It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
In Barack Obama the Democrats have a communicator to nearly match the great communicator himself. Like Ronald Reagan, Obama's body language is non-threatening. His rhetoric reassures with its reasonableness and comforting cadence.
The difference is that with Reagan, America got policies and initiatives that accurately matched his words. With Obama, his words in no way match his actions. His lips say moderation, his actions say spend, tax and expand government.
It's understandable that most pundits marvel at his mastery of delivery, but few seem to note how remarkably comfortable Obama is with his own hypocrisy.
Consider his convincing calls for fiscal restraint coupled with his authorship of massive new spending? While it makes for great rhetoric, Obama's duplicity on the economy will have major negative consequences for Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election
As President Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself. Many on the right reflexively blame the Democratically controlled Congress for the “big spending” during his administration, even though Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years of his two terms. Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period. It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting liberal spender and government grower.
The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.
Originally posted by jd140
Its good that you would fix your house, but let me ask this. Is your house a buisness?
When you do fix your house do you ask the government to give you a hand in the cost?
Nobody gets into a buisness if they know it will fail.
What happens though when they print so much money inflation makes it worthless?
Originally posted by spacedoubt
My definition of someone who is relaxed, and comfortable with their own hypocrisy:
Compulsive Sociopathic liar.
However. Seeing the pork inflated, gigantic, spending bills tells me one other thing. That Obama is not in charge, that Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are running this show. I think that was the deal that was made.
Reid's entire family endorsed Obama (including his lobbyist sons).
Pelosi, who seemed reluctant at first, eventually supported BO too, maybe in a more lukewarm manner. But it was enough.
This legislation happened So fast, that I'd be willing to bet that a lot of it was already in draft form, well before the election.