! Keep on proving me wrong, Dan, it's why I love you (in a completely platonic, heterosexual way, of course -- don't get your hopes up, I'm not a Republican Congressional leader).

now you can go to sleep (it's a nice, sunny, warm day here in Shanghai, the night promises to be good).

I used to think having pResident Bush and the bribery boys putting us in hock to the Communist dictators of China -- something the current holder of the Nobel Prize in Economics publicly denounced five years ago -- was a scary thought. Now, you're in danger of representing America to some citizens of that fine land. I don't want them deciding that a thermonuclear attack on America is justified, alright? Think of the children!!

Posted by: tensor on March 21, 2009 12:38 AM
89. Tensor,

From your own quote: It represents the cumulative annual surpluses of those
trust funds plus accrued interest and also reflects a future claim on the U.S.
Treasury... However, when trust funds redeem
Treasury securities to obtain cash to fund expenditures, they compete with
the private sector and thus have an effect on the economy.

So it represents what the United States of America owes. Period. We don't get to "ignore" the half you're trying to ignore. We pay for it now, or we pay for it in the future. It's debt, either way. Either it's on the "publicly owned" side, or it's still in process, but it's debt either way.

The budget surplus? A complete sham by keeping things off the "official" budget, moving them to other accounts. It was accomplished by keeping debt locked up inside the Government, rather than monetizing it as it should be. A pure accounting issue.

But just to be clear, you're actually claiming our debt is the $6.7 trillion of publicly owned debt, not the $11 trillion owed by the public and the Government?

Dan, it's why I love you (in a completely platonic, heterosexual way, of course -- don't get your hopes up, I'm not a Republican Congressional leader).

Hugs right back. Purely platonic (not that there's anything wrong with that).

And don't you mean Barney Frank? He's the current gay Congressional leader (also ran a heck of a gay prostitution ring, from what I hear).

Now, you're in danger of representing America to some citizens of that fine land.

I actually employ some of them in China! They understand quite well, and know that bookkeeping switches to move debt from one hand to the other still means you owe the debt. I wish more people in America understood capitalism and economics as well as most here in China (which is one of the most capitalistic economies I've ever seen).

I don't want them deciding that a thermonuclear attack on America is justified, alright? Think of the children!!

Oh, they love me over here! I'm a good ambassador; everybody loves the Da Mao. My butcher, the cashiers at the grocery store, the local traffic cops, my drycleaner, the local food joints...

Now, Barack Obama, that's another story... His talk of protectionism and his cozying up with Iran are cause for a lot of concern over here, and I don't blame them.

It's quite refreshing to be in a nation where common sense is rampant among the population, and pretty much everyone understands that you have to actually work to get ahead. The Government - especially the Chinese Government - just doesn't give it all to you!

I've said it before, and every day it's becoming more and more true: 3 billion people in Asia - China, India, SE Asia - are rushing to the economic and political freedoms the US enjoyed in the 50s and 60s. The US is rushing towards the economies and freedoms they enjoyed in the 50s.

We're on the losing end of that bargain, wo de peng you!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 21, 2009 01:14 AM
90. The budget surplus? A complete sham by keeping things off the "official" budget, moving them to other accounts. It was accomplished by keeping debt locked up inside the Government, rather than monetizing it as it should be. A pure accounting issue.

You're entitled to your interpretation, of course, but as the last highlighted bit notes, we refer to just part of it as the public debt. The middle portions of that quote explain why. You're free to disagree, but these are the commonly-understood meanings of the terms "public debt" and "federal deficit"; even The Wall Street Journal accepts these usages. The rest of us are under no obligation to accept your definitions. (Personally, I would never permit use of the word "surplus" unless the government had absolutely no future financial obligations of any kind whatsoever, but I don't make the rules here.)

But just to be clear, you're actually claiming our debt is the $6.7 trillion of publicly owned debt, not the $11 trillion owed by the public and the Government?

I'm using the commonly-accepted meanings of these terms, yes, just like The Wall Street Journal, then-Chairman Greenspan, and the current holder of the Nobel Prize in Economics all do. I don't necessarily agree with them, but you go to class warfare with the definitions you've got, not the definitions you might want to have.

His talk of protectionism and his cozying up with Iran are cause for a lot of concern over here, and I don't blame them.

President Barack Hussein Obama should put the interests of America first. If our interests do not coincide with Chinese interests, that's not his fault. Luckily, we have you as our self-appointed citizen-ambassador, so you can explain this to your gracious hosts. Get cracking!

The Government - especially the Chinese Government - just doesn't give it all to you!

Funny, isn't that what a Communist government is supposed to do?

We're on the losing end of that bargain, wo de peng you!

Paul Krugman was 'way ahead of you on that one. But that's the natural order of things; he's a liberal.

Posted by: tensor on March 21, 2009 02:17 AM
91. per 62, "there's a difference...financial and moral...between...and investing that money in our future..."
yes--it's called wealth redistribution & grabbing our money to "invest" in those who did squat to earn it, nor wo want to change their lifestyles to do so.

collectivism. politics of envy. arrogance. I don't mean harming the truly needy, but the general (liberal/progressive) confiscatory attitude and endless "entitlements" never intended by our Constitution nor Founders.

like Socialist Europe--nice place to visit, bad template for a vibrant nation. this is neither D nor R, although some take us there faster;

Posted by: jimmie howya doin on March 21, 2009 05:29 AM
92. @ 83 So HellPig. If Obama turns our economy around, and starts creating jobs, and bringing people out of poverty, yer gonna dry up and blow away right? LMAO Comrade Obama just trippled if not quadrupled the national dept.in 6 weeks ..we stopped the raids on businesses that hire illegals in screwing Americans outta jobs...sooo seeing how Comrade Obama hates capitalism I don't see it happening...But if it does I will sell one of my houses and buy more guns and ammo...

Comrade Obama .."DON'T TREAD ON ME"

Posted by: hellpig on March 21, 2009 08:28 AM
93. #88

Well, the extreme dichotomy between teleprompter Obama and impromptu Obama indicates that his real nature is inarticulate, hateful, shallow, and ignorant. It isn't surprising that Obama would surround himself with similar people (Joe Biden is a great example).

I had forgotten it, but a recent article in the Times reminded me that Obama had also wrecked NAFTA by banning less than 100 Mexican trucks from traveling our highways. Way to go! Let's add a trade war to the foolish growth in government program and capricious pork allocation. Worked so well in the 1930's.

What was it that Santyana said? Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it?

Posted by: iconoclast on March 21, 2009 11:20 AM
94. 81. Don't waste too much of your time tensor. Their ideology always trumps reality. How do you play cards with someone that wants to argue that every card they hold, or lay down is an ace, when you can see they are obviously not?

I was talking to a self proclaimed "Republicon" in the line at Starbucks the other day. She said she "loved" Rush Limbaugh. I asked he how she felt when he said stuff that she knew wasn't true. (She didn't have an answer) When you WANT to hate, facts don't matter.....

It doesn't appear the wingnuts know the difference between a corporation giving politicians money (which is illegal) and people that work for the corporation donating to campaigns. Maybe they never filled out a donation envelope. Who knows. -Posted by All Facts Support My Positions at March 20, 2009 09:12 PM

Factless learned well from his Marxist playbook: take everything anyone says about YOU and you ideology (AND everything you know about yourself) and ascribe it to your enemy.

Perhaps you can honor him by saying it in German: Ja Sozialistischer Lehrer.

Hope! CHANGE!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 21, 2009 11:53 AM
95. Oh what was the other thoughtful gifts Comrade Obama gave the British PM for his kids oh yeah

cheap bastard

straight outta the gift shop what a epic FAIL!!!!!

Posted by: hellpig on March 21, 2009 12:52 PM
96. Speaking of the lapdog press...

They just had a 3,000 person tea party rally in Orlando. My favorite sign? "No taxation without deliberation".

There is some sort of inverse multiplier in effect here. If 100 moonbats protesting Stryker equipment moving in and out of Olympia, would it take a 10,000 person protest against the pork and anti-stimulus fascination of Democrats to get a line in the Seattle Times?

And the print media wonders why readers don't trust them any longer to report the news. We can get the same information by reading summations from JournoList.

Posted by: iconoclast on March 21, 2009 01:59 PM
97. WATCH THE VIDEO!

AND FORWARD, FORWARD, FORWARD! THIS

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 21, 2009 03:23 PM
98. #83 - " If Obama turns our economy around, and starts creating jobs, and bringing people out of poverty, yer gonna dry up and blow away right?"

He is too ideology bent toward bringing in large government for it to happen within the next year. We all know that our economy will eventually recover even if BO succeeds with ramroding statism with Universal Health Care. because of its resiliency - so your statement is meaningless. No Facts is leading proof that led by the leftist ideologues, they are leading the way toward this country becoming a nation of cowards..

By favoring the Obama fiscal agenda, why do you want to transfer our debt to future generations ? Because you are self-flagellating narcissistic coward and a useful idiot, No Facts.

Posted by: KS on March 21, 2009 03:31 PM
99. Dear President Obama,

Thank you for helping my neighbors with their mortgage payments. You know the ones down the street who, in the good times, refinanced their house several times and went on vacations to wonderful places, bought SUV's, ATV's, RV's, installed a pool, a big screen TV, two Wave Runners and a Harley.

Well, I was wondering, since I'm paying my mortgage and now, theirs, could you arrange for me to borrow the Harley now and then?

Richard Ford
Queen Creek, AZ

P.S. They also need help with their credit cards, when do you want me to start making those payments?

P.P.S. I almost forgot - they didn't file their income tax return this year. Should I go ahead and file for them or will you be appointing them to cabinet posts?


Tea Parties Largely Ignored by Media
Cincinnati, Nebraska, Tampa, Lexington, Ridgefield, Conn., Raleigh, Orlando, D.C., Staten Island, Pasadena, Boston, Rochester, N.Y., Jacksonville, Minnesota, Cleveland, Columbus, Mo., Little Rock, Ark., Philadelphia, Kansas City, Harrisburg, Green Bay, Salt Lake City, Fullertown, Lafayette, Boise, Monterey, Maui, Yonkers, Utah, Tucson, Phoenix, Hoboken and Chicago, to name a few.
Did you know there have been that many?

Pictures, pictures, PICTURES!

Fed-up Americans mobilize: More than 150 tea parties

Everyone's invited to this 'tea party'
Petition calls for Constitution, common sense to prevail

PETITION TO CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT TO HALT OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING

VIDEO: Taxpayers Gather In Cities To Protest Spending, Growing Debt...

Tax Day tea parties expected to number more than 1,000

"Tea Party" song

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 21, 2009 03:44 PM
100. I control Obama. He does my bidding. Like a puppet, he says what I tell him to say! Just look at the St Patrick's day reception of the Irish Prime Minister, I got the the moron to read a speech thanking himself!

TOTUS
(Teleprompter of the United States)

Posted by: TOTUS on March 22, 2009 12:01 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?