Americans Thank President Bush for the Wonderful Job He Did

BrentCrude · 05-01-09, 09:27 AM

O.O.L,you remind me of a columnist in the World News ''white tabloid at the grocery checkout''named Ed Anger.The guy died and I miss him dearly because he was right but put his words in a certain way to piss liberals off.Floyd R.Turbo the Johnny Carson skit was sort of like that too.Floyd R.Turbo was the funniest thing Carson ever did.

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by BrentCrude

O.O.L,you remind me of a columnist in the World News ''white tabloid at the grocery checkout''named Ed Anger.The guy died and I miss him dearly because he was right but put his words in a certain way to piss liberals off.Floyd R.Turbo the Johnny Carson skit was sort of like that too.Floyd R.Turbo was the funniest thing Carson ever did.

I remember him -- with the plaid jacket.

Turbo on why America shouldn't host the Olympics:

"We don't want foreigners comin' over here cuttin' up our soap (reference to the old Irish Spring commercials) or stickin' their fingers in our dikes."

Emily_Haines · 05-01-09, 09:57 AM

I thought with your late night degenerative gambling activities you may have forgotten the daily bash Obama post. Bush will go down as the worst president in history with 75% of Americans disapproving of his job performance. You right wing bible thumpers are so stupid that McCain could have told you all to fukk off at a rally and you would still vote for him.

Emily_Haines · 05-01-09, 10:08 AM

These statements from folks remind me of those Score newsletters I used to get. In those they would have several letters from clients thanking Bob Dunbar for winning them so much money. LOL you can't make it up.

ProfaneReality · 05-01-09, 10:23 AM

If the measure of success is based on no new attacks...well then Obama is doing a great job as well.

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 11:16 AM

Obama is a Fascist

The Facts on Fascism – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/30/the-facts-on-fascism

Yes, it is indeed similar to fascism. Since my April 2 column that compared Barack Obama's economic policies (and others) to those of Italy's Benito Mussolini, I have been denounced on the pages of the Economist, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Toronto Star, and the New York Times (less strongly…

Since my April 2 column that compared Barack Obama's economic policies (and others) to those of Italy's Benito Mussolini, I have been denounced on the pages of the Economist, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Toronto Star, and the New York Times (less strongly denounced there than in the others, oddly enough), and by Chris Matthews (and guests Tony Blankley and Larry Sabato) on Hardball, and also had the idea made fun of by CNN morning hosts while they played a rather tame and sober interview they had done with me on the subject.

Never mind that in the New York Times on April 7 , David Leonhardt went farther, comparing the policies to the economics of Hitler in the course of saying that was a good thing because Hitler's economics worked. Somehow, the rather fact-based piece I wrote was seen by the media elite as out of bounds, but Leonhardt's was acceptable analysis because it was meant to praise Obama rather than bury him.
Yet Leonhardt's column is proof enough that it is not some right-wing conspiracy theory that sees fascistic leanings in the big government, corporatist approaches taken by The One in the Oval Office.

Since then, the evidence has grown only stronger. As the Examiner noted yesterday, the Obama takeover of General Motors is astonishing in its scope and reach. The money quote from GM itself: "The U.S. Treasury will be able to elect all of our directors and to control the vote on substantially all matters brought for a stockholder vote."

This is scary stuff. It is not just a diminution of freedom, but a frontal assault. And it's only part of the story, the whole of which is even worse. We now have the government refusing to accept repayment of loans it made to various banks -- preferring to keep control of the banks to regaining the taxpayers' money quickly. Moving from economics to coercion and the use of the state to target political enemies, we have a Homeland Security Department targeting veterans and anti-abortionists as potential terrorists, and a White House leaving open the option of prosecuting its predecessors over honest policy choices made in a time of war and without identifying any specific domestic law supposedly broken. We see selective release of previously classified information for political purposes. We have the advancement of "hate crimes" legislation that makes it a prosecutable offense to think unapproved thoughts. (House Republican Leader John Boehner was right to say the bill makes him "want to throw up.")

On the domestic level, again I say, all of this is straight out of the Mussolini playbook.

But again, to make this clear for those too dim to understand it the first time, let it be said that to compare policies to those of Mussolini is not to engage in radical name-calling or comparison to Hitler. Mussolini was bad, indeed awful -- an authoritarian thug an bully, along the same lines as dozens of other authoritarian thugs and bullies through the years. The comparison definitely ought to scare those who love freedom -- but no more than a comparison to, say, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

Authoritarianism is not totalitarianism, though. There is a big difference -- a difference educated people once understood. We are not talking about pure evil, not talking about genocide, not talking about brutal attempts at foreign conquest, not talking about Mengele-like experiments and deliberate killing of "defectives." What we are talking about is the beginning of a tendency toward authoritarianism (so far minus the thuggishness), especially in the economic realm. And we darn well ought to be able to make sober, factual, valid historical analogies, by way of warning -- much as Leonhardt did, in his rather twisted attempt at praise of Obama -- without being accused of foaming at the mouth.

It is especially appropriate to make such comparisons if one has already shown that it is not merely a partisan accusation. Some of us noted even when Bush started us on this path that it had similarities to fascist economics. And I take a back seat to nobody in having fought against real neo-Nazism on the right, as a founding board member of the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism (which carried the fight against David Duke).

Again, this is a question of freedom. It's a question of free enterprise, free markets, and free minds. When an administration takes over banks and car companies, and makes moves to force through a takeover of the entire health care industry without the ordinary procedural safeguards, and (even under Bush) forces banks to buy other banks against their will, then this isn't the America we know and love. This is instead a country ruled by a top-down, command-and-control, invasive, barely accountable, self-selected elite.

And that is dangerous. And, minus the antipathy to labor unions, that is the very definition of Italian economic fascism. And if Chris Matthews would put me on his show to have a civil discussion about it, his viewers would find it a reasonable and edifying conversation -- with not a single bit of what Matthews described as "red hot language."

Meanwhile, I hope Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder don't charge me with a "hate crime" for using the word fascist with regard to their policies.

daggerkobe · 05-01-09, 11:25 AM

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Related Links Thomas Fleming: Was George W. Bush the Worst President? Lincoln ranked best US president by historians Robert S. McElvaine: Historians vs. George W. Bush Larry DeWitt: The Follies of Instant History: Another Meaningless Poll of Historians Ron Radosh: Bush’s Legacy in History and the Press Kathryn Moore: George W. Bush: As He Now Appears in a History Book Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes: The $10 trillion hangover ... Paying the price for eight years of Bush Nate Silver: History May -- or May Not -- Judge Bush More Kindly “As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 11:25 AM

The Obama Presidency -- 100 Days of Unmitigated Disaster

AMERICA:

WAKE UP!

In 100 days Barack Obama has shown us that he is this:
Anti-American, anti-business and pro big government. In addition, that he is socialist, a narcissist and a pathological liar ........ as is vice president Biden, most of Obama's cabinet picks and all of the democratic leaders in congress.

Janet Napolitano and little Timmy Geithner are unimaginably incompetent, yet Obama continues to give them a free hand in jeopardizing both the safety and the economic future of America. And Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are some of the most despicable slime to ever slither the earth. Yet this is the group of people who are now in charge of handling the destiny of the country. YOUR COUNTRY!

I not only don't support President Obama or his policies, I now strongly oppose his presidency and urge you to do the same.

In a mere 100 days, Obama has already committed to spend America into oblivion to the tune of TENS of TRILLIONS of dollars.......all while unemployment is running rampant, businesses continue to shutter their doors and our GDP is falling off the cliff. You'd think we must be a rich country! Where do you think all the money is going to come from to pay for all of this? Yet, the happy clueless idiots and infatuated Obama cultists are celebrating his first 100 days in office as if they've been reborn.

Billions of YOUR money was recently poured into Chrysler and GM under the guise that "Only the Government" can save them. Well the money's all gone and they didn't save them. Gee, what a shock! PLEASE STOP SAVING US ALREADY!

Of far more serious concern for you as an American citizen is the fact that the United States government is now in the process of FORCING the private bondholders (those who are the primary investors in these car companies) to give up their legal rights - and their money - by governmental order. This is pure CONFISCATION and is against the laws of our country. These bondholders (as do the bondholders of all companies) are legally entitled to be given first priority in receiving their money back if these companies should ever go bankrupt. That is why they chose to be bondholders - to be assured that safety under the law - as opposed to stockholders.

And we're not just talking about the government screwing big banks here; many of these bond holders were private pension funds and private investors, such a retirees or those who invested money in college funds for their children. These people invested this way because these legal protections made these much safer investments. And these people are supposed to be protected by law to be the 1st in line to be paid off before all other creditors.

But apparently the laws don't mean anything in Obama's America. Instead, these investors (who Obama now has the nerve to call "speculators") are being forced to accept mere pennies on the dollar for their investments (in stock swaps) while instead he transfers the majority ownership in these two car companies the United Auto Workers Union (whose fat labor contracts are what pushed these companies into bankruptcy in the 1st place) So Obama has now given the union foxes the keys to the hen house; so they will no longer have to quibble with management over giving themselves sweet union contract deals - BECAUSE NOW THEY ARE THE MANAGEMENT - compliments of a president who is grateful for their unending support. And to boot, another 8 billion of your tax money has already been pledged to Chrysler to help them work through this "difficult" period. And of course, the government - again with your money - will continue to support these car companies in the future for a price: Dictating what type of cars they will be allowed to produce in the future. The banks will be next to fall under governmental control and after that will be health care.

This single act alone should scare you to your core. If Obama is so quick and willing to skirt the legal rights and confiscate the savings of your fellow Americans, what makes you think for a minute that your money or your property won't be next? You know, if he thinks it would be good for the country and all. Nor will his grand agenda make for a safer, better or more prosperous society. Exactly the opposite will happen. American ingenuity will be squelched, the quality of everyday life and health care will go DOWN, not up - and attempting to repay he national debt will consume the citizens at every level of society.

When Obama tells you that your taxes will not go up he is flat out LYING to you. Very soon, you will see huge tax increases passed on to you in the form of higher sales taxes, property taxes, state and city taxes, increased college tuitions, toll roads, fuel taxes, utility surcharges, etc., etc.

Yet the largest, most expensive tax increase that is coming - and will soon affect every citizen at every level - is something called the Value Added Tax. (aka: the V.A.T.) This is widely used in Europe and now our congress is rapidly working to implement it here in the U.S. This will be an insidious, yet huge tax burden that gets passed on to us all and here is how it works:

You will pay an additional FEDERAL sales tax on top of the local and state taxes that you already pay on the goods you buy.

But that's not all.

Value Added Tax means there is also a tax incurred every time that a perceived "value" is added to the unfinished goods before they are ultimately bought by the consumer. So a federal tax will be added to the price of every product you buy at EACH STEP of the manufacturing process accomplished prior to completion of the product. That is, anytime perceived "value" is added along the way.

Ex: If you buy a bicycle, the company that produced the steel for the frame will have to pay a federal tax when they sell their steel to the bicycle frame manufacturer; who in turn will have to pay yet another federal tax when they sell the completed frame to the bicycle assembler/distributor; who in turn will have to pay yet another tax still when it sells the fully assembled bicycle to the local dealer. In the end, all those additional VAT taxes will be passed on to the consumer in the form of a higher purchase price: oftentimes added 10% - 20% more to the purchase price. On top of that - you'll now be paying sales tax AND a federal tax on that higher price.

Additionally, the VAT tax will also be added onto all consumer "services", not just onto the goods that you buy. So if somebody cleans your swimming pool, cuts your hair, delivers your newspaper, provides child care, etc. there will now be a federal tax charged to you for the "services" they provided. This is what's on the horizon. If you don't believe it, do some homework. Did people honestly believe that all the money that is being spent on these spiffy new government programs (the ones that the happy idiots THINK are going to make their lives better) would come without consequences?

As you read this, your rights and liberties as U.S citizens are being stripped away from you by Obama's administration and the den of thieves we call congress. If you do not take some affirmative action and they are allowed to continue down this path, they will do irreversible damage and ALL OF AMERICA WILL SUFFER!

To those of you who believe this isn't happening or that somehow or some way, you personally will be exempted from the results of this impending disaster, well then go make some cake and throw yourselves a BIG Obama party. And in a few years when I see you working as a Wal-mart greeter, you can remind me of how good that cake was........

daggerkobe · 05-01-09, 11:28 AM

Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by daggerkobe

Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy.

Bush inherited Clinton's recession

John Kerry declared, "Bush inherited the strongest economy in the world - and brought it to its knees." There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence now suggests that President Bush inherited a recession. Did the recession begin in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush's inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other. However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate.

According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that. For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data.
Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively.

Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 - at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 - more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact "on the front end of a recession," as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000.

Senator John Kerry and other Democratic party leaders ignore or gloss over these facts. However, even professor Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that "the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier." To be sure, the Federal Reserve's twelve-month tightening cycle that began in mid-1999 contributed to the economic slowdown. It is also true that cyclical forces in the economy led to the type of business retrenchment that we have seen in the past and that will likely always be seen to some extent in a market economy.

But a significant contributing factor in the slowdown was the policy direction of the Clinton administration, which included an aggressive use of antitrust regulation in the high-tech marketplace, a lack of a national energy policy which resulted in energy-price spikes, and a high and rising federal tax burden. A key area in which presidents can have an impact on the economy is tax policy. President Clinton raised tax rates right after taking office in 1993, and presided over a massive "stealth tax hike" which ultimately hurt the economy. Because income taxes were not indexed, the increase in real incomes during the 1990s pushed people into higher and higher tax brackets.

According to Brian Wesbury of GKST Economics in Chicago, from 1993 to 2000, the number of people who paid taxes in one of the top three income-tax brackets almost doubled from 3.4 million to 6.4 million filers. Further, total income taxes paid by these filers increased from $84.6 billion in 1993 to $245.8 billion, an increase of 190.5 percent. President Clinton's policies increased the federal tax burden as a share of our national economy from 17.5 percent in 1992 to 20.9 percent in 2000. President Bush, however, took the opposite approach of his predecessor.

Upon taking office, George W. Bush took immediate action to lift the tax burden and strengthen the economy. The first Bush tax cut put $40 billion immediately back into the economy in mid-2001 and helped cushion the economic fallout from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In March 2002, the president signed a second tax cut that allowed partial expensing, which began the recovery in business-investment spending. In May 2003, Bush signed the third tax cut of his administration, boosting after-tax economic incentives by slashing tax rates on income, capital gains, and dividends. Largely as a result of the president's tax-rate cuts, the recovery has moved into higher gear. The economy grew 6.1 percent in the second half of 2003, and 4.3 percent over the four quarters of 2003 - well above potential GDP growth. Business fixed investment in the fourth quarter of 2003 was revised upward to a 9.6 percent annual rate from 6.9 percent.

The stock market has now returned to the level it was at when President Bush took office, which means that all the losses that occurred since March 2000 happened under President Clinton. In January, the economy generated 112,000 new jobs - the largest monthly increase since December 2000 - and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last 5 months. The unemployment rate has declined from 6.3 percent in June 2003 to 5.6 percent in January of this year, the fastest seven-month decline in nearly a decade. And its not just supply-siders lauding the Bush tax cuts. Goldman Sachs economist Edward McKelvey, an early skeptic of Bush tax policy, now concludes, "they definitely had a stronger impact on spending than we anticipated." The Wachovia Economics Group reports that the "economic data provide support for the case that the midyear tax cut did take the economy up a notch. There is no need to resort to esoteric data or the torture of innocent economic statistics. The data are clear in their verdict" emphasis added. And International Monetary Fund economist Magda Kandil says the president's plan "is directly targeting consumer spending and investment incentives ... The end of double taxation of dividends and increasing incentives for small businesses should help sustain momentum in favor of job creation and long-term growth."

daggerkobe · 05-01-09, 11:44 AM

This is the same idiot that is blaming Obama for the economy, weeks in to his presidency when he INHERITED the WORST ECONOMIC TURMOIL SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION which had cost 4 million jobs since Dec 07. But when recession begins 2 months after Dumbya becomes president, it's all Clinton's fault.

What a moron.

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by daggerkobe

This is the same idiot that is blaming Obama for the economy, weeks in to his presidency when he INHERITED the WORST ECONOMIC TURMOIL SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION which had cost 4 million jobs since Dec 07. But when recession begins 2 months after Dumbya becomes president, it's all Clinton's fault.

What a moron.

For someone whining about 400 billion dollar deficits under Bush, you sure don't seem to mind 2 trillion dollar deficits under Obama.

For someone whining about the fact that Bush had Federal troops fully in place in New Orleans providing supplies and aid 72 hours after the winds cleared, you seem perfectly happy with Obama's nonchalant devil may care attitude over the Swine flu.

DwightShrute · 05-01-09, 11:51 AM

Arrogant Americans, Mr. President?

Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 4/14/2009 7:50:00 AM

As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my Grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger. No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he’s been out of the U.S. Navy, that’s still an intimidating sight. As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, “We saved that continent twice...how dare my president apologize for this country’s arrogance." My Grandpa is right. Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.

Barack Obama’s first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle. But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it. Neither is excusable.

Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy, where the sand is still stained with 65-year-old blood of “arrogant Americans.”

Indeed, columnist Mark Whittington observes, “One should remind Mr. Obama and the Europeans how America has ‘shown arrogance’ by saving Europe from itself innumerable times in the 20th Century. World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the wars in the Balkans were largely resolved by American blood, treasure, and leadership.” But all that appears lost on the president’s seemingly insatiable quest to mend fences he imagines have been tarnished by the bullish George W. Bush.

If Obama wishes to continue trampling the presidential tradition of showing class to former office holders and publicly trash Bush for his own personal gain, so be it. But all Americans should make clear that no man – even if he is the president – will tarnish the legacy of those Americans who have gone before us. Ours is not a history of arrogance. It is a history of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor.

When abusive monarchs repressed the masses, Americans resisted and overthrew them. When misguided policies led to the unjust oppression of fellow citizens, Americans rebelled and overturned them. When millions of impoverished and destitute wretches sought a new beginning, Americans threw open the door and welcomed them. When imperial dictators were on the march, Americans surrendered their lives to stop them. When communist thugs threatened world peace, Americans bled to defeat them. When an entire continent was overwhelmed with famine and hunger, Americans gave of themselves to sustain it. When terrorist madmen killed the innocent and subjugated millions, Americans led the fight to topple them.

This is the legacy that generations of Americans have left. If President Obama seeks stronger relations with the world community, perhaps he should begin by reminding them of these very truths, rather than condemning his own countrymen on foreign shores.

This “obsessive need to put down his own country,” has caused blogger James Lewis to call President Obama a “stunningly ignorant man” who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao’s purges.

Unfortunately, I can no longer bring myself to give Mr. Obama that benefit of the doubt. Not after looking at the pain in my Grandpa’s eyes...a man who still carries shrapnel in his body from his service to this country.

As a student and teacher of history, I recognize that America has made mistakes ... plenty of them, in fact. But one of the great things about our people has been their courage and humility in admitting and correcting those mistakes. God willing, they will prove that willingness again in four years and correct the mistake that is the presidency of Barack Obama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, you don't speak for me. In fact, you don't speak at all ... that is without your extremely angry liberal speech writers, ' hip and cool' speech coaches, and your multitude of teleprompters. God help us all!

DwightShrute · 05-01-09, 11:53 AM

How Bush Prepared for the Outbreak

By TEVI TROY

Swine flu has presented the Obama administration with its first major public-health crisis. Fortunately for the Obama team, the Bush administration developed new tools that will prove critical in meeting this challenge.
Under President Bush, the federal government worked with manufacturers to accelerate vaccine development, stockpiled crucial antivirals like Tamiflu, war-gamed pandemic scenarios with senior officials, and increased the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) sample identification capabilities. These activities are bearing fruit today.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already deployed 12.5 million courses of antivirals -- out of a total of 50 million -- to states and local agencies. In addition, CDC's new capacities have allowed Mexican officials to send flu samples to CDC for quick identification, a capability that did not exist a few years ago. Collaboration between the government and the private sector on vaccines -- which Mr. Bush and his HHS team actively encouraged -- could potentially allow manufacturers to shepherd a vaccine to market within four months of identifying the strain and getting the go-ahead from CDC or the World Health Organization.
But new tools aside, top health officials must answer difficult questions about response efforts. One is when and where to deploy antivirals.
The Bush administration considered a "forest fire" approach to pandemic outbreaks abroad. This strategy calls for sharing some of our precious supply of antivirals with a foreign country in order to stop a small flame from becoming a forest fire. The risk is that we have only a limited number of courses, and the use of antivirals increases the odds that the flu strain in question will become resistant to that antiviral. With 37.5 million courses remaining in the federal stockpile, the administration needs to think very carefully about how to use them.
Another issue: Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2006, the government has the authority to issue "Prep Act Declarations" granting liability protection to manufacturers whose products were used in public-health emergencies. This helps encourage manufacturers to develop countermeasures. The government issued a series of such declarations in 2007 and 2008. They protected the development and use of influenza vaccines and pandemic antivirals, as well as anthrax, smallpox and botulism products. The Obama administration should consider granting more of them -- if appropriate -- in the weeks ahead.
A third policy question has to do with how to stop the spread of the disease both across borders and within countries. The administration has so far initiated "passive surveillance": Border guards are assessing if people entering the U.S. seem sick, but aren't actively stopping anyone. If things get worse, they may have to intensify border security.
The Bush administration examined the question of closing the borders in certain circumstances but determined that it would probably be ineffective. Worse, it could lead other nations to retaliate by closing their own borders, which could hurt Americans traveling abroad.
Another strategy, already in use to some degree in Mexico, is social distancing -- asking citizens to refrain from large social gatherings. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, St. Louis embraced such measures while Philadelphia eschewed them, and Philadelphia suffered a much higher death rate as a result. We are probably not yet at the point where such drastic measures are necessary, but senior officials had better start thinking about how they would address these questions.
Most importantly, the federal government must figure out how to reassure a nervous public. It doesn't help that none of the 20 top officials at HHS has been confirmed. Some of them, like FDA commissioner-designate Dr. Margaret Hamburg, are experts in biopreparedness and could help reassure Americans. Alas, she and her potential future colleagues, including the new secretary of HHS, are still in limbo. They need to be in place and on the job.
Mr. Troy, deputy secretary of Health and Human Services from 2007 to 2009, is a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Emily_Haines · 05-01-09, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by obama our lord

For someone whining about 400 billion dollar deficits under Bush, you sure don't seem to mind 2 trillion dollar deficits under Obama.

For someone whining about the fact that Bush had Federal troops fully in place in New Orleans providing supplies and aid 72 hours after the winds cleared, you seem perfectly happy with Obama's nonchalant devil may care attitude over the Swine flu.

Obama says he was going to do everything in is power to fix the economy. Yeah he need to spend some money to fix things but at least the things he his doing are helping unlike dumbasses $600 stimulus checks in an miserable attempt do undo all the damage he had done to the economy in his eight years of failure leading this country.

pavyracer · 05-01-09, 11:57 AM

http://rinf.com/alt-news/business-ne...e-dollar/2333/

How Bush Destroyed the Dollar

Thursday, January 31st, 2008
The Profile of a Third World Country
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
It is difficult to know where Bush has accomplished the most destruction, the Iraqi economy or the US economy.

In the current issue of Manufacturing & Technology News, Washington economist Charles McMillion observes that seven years of Bush has seen the federal debt increase by two-thirds while US household debt doubled.

This massive Keynesian stimulus produced pitiful economic results. Median real income has declined. The labor force participation rate has declined. Job growth has been pathetic, with 28% of the new jobs being in the government sector. All the new private sector jobs are accounted for by private education and health care bureaucracies, bars and restaurants. Three and a quarter million manufacturing jobs and a half million supervisory jobs were lost. The number of manufacturing jobs has fallen to the level of 65 years ago.

This is the profile of a third world economy.

The “new economy” has been running a trade deficit in advanced technology products since 2002. The US trade deficit in manufactured goods dwarfs the US trade deficit in oil. The US does not earn enough to pay its import bill, and it doesn’t save enough to finance the government’s budget deficit.

To finance its deficits, America looks to the kindness of foreigners to continue to accept the outpouring of dollars and dollar-denominated debt.

The dollars are accepted, because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency.
At the meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, this week, billionaire currency trader George Soros warned that the dollar’s reserve currency role was drawing to an end: “The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom, it’s basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency. Now the rest of the world is increasingly unwilling to accumulate dollars.”

If the world is unwilling to continue to accumulate dollars, the US will not be able to finance its trade deficit or its budget deficit. As both are seriously out of balance, the implication is for yet more decline in the dollar’s exchange value and a sharp rise in prices.

Economists have romanticized globalism, taking delight in the myriad of foreign components in US brand name products. This is fine for a country whose trade is in balance or whose currency has the reserve currency role. It is a terrible dependency for a country such as the US that has been busy at work offshoring its economy while destroying the exchange value of its currency.

As the dollar sheds value and loses its privileged position as reserve currency, US living standards will take a serious knock.

If the US government cannot balance its budget by cutting its spending or by raising taxes, the day when it can no longer borrow will see the government paying its bills by printing money like a third world banana republic. Inflation and more exchange rate depreciation will be the order of the day.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

pavyracer · 05-01-09, 11:58 AM

The above article was written before the stock market collapsed when the Dow was at its high 14,000.

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 11:59 AM

Washington economist Charles McMillion observes that seven years of Bush has seen the federal debt increase by two-thirds while US household debt doubled.
This massive Keynesian stimulus produced pitiful economic results.

Given what Obama is doing, you do see the irony in using this type of argument against Bush, don't you?

DwightShrute · 05-01-09, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Emily_Haines

Obama says he was going to do everything in is power to fix the economy. Yeah he need to spend some money to fix things but at least the things he his doing are helping unlike dumbasses $600 stimulus checks in an miserable attempt do undo all the damage he had done to the economy in his eight years of failure leading this country.

How can you have an intellegent conversation with someone who refers to the president as dumbass or dumbya?? Sad

pavyracer · 05-01-09, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by obama our lord

Given what Obama is doing, you do see the irony in using this type of argument against Bush, don't you?

I'm just saying if you are blaming Obama's 100 days in office for this mess and not Bush's 8 years of stupidity in economic policy then you have a problem.

daggerkobe · 05-01-09, 12:08 PM

It's like setting a forest on fire then blaming the firefighters for not putting it out soon enough or spending too much money in the process.

The stupidity of neonitwits lives on.

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

I'm just saying if you are blaming Obama's 100 days in office for this mess and not Bush's 8 years of stupidity in economic policy then you have a problem.

It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of tactics and where we are being taken. Roberts accuses Bush of being a leftist, big government Keynesian.

If that's what Bush was (how ironic that the lefties accuse him of being the opposite), then Obama is a Keynesian on super steroids.

daggerkobe · 05-01-09, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

I'm just saying if you are blaming Obama's 100 days in office for this mess and not Bush's 8 years of stupidity in economic policy then you have a problem.

raiders72002 delivers pizzas for a living...... not exactly a Rhodes Scholar we're talking about here.

pavyracer · 05-01-09, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by obama our lord

It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of tactics and where we are being taken. Roberts accuses Bush of being a leftist, big government Keynesian.

If that's what Bush was (how ironic that the lefties accuse him of being the opposite), then Obama is a Keynesian on super steroids.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

I'm not a Democrat or Republican but when the Assistant Secretary of Treasury of Reagan who is probably the best Republican President of 20th Century says Bush's economic policy was a disaster I listen.

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by pavyracer

I'm not a Democrat or Republican but when the Assistant Secretary of Treasury of Reagan who is probably the best Republican President of 20th Century says Bush's economic policy was a disaster I listen.

Since Obama's economic policy is what Roberts is saying of Bush's policy but 10 times more ruthless, do you think Roberts would have anything good to say about Obama's policies?

obama our lord · 05-01-09, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by obama our lord

Since Obama's economic policy is what Roberts is saying of Bush's policy but 10 times more ruthless, do you think Roberts would have anything good to say about Obama's policies?

Oh, wait a minute; he's already commented on the matter:

Obama's Voodoo Economics by Paul Craig Roberts

Error 404: File Not Found

http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/obama-s-voodoo-economics.html

pavyracer · 05-01-09, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by obama our lord

Since Obama's economic policy is what Roberts is saying of Bush's policy but 10 times more ruthless, do you think Roberts would have anything good to say about Obama's policies?

Lets give Obama 8 years and judge his policies instead of 100 days.

DwightShrute · 05-01-09, 01:09 PM

1,360
Days Until Barack Obama is Out of Office

KKoz9 · 05-01-09, 01:51 PM

I have to laugh at all the ignorant idiots who blindly believe everything this bought-and-paid-for cheerleader clown says he "will do" when he has accomplished nothing but committing to spend this country into oblivion and sending MORE troops overseas...can you imagine what the zombie liberal followers would say if Bush had done that before leaving office? And who else is more qualified than Obama to be President having served an ENTIRE 2 YEARS in the Senate before announcing his candidacy. He is nothing more than a charismatic puppet and people will rue the day they cast their votes for him.

Only 1358 more days...