Obama’s Trillions Dwarf Bush’s Dangerous Spending

Now we all get to remember what happens when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches at the same time.

Unchecked, unfettered expansion of government by any means necessary.

National health care does not “need” to happen as the Democrats are so fond of claiming. That’s a ridiculous assertion. That’s like saying we “need” to have personal hovercrafts that run on peanut butter. Or unicorn pee.

We do not “need” the government to bail out banks and private companies. In fact, almost any school of economic thought (aside from communism) would argue that the opposite is true. Let the crap businesses die so that good businesses can benefit. Duh.

People love to accuse Bush of being a charlatan, which he was, but you must remember that for at least the last two years of his presidency, he was a lame duck. Democrats owned congress.

How long do we let Obama spend money we don’t have on things we shouldn’t spend money on and all the time blame Bush? What’s the expiration date on blaming Bush for the country’s problems?

I know when I turn on the TV and Bill Maher is ripping on Obama (see below), that even the most staunch liberal nutjobs are starting to lose their faith.

What’s coming is massive inflation, massively high interest rates, and rationed health care (as determined by the government).

How do I know? Well, just look around the world at the MANY other countries that have tried the same thing already.

  3 comments for “Obamunism

  1. del81
    June 18, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    um, I have heard great things about unicorn pee, and I think i actually do NEED it 🙂

  2. June 18, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    I’m disappointed in Obama right now. (Yeah, I said it.) Not just because of all the MEGA RETARDED BAIL OUT BS which I’ve ranted against since the beginning, but also the DADT/DOMA crap he and his administration are pulling, and because(and I know this goes against what we democrats are supposed to scream from the rooftops) I am not for universal healthcare. I think it will be a DISASTER. The government can’t run itself. I don’t want it in charge of my medical care.

  3. June 18, 2009 at 9:07 pm


    I agree with *some* of what you’re saying.

    We shouldn’t be bailing out EVERY company/entity that likely fail. It’s foolish and goes against the very nature of free market capitalism. GM should have been allowed to fail. It’s a dinosaur that never evolved. Who’s fault is that? GM’s of course. THAT was a mistake. Lehman Bros. was NOT bailed out and that was a costly mistake. Like it or not, the Wall St. bailout, for the most part, had to happen. Many people ridiculed Bush for the mess and then for bailing out all the ‘fat cats’ on Wall St. but very few people understand how catastrophic it would have certainly been if we didn’t do it. Yes, it’s turns my stomach too but I’d rather that than an empty stomach due to no economy, no work, no money and no food.

    Healthcare does indeed need some reform but I don’t believe it requires the drastic overhaul our President et al are recommending. To be fair, Republican critics haven’t presented any alternative plan of their own … until *just* now. Please see the following: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528299115425463.html
    Karl Rove is right on some points, not on others, but at least a Republican critic has put forth something to argue with. In my opinion, frivolous lawsuits are a major reason why Healthcare is so damaged, so costly. Changing everything from private to public though? Ehhhh….

    And as for Bill Maher, I lost ALL respect for him years ago when he publicly gave props to the terrorist hijackers of 9/11, saying what they did were brave acts while ridiculing Americans for using missiles for attacking the enemy instead. What he said lacked tact, respect and decency. Sorry, but I could care less what this washed out has-been has to say about anything.

    Something to keep in mind: While Bush implemented his tax cuts he was also running two wars costing Americans up to $10 billion a month. With no revenue coming in via taxes and loads of money going out to finance these wars, it’s no wonder the surplus that existed when he took office transformed into a deficit of epic proportion when he finished his second term. Is that all Bush’s fault? No, but he has a hand in it to be sure. No one forced him to invade Iraq where Bin Laden and his goons weren’t hiding. They were in Afghanistan. Why did we invade Iraq then? WMD’s? Nope. Then why? Macroeconomics is the answer. The petrodollar vs. the petroeuro is why. Yup, it comes down to oil. But this is a whole different can of worms for another discussion.

Comments are closed.