So President B. Hussein Obama is warning that if he doesn't get his way, that if he doesn't get to blow nearly a trillion dollars on what he calls a "stimulus" plan for the economy, then "catastrophe" will ensue.
Well, did he make the case? I see no evidence that he did. He's simply counting on Big Media brainwashing the People and on fear propaganda such as he's spewing with such words as "catastrophe".
But what proof is there that there'll be any stimulus from the "stimulus plan"? What case was made that it has to be so ludicrously, dangerously large?
Whatever happened to the Democrats' fearmongering about the ballooning deficit and debt under Bush? What, is it only a bad thing if a Republican does it?
Besides, we don't really know what Obama plans to do with the money, at least concerning a huge chunk of it, that is, the part that isn't already earmarked for bailing out the American automakers and banks, etc.
Perhaps if he were to simply stick to helping the automakers and the banks and leave it at that, then the Republicans might approve. Might. One thing's for sure, and that's that Obama's demand for so much money to spend as he sees fit, well, it's too much, period.
Besides, the more we add to the debt today, the more of a problem it'll be in the future with respect to higher debt interest payments, for one thing.
In a nutshell, Obama's demanding too much, expecting too much. I guess that's why they call him a "liberal"... his demands and expectations are very liberal. He actually must believe that he's entitled to close to a trillion bucks to play with!
Speaking of catastrophe, doesn't Mr. B. Hussein Obama understand that if he doesn't fight the terrorists and other enemies of America and the Free World, that there'll be a catastrophe, in that one or more of them will attack and cause massive destruction and death? Letting the enemy become stronger, bolder, more dangerous, all the while appeasing them and doing nothing when they call one's bluff... not wise at all, and guaranteeing catastrophe in the future. So, as far as I'm concerned, if Obama isn't doing anything to crush the terrorists at home and abroad and to stop the likes of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then I shall blame him for the catastrophe or catastrophes that ensue... just as Chamberlain is blameworthy for ignoring the obvious threat posed by Hitler. I'm also disturbed by Obama's agenda of shrinking and weakening the US Forces, including his refusal to agree to replace the aging stock of America's nuclear deterrents. After all, the enemy's acquiring new, state-of-the-art, ready-for-use nukes with the latest delivery tech and so on and so forth, so to allow America's military and nuclear deterrence to simply wither away while the enemy's is becoming bigger, more powerful and better all the time, is treasonous, to say the very least!
And as to those who would blast me for engaging in hyperbole, well, what about Obama and his vague fearmongering involving the word "catastrophe"? Problem is that it's not a given at all that there'll be any worse recession if there's no "stimulus". There's too many factors at play, now and in the future, and in the future, one cannot predict what these factors will be, so I'd suggest that we all smarten up for a change and go back to good, old-fashioned conservative economic policies and chuck the credit-for-everyone, big-government, don't-worry-be-happy attitude the Democrats started and which Bush failed to reverse.
Conservatism, after all, helps prevent "catastrophes", or at least allows us to be better able to deal with them, because we haven't put all our eggs in one basket, haven't borrowed when we can't repay and so on and so forth.
Economic liberalism got us into this fix. It can't be expected to be the solution!
Thank goodness that, although Canadian Prime Minister Harper "caved in" to the Hard Left in order to prevent the possibility of a coup leading to an unelected "coalition" of crooks, communists and traitors calling the shots on our behalf without our consent, the PM still appears to be relatively conservative in how he goes about it, making sure that the bigger "commitments" such as "low-income housing" and so on are temporary and will not lead to permanent new bureaucracies and entitlements. And the fact that he included tax cuts in the plan is a big part of why he's the man to blow the budget, not the other guys. I'm certain he totally hates being pushed into this position, but what was the alternative again? A Hard-Left putsch and temporary, unelected dictatorship with unthinkably scary Hard-Left crap and most likely a larger deficit, with much of the new spending made permanent, as the Hard Left wants.
I can't say I envy the situation the Americans are in relative to that of Canada. The Clinton Democrats down there were even dumber and more economically foolish than the Liberals up here, as reviled as those crooks were, and still are. It doesn't appear that Obama will be any different than Clinton would've, given the same situation, as the whole plan smells like a Leftiebeast's hiney.
