wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:34:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was interested in Obama until I figured out he was just more of the
same. In spite of what the right is saying, Obama looks like the 5th
Bush brother to me. His administration is loaded with former Bush and
Clinton people. The policies are not significantly different. Even the
much vaunted health care reform ended up being a stimulus package for
the same people we were allegedly trying to reform.

When did your interest change? Before or after the election? Did you vote
for him?
About March of 2008 when he started quibbling on "change" and decided
Bush was right on *some* of the wars.

So, you think we should have just let bygones be bygones and not gone after
bin laden? He was in Afg. and Bush never followed through there.

By July it was clear he was on Bush's schedule in Iraq and
Afghanistan, even pushing it out a few years.

Bush's schedule? More like Iraq's schedule for us to leave, which we're on
track to do.

I still say we will be there when Obama leaves ... unless we have a
Vietnam moment and leave off the roof in a helicopter.

By there, you're talking about Afg? I suppose we may have a presence there
for a while. I doubt it'll be heavy duty military.


I disagree that he's loaded his administration as you suggest. He picked
great people for tough jobs, without regard (mostly) for politics.


If you hire all the same people and do the same thing, why would you
expect change?

He didn't hire "all the same people" and he isn't "do(ing) the same thing."


I know the tea party is a running joke and they have attracted a lot
of whackos but they do ask a fundamental question. How long can we
continue to spend 66% more than we make as a country, borrowing the
rest from people who don't necessarily have our best interests in
mind?

It's a legitimate question, but unfortunately they are so incoherent that
they are a joke.

I think that is just the way the press covers them.

No. They're incoherent. Even Faux News can't keep things straight.

Perot made the same points and he was a punch line.

Perot seemed pretty good until he went paranoid. Then, he became a punch
line.

The US did end up following most of his advice and did make a dent in
the deficit for a few months.

Well, if you're talking about doing some common-sense things, ok. But, you
can't really claim he was the author of them.


We may say we are in a recovery but we will need about a 170% growth
rate, just to stay even. We are no where near that and we certainly
can't do it within a carbon cap.

You're just making up numbers. The recession is officially over.
Unemployment has stablized. Things are mending, Iraq is winding down...
all
seems pretty good to me. Sure, there are issues, but the sky isn't
falling... sorry, but it isn't.

--

Which number? We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, that is a
fact that you can find many places.
The rest are just what happens when you turn that over. If you make 60
and spend 100 you are spending 166.% of your revenue. 170% is really
not enough growth to cover the interest and stay even.
The reality is, the various ponzi schemes we have in the entitlements
will require unbelievable growth in GDP to remain sustainable.

You're acting like there will never be any reform or readjustment in
anything... that's highly unlikely.

--
Nom=de=Plume