Obama Hated The Last Century, When Americans Had Jobs

Fox News – Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to Obama Hated The Last Century, When Americans Had Jobs

  1. AlskaHoundish says:

    It all comes down to sentiment of the American working class.
    Mostly, those that contribute via hard work and especially those entrepreneur’s, regardless of their political affiliation.
    If the majority of our contributor’s (not the takers), feel like the environment is good, the economy thrives!
    Do you feel better or different than the 2010 mid-term elections? Have things changed for the better?
    November 6th may tell the story…

  2. rocknblues81 says:

    It’s mostly a lazy attempt to pain republicans as “old”. It’s a lazy and cliche to appeal to younger hip voters. He knows he needs those voters again.

  3. rocknblues81 says:


  4. Obama’s biggest problem is his small mind.

  5. NikFromNYC says:

    “The president views a second term in some ways as a second chance, an opportunity to approach the office differently… He would like to tackle issues such as climate change, immigration, education and filibuster reform. He has told some aides that a sizable mistake at the start of his administration was his naiveté in thinking he could work with Republicans on weighty issues.”


  6. RobertvdL says:

    Why you need a Congres if you have a King. The bills are in place to make the new president Dictator. You just need a little civil unrest to declare officially martial law. (since 9/11 USA is under martial law). And you think todays TSA is bad. Land of the Free ? Because my birds are in a big bird cage and not a small one doesn’t mean they are free, the cat can’t kill them, but one week without the food I give them and they are dead, they have no way to go.

    • Founding Father Patrick Henry warned that the Constitution in its finalized draft could lead to a king. He was right!

      • johnmcguire says:

        The founding fathers also warned that seperating christianity from government would lead to destruction . In 1962 that seperation was begun by the supreme court and this is what we have . Any who doubt that statement can read the words of John Quincy Adams , George Washington , John Jay , Thomas Jefferson , etc . The quote of seperation of church and state was , as anyone paying attention should know , taken out of context as Mr. Jeffersons’ statement went on to say that no denomination of christianity should be accepted as the position of the state but rather that all denominations of christianity should recieve equal standing . You have to know that Mr. Jefferson was remembering that the church of England was accorded acceptance as the official church over other christian denominations and Mr. Jefferson wished to avoid that. His statement in no way intended for christianity to be seperated from the government .

      • gator69 says:

        Our founders also rightly believed that only a moral society is capable self governance.

      • Also, Benjamin Franklin was not a Deist. The idea he is a Deist is likely from some Marxist that wanted to water down the idea that American Founding Fathers were Christians that went to Christian churches and studied the Bible. The fact that Benjamin Franklin believed Jesus acted as a man for his 33 years on earth and not as God does not mean he is a Deist. I believe that same thing. Paul the Apostle believes that—-“God was manifested in flesh(i.e., became a human)…… The Apostle John, writer of 5 books of the New Testament, believed it too—“The Word as God…..the Word was made flesh (i.e., a human).

        The Apostle Paul and the Apostle John were Deists? I suppose a Marxist would say so.

      • TYPO

        ”The Word as God…..the Word was made flesh (i.e., a human).

        should read

        ”The Word was God…..the Word was made flesh (i.e., a human).

  7. johnmcguire says:

    While it is true that obama needs to go , the question is what will the republicans do that is different ? When bush got in after clinton he didn’t change any of the destructive paths that clinton paved . Free trade that led to the massive loss of industrial jobs was continued and expanded . All those mid level zealots that the clinton administration had installed in the various government agencies were allowed to remain . And he never nullified any of the executive orders that clinton issued . We are still being financialy raped by the federal reserve and bush squandered billions on stimulas gifts to his buddies and masters in the banks . Yeah those repulsive republicans are real standards of virtue . So we have two parties that are the same scam overall . I plan to write in Ron Paul on my ballot and I will not be swayed by the scare tactics of we can’t let obama win again . The mainstream promotes obama and robama , not a dimes bit of difference between them .

    • gator69 says:

      It will be on your head if Obama gets reelected. I will not offer up my throat.

      • johnmcguire says:

        No gator69 , I do not accept responsibility for obama or his election or possible second term . The republicans had a chance to straighten the course in America this election and chose instead to continue with their old corrupt ways . I will not go along with them again .

      • Gator says:

        If we are in a boat together that is aboput to go over the falls, and you refuse to grab a paddle and help, it is on your head, Don’t be a denier.

  8. Sundance says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it FDR and LBJ in the 20th century that put tax and spend and exponential growth of government policies in place? Isn’t Obama the one employing last century thinking by growing government debt and taking more control over businesses and people? In fact we can go even further back in time to find where Obams’s thinking comes from. I believe Karl Marx was from the 19th century.

    That’s how I would respond to accusations that my political thinking is from the last century. 🙂

  9. johnmcguire says:

    Say , I don’t see Don Sutherland posting yet today so I will just say this : Don , I have been checking the papers and studies you link to and find a pattern of , citing work as though it supports agw when upon examination in its’ whole it is seen that the case is not so and more likely to support natural variation , is authored by known cagw zealots who have been thourghly debunked either here on Steven’s site or on WUWT. Don , it appears you have a list of papers on the various subjects pertaining to the agw theme and when that subject appears you throw several out as though they are definitive when in fact the whole paper does not support your stance or is propaganda that is discredited . Don , you are a paper hanger , a first class troll , and I hearby award you the title Don ” papers ” Sutherland , bser , mbser .

    • johnmcguire says:

      I don’t have time to hang around today as like Sir Giles of Ham this is my busy time . Harvest and all that pertains to . Don irked me as I had to spend time reading some of the stuff he linked to and then to see he was just spamming and not expressing real points was an eye opener to his tactics . Anyone doubting what I’ve said just go back through his posts of a few days and see for yourself .

      • gator69 says:

        Don has his ‘paper points, like so many of the SkS crowd. Most is as you say just filler, and the rest is pure propaganda. Don does not know that synchronized head nodding is not science.

    • Don Sutherland says:


      If one is assuming that the papers attribute all of the recent climate change to anthropogenic forcings, one will find that is not the case. I, for one, have never suggested that all of the temperature trend or declining summer Arctic ice is due solely to anthropogenic factors. The point I’ve tried to make is that there is a significant anthropogenic role (not total role), even as a degree of uncertainty exists. The recent climate trend is best explained from a combination of the natural and anthropogenic forcings (not natural forcings or anthropogenic forcings alone). Internal or natural variability is continuing to play out in the context of the forcings, both natural and anthropogenic.

      In any case, good luck with the harvest.

  10. Fishnski says:

    There are signs that warn folks not to feed the wild animals..why?..because they get dependent on man. (substitute man for Obama and the dems)

  11. David Appell says:

    3.68 million jobs have been gained in the private sector since July 2009 (six months after Obama took office — you have to give him a little time to get over the George W Hoover debacle). The government sector has shrunk by 599,000 jobs (nationwide).

    • squid2112 says:

      Really? Explain to me exactly how the works when fewer people are currently working than when Obama took office. Please explain the mathematics behind this.

    • Otter says:

      So you are saying the nearly double-digit unemployment is because of government layoffs?

      • David Appell says:

        Unemployment, as conventionally measured, is 8.3%, not “double digits.”

        I am saying 3.68 M jobs have been added in the private sector since July 2009, and 599,000 jobs have been lost in the government sector. The number of unemployed has dropped by 1.9 M, in part because many people are no longer looking for work. (Maybe they decided to be stay-at-home moms or grandmothers — that’s what conservatives want, right?)

      • squid2112 says:

        David, you are completely full of crap!

      • rocknblues81 says:

        Don’t forget that Clinton repealed the Glass Stegal Act.

        I also think that its untrue that we had a surplus under Clinton.

      • gator69 says:

        Jul 3, 1993 – PRESIDENT Bill Clinton yesterday swiftly approved the closure of almost 130 domestic US military bases…

        Clinton gutted the military. I know as most of my family is military, and has been since the revolution.

        Obama robbed my mother of her GM stock that she was going to use for retirement, and cut her veteran’s widow benefits. Talk about throwing granny off a cliff!

      • David Appell says:

        The military deserves to be gutted — much of it is a vast, bloated killing machine. In 1Q2001 when Clinton left office it was still 3.8% of GDP, which is plenty — still too much, in fact.

      • David Appell says:

        > I also think that its untrue that we had a surplus under Clinton.

        Download the statistics and calculate it for yourself: FRED series FGRECPT and FGEXPND.They show a surplus from 1Q98 to 3Q01.

      • gator69 says:

        So my mother deserved a mugging by Obama and deserved to be thrown off a cliff?

        You are such an ass.

      • David Appell says:

        How exactly did Obama “rob” your mother of her stock?
        And how much would it be worth had the company gone bankrupt?

      • gator69 says:

        When a company pays out profits, who is supposed to be at the front of the line David? Who got paid? You have deluded yourself, it ain’t workin on us.

      • rocknblues81 says:

        Clinton played about as much of a part in the current mess as Reagan and Bush 2. Clinton’s propping up of Fannie and Freddie, gave us the conditions that led to the housing bubble (which began through Reagan-era deregulation which continued through Clinton) and he gave us Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (wall street stooges who were each appointed Secretary of Treasury during Clinton’s presidency, and helped block regulation of derivatives, and who supported efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall which were eventually fulfilled during Clinton’s 2nd term.) Bush inherited an already broken system (began with Reagan, Clinton made it worse although his initial agenda was different than Reagan or Bush), even with the temporary surplus, and then made it even worse. We don’t really have much hope, since people can’t face the facts that we are becoming exactly what we originally fought against (the British Empire and the Soviet Union didn’t exactly collapse because of good ol’ America, it was because their leaders created too many enemies and were bankrupted by war, a path we are heading down.)


        “Craig Steiner

        The Clinton Surplus Myth (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/)

        Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

        The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000–though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

        While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it’s curious to see Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

        Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government’s fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton’s budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here’s the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

        Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities–which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

        The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.”

      • David Appell says:

        Wait a minute. The government bailed out GM once, a few decades ago. By the rules of pure capitalism that company shouldn’t have even existed any more, right? So it was the government that enabled your mother to collect GM dividends all these years, right?

        Had it gone bankrupt a second time, her stock would have again been worthless. When a company goes bankrupt, aren’t creditors supposed to be paid first, before the company’s owners? At least the stock still has some value — better than nothing.

        These are the risks of capitalism, right?

      • gator69 says:

        Enough bullshit David. Who got paid?

      • jimash1 says:

        David slimed
        ” The number of unemployed has dropped by 1.9 M, in part because many people are no longer looking for work. (Maybe they decided to be stay-at-home moms or grandmothers — that’s what conservatives want, right?)”

        That is super offensive. It is also complete horseshit.

    • DEEBEE says:

      Was Obama too busy mastrubating for the firts siz months or were you to not include that. But even at that level of “improvement” we are screwed.

  12. Chuck L says:

    SARC/on You are right, David. Obama has done a GREAT job! Since this Administration came into power, total unemployment/underemployment and those workers who have stopped looking for work is more than 20%, national debt has increased by $5 Trillion, more people have filed for Social Security Disability than jobs have been created, GDP growth is 1.5%, and average household income has dropped as has average household wealth. And you are right again, it is Bush’s fault even though this President had both Houses the first two years and has been in power for over 3 1/2 years. With the economy in recession, it certainly was a great idea to push through ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank rather than try to create jobs and get the economy moving again those first 2 years. I and many American are thrilled that gasoline prices are the highest they have ever been on Labor Day thanks to (among many other outstanding policies) a ban on drilling for oil and gas on federal lands. Oh, and I might add, that ignoring the court orders ordering the revocation of those bans was certainly needed and showed the President’s deep and abiding respect for the laws of this land. Finally, I absolutely agree with the President that his biggest mistake was not to tell his story to the American People better. SARC/off

    • David Appell says:

      So many bad numbers…. GDP growth has average 2.2%/yr since 2Q09 — after the Bush crater finally stopped. Real gas prices are 13% below their high of $4.29 (in current dollars) on 7/7/2008 — not that any president can do much about them anyway, since oil is sold on the world market and demand has increased greatly in China. The debt — did you care when Bush doubled it? (And why do you think it matters, anyway?) And while debt has increased by $5.4 T since Obama took office, the value of US stock markets has increased by $6.3 T — the S&P500 up by 65%…. (I hope you’re invested.)

      • squid2112 says:

        Ok, by this logic, let us say then, since we know CO2 levels have been as high as 2000ppm in the past, then 400ppm should be nothing, right? I thought so…

        And let’s see, doubling the debt at $4T in 8 years is more debt at a faster rate than almost $6T in 3 1/2 years? Again, you lack fundamental math skills.

        I find it so ironic that the Socialists, such as yourself, screamed bloody murder while Bush was over spending (I too screamed about it), but when Obama completely eclipses anything that Bush did to our debt, well then, that is ok, after all, it’s all in the name of redistribution and “social justice”.

        You are such an incredible asshat, adjectives to describe are becoming an endangered species.

        I will give you an advanced warning. When it comes time for producers, such as myself, to take care of asshats like yourself, you can bet your bottom dollar me (and the other producers) are going to tell you to pound sand, run off into a corner and starve to death, because are aren’t going to produce for you anymore!

      • squid2112 says:

        BTW, sense any anger in my writing? … you are correct, not just angry, but mad as fucking hell and not going to take it anymore because of shitheads such as yourself. Clinton and Bush made my daughters life difficult. Obama has destroyed mine, ruined my daughters, and enslaved my grandchildren. I will NOT stand by quietly and watch. My forefathers, neighbors and friends died to ensure a better life for me and my family. Obama has absolutely destroyed the patriotism of these fine people. People that sacrificed their very lives without reservation or selfishness. You cannot believe how much I recent assholes such as you that continue to perpetuate this destruction of our country, and I will do everything (including the sacrifice of my own life) to fight against you! You are beneath crap…

      • Gator says:

        Amen brother Squid! I have sat and watched neighbor after coworker after friend lose their jobs, and ALL of it can be traced to leftist agendas that have robbed us of cheap energy and piled on the debt. Where I work, half of my former coworkers are gone. A few weeks back they let an entire department go with absolutely zero notice. I have spoken with many people of late who are stuck, they cannot afford to retire and no longer make enough to support their families. Obamacare has not only NOT given them \’free\’ healthcare, it has driven the prices up! If you hate freedom, vote Obama.

        I now understand why our founders picked up their muskets and said, \’Enough!\’.

      • David Appell says:

        Obama has enslaved your children? Could you be more hyperbolic.

        And if one president destroyed their so-called patriotism, it clearly wasn’t very strong to being with.

      • David Appell says:

        More bad numbers. Can’t you people calculate?

        Let’s not hold a president responsible for the debt incurred in his first year of office (since it wasn’t under his budget). Then, under Bush — who inherited a surplus — the debt increased from $5.9 T to $12.3 T, 108%. Under Obama — who inherited an economy in freefall, mind you, debt so far has increased by $3.7 T, or 30% so far. The stock market has increased much more than that.

        I’d still like to know why the debt matters so much anyway. Or why it matters *now*, when it didn’t then. (Or under Reagan. Or GHW Bush.)

      • David Appell says:

        Obamacare hasn’t even come online yet — at least wait for that before you blame it for everything.

        Cheap energy? Look at oil prices during the Bush administration. When did the steep rise start? 2002, when it went from about $25/b to a 2008 peak of $140/b.

        Is that the cheap energy you think Obama took away?

        You’re can’t even look at data and make enough sense of it to understand what’s been going on. Sure, I understand you’re angry. At least look at the facts.

        • gator69 says:

          Do you remember anything before Bush? You are a broken record and an ass. That poor woman is suffering as a direct result of Obama policies. Her salary was cut 70% due to the Frank Dodd act.

          Go find another country you ignorant ass.

      • David Appell says:

        Then, according to the Republican mantra, she should apply herself and find a better job, right? Or start a business and compete in the great American experience of capitalism.

      • gator69 says:

        Sorry Davey, but as she now admits, Obama lied and she will not be voting dumbocrat ever again. At least she has the capacity to learn and is not a cold hearted anti freedom agenda seeking freak such as yoursel.

      • DEEBEE says:

        David, your idiocy is profound. You should ask for a refund in the money spent on your education. Your entire argumentation is from peaks and valleys of graphs and where ever an extremum occurs it belongs to that POTUS. No explanations or rationale. Thank goodness you are out of Physics.
        And it is because of shenanigans of writers like you I unsubscribed from Scientific American. No logic but POV uber alles.

  13. Chuck L says:

    The stock market has little connection to the economy, even less so when businesses are not hiring due to economic uncertainty. As far as Bush is concerned, in my opinion, his second 4 years were a disaster. And yes, the debt does matter, it weakens the dollar and if/when the economy recovers, the weak dollar will lead to inflation, especially in the energy sector since transactions are in dollars, and with countries like China, buying and holding our debt, we will find our foreign policy constrained. Candidate Obama, explaining his positions,
    said that under his Administration, “energy prices will necessarily skyrocket,” For middle income and lower income families where energy is a fixed and relatively greater part of their budget, how will they benefit if energy prices do “skyrocket?” High energy costs are the most regressive “tax” that the lower and middle income classes face. Home prices are still in a depression and home equity is the largest financial asset for most people; when home prices are stagnant or falling, people feel poorer and are less likely to spend or invest and consumer spending is the largest part of GDP. Consumer spending is increasing by 1.25% per quarter for the last 5 quarters and unless this increases, it is extremely unlikely that GDP will increase and people are in no mood to spend money right now because of the high unemployment/underemployment/stopped-looking-for-work. This Administration’s record on the economy is dismal and it, and its supporters should own up to it.

    • David Appell says:

      $6.3 trillion of wealth has plenty to do with the economy, if you are well-off enough to own stocks. Some people are getting very rich off it. Not the middle class, though, by and large, as they are trying to get out from underneath the housing bubble (with little government help — that goes to bailing out Wall Street).

      As your consumer spending statistic shows, the problem is demand, not “uncertainty.” Consumers aren’t spending, because they are paying down debt (see FRED series CMDEBT). Government could be stepping in to augment demand, but it’s not being allowed by people who hate government and hate the middle class.

      • Chuck L says:

        David, they are paying down debt BECAUSE they are uncertain; that always happens when the economy is bad. Most consumer spending is fueled by credit cards, if they are paying down debt/credit cards then they are not spending money buying stuff. $3.6 Trillion dollars is paper wealth and if the market goes down, which it probably will if GDP growth continues to be so anemic, then what? Real Estate is a greater part of the middle class’ wealth that stocks and equities are. I hope the stock market does well because I am an investor but you cannot defend the terrible job that this Administration has done with the economy. Studies show that government spending has a GDP multiplier effect of unity or less (http://econ.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/NBER_Fiscal.pdf) and reduces private investment (http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/CCTW_100108.pdf). The government cannot incur more debt so the only choice besides borrowing is to increase taxes which has a well documented negative effect on GDP, especially when the economy is weak, something even Bill Clinton recommended against.

      • David Appell says:

        It’s $6.3 trillion, not “$3.6 trillion.” And paper wealth becomes real wealth when it’s sold, and looking at the big run up in the stock indices it’s clear a lot of people are buying, which means a lot of people are selling.

        Dick Cheney: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

      • Chuck L says:

        I mis-typed but still, according to the 2010 US Census, home equity and other real estate are still a greater percentage of personal wealth than any other asset through all income brackets (http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/). As far as Cheyney/Reagan, at that time, national debt was a smaller percentage of GDP then it is now; 104.8% today vs. about 50% in the 1980’s according to OMB.

      • David Appell says:

        Of course there are other kinds of wealth. But $6.3 T of new value isn’t peanuts, especially to the people who own it.

        Public debt is only 71% of GDP; total debt, which includes internal debt, is 102%. I’d still like to know why it matters *now*. I’m not even convinced it matters much at all. I’ve been hearing cries of catastrophe about the debt for 3 decades, and it hasn’t happened yet. Most of it has been inflated away and will never be repaid anyway. So why does it matter *now*?

    • Chuck L says:

      Here is why the debt matters, by 2019 or 2020, the interest paid on the national debt will be $1 trilllion. This is more than projected expenditures for the military, or Social Security, or, Medicare, etc. The interest on the debt will equal total income taxes collected by the Government, then what? And that assumes that interest rates,
      which are historical lows, stay that low, which seems unlikely.

  14. Chuck L says:

    That is, consumer spending is increasing at an annualized rate of 1.25%. Sorry for being unclear, above.

  15. Gator says:

    David, there are socialist countries all over the planet. Why not just move to one and leave us in peace and prosperity. As anyone who studies history knows, Communosocialism fails each and every time, and has since the dawn of time. Capitalism has peaks and valleys, because that it is how markets operate, yet it still elevates society far beyond the dreams of dictators.

    Why are you so enamoured with failed ideas? You clearly have a cognitive disorder.

    • David Appell says:

      Right now there are two countries with a high Human Development Index than the US, both of which have more socialism than we do (and we have plenty already): Australia and Norway. Besides, what we have anymore is not capitalism, but crony capitalism kept afloat by massive corruption of our politicians. As a result, the country, and especially the middle class, are in decline, and most Americans know it.

      • gator69 says:

        Then what is stopping you, science writer?

        Does the “science writer” know how those determinations were made? Does the “science writer” not know about infant mortality reporting? Hmmmmmmm?

      • David Appell says:

        What I know is that, in hundreds of US counties, life expectancy is now actually decreasing, especially for women:

        “Falling behind: life expectancy in US counties from 2000 to 2007 in an international context”
        Sandeep C Kulkarni, Alison Levin-Rector, Majid Ezzati and Christopher JL Murray
        Population Health Metrics 2011, 9:16 

      • David Appell says:

        Even when different methods of counting infant mortality are adjusted for, the US lags many advanced countries:

        UNICEF, Infant mortality rate (0-1 year) per 1,000 live births

      • gator69 says:

        You are once again calling propaganda facts, and you are too stupid to even realize it.

      • David

        You really must try harder than that. Norway is blessed with enormous oil reserves and a tiny population. Of course their standard of life is up there at the top. Oz is also rich in mineral wealth.

        Why don’t you compare with true socialist states such as China or Cuba? Or what about Venezuela, which has plenty of oil wealth, yet dire poverty.

        Actually the most revealing thing about this comment stream is that you are even getting involved in political issues. In my view it rather casts a doubt on your true motives when you get involved in climate change issues.

        • gator69 says:

          Good point Paul. But I guess most of us already knew that David is really a “political” writer anyway. For God’s sake, the clown does not even understand infant mortality reporting. But then I’m sure he never bothered to check, as what he read simply confirmed his bias.

      • David Appell says:

        Yes, Norway has enormous oil reserves. They also charge a tax of about $35/b, and use most of that for their citizen’s retirement. We could do that, of course, but we essentially give our resources to corporations and the profits get privatized while the damage gets socialized. Nice racket.

  16. BaldHill says:

    If the US wants to move it’s political epicenter to Salt Lake City for 4 or even 8 years that is up to the people voting in that election in November.
    The rest of the world will be hesitant and cautious to accept, if at all, an armed crusader from, what is seen outside the US as, a fringe and fanatic religion.
    Be careful what you wish for.

  17. gator69 says:

    “The rest of the world will be hesitant and cautious to accept, if at all, an armed crusader from, what is seen outside the US as, a fringe and fanatic religion.”

    Sorry to hear that the rest of the world is so very ignorant and bigoted.

    • BaldHill says:

      No different to how the US treats countries which don’t see the world according to Washington.
      R’s recent trip to Europe and the Middle East has done nothing to change that opinion.
      We are long past “my way or the highway” diplomacy.

      • gator69 says:

        Glad you have found a way to live with your ignorance an bigotry.

      • BaldHill says:

        Gator, I have spent plenty of time amongst the people in Utah and they are very friendly, the ones I met anyway. For me they can live their life how they want to. But that does not mean to say that I subscribe to their views, way of life or how they push their views upon those who do not see it the way they do. And if you don’t see it their way, i.e. convert, you do become a second class citizen but that is in most societies with one dominant religion.
        As an example: If you are not a muslim in Malaysia you find your rights severely limited compared to those that are, can’t vote, limited property rights etc.
        In Germany a percentage of your income goes to the church regardless of the payer belonging to the church, the state deducts it from your income.
        Politics and religion should not mix and where they do it causes plenty of trouble, loads of examples at the moment. Tolerance is a theory seldom practiced by those devoutly supporting any particular religion.
        Is the rest of the world ignorant and/or bigoted? I see it more as them being weary and cautious.
        And do you think that strange if your candidate, on his first international trip as candidate, makes comments about supporting armed conflicts in regions where certain countries do not all see it Washington’s way. Or was that just a vote winning exercise.

      • Me says:

        I think you should reread what you just said.

      • BaldHill says:

        English is not my first language so quite possible that I left something out that should have been expanded, what anyone tries to write as an opinion is not always clear to someone else. What needs explaining?

      • Me says:

        MMMMM Yeah, I still think you should reread what you just said!

      • gator69 says:

        I see Bald Hill is trying the “I’m not really a bigot” dance now.

      • Richard T. Fowler says:

        “In Germany a percentage of your income goes to the church regardless of the payer belonging to the church, the state deducts it from your income.”

        Where on Earth would you get such an idea that modern-day Germany, of all countries, would behave this way?

        en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Tithe#Germany

        “Germany levies a church tax, on all persons declaring themselves to be Christians [. . .] The proceeds are shared amongst Catholic, Lutheran, and other Protestant Churches. [. . .]

        “Church tax (Kirchensteuer) is compulsory in Germany for those confessing members of a particular religious group. It is deducted at the PAYE level. The duty to pay this tax theoretically starts on the day one is christened. Anyone who wants to stop paying it has to declare in writing, at their local court of law (Amtsgericht) or registry office, that they are leaving the Church. They are then crossed off the Church registers and can no longer receive the sacraments. In addition to the government, the tax payer also must notify his employer of his religious affiliation (or lack thereof) in order to ensure proper tax withholding.

        “This process is also used by members of “free churches” (e.g. Baptists) to stop paying the church tax, from which the free churches do not benefit, in order to support their own church directly.”

        I think you owe a lot of people an apology for your outrageous statement. Whether or not someone likes the ultra-extreme secularity of modern Germany, your statement is offensive either way. It is offensive to pro-Europe Christians, to anti-Europe Christians, and also to non-Christians, for different reasons of course.


  18. I see David Appell is working full on with Democratic propaganda.

  19. Fishnski says:

    “Many economists say the loss of government jobs at a time like this is a drain on the economy.”
    Food stamps are good for the economy as well…I cannot believe this mentality!…Dems think they can make something out of NOTHING!!….Fishnski adds a like to the Squid…
    PS..Dems take advantage over the productive folks in this country….when they hear that the economy will suffer if they tax and burden the hard workers they brush it off because they know that the folks that carry this nation will always do what they do…Work their asses off!..

  20. In addition to his other talents, David Appell in a climate expert, an authoritative expert in economics, social policy and politics. What isn’t he brilliant at?

    • Funny that these left wing folks have NOTHING else to do on a Sunday but push their propaganda.

      • slimething says:

        I’m sure everyone, including David Appell, understands oil is pegged to the dollar. In a sense then, Norway like the rest of Europe is still relying on the dollar for it’s existence. Yet, David Appell and his ilk says oil is evil, unless of course it finances their social playgrounds which are guaranteed to fail; all ponze schemes do. As the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and falling like a stone, who is going to bail out the dollar when it becomes worthless? Russia, China and other countries are decoupling from the dollar already. What will happen to our standard of living once the rest of the world gets sick of financing our debt? I think 2008 was just a glimpse of what is to come.

        QE4 is here. You can always tell when the next “stimulus” is coming when Bernanke says it isn’t 🙂 Ten years ago I listened to Jim Sinclair and Peter Schiff and bought gold. Now with QE4 (aka Obama re-election effort) a sure thing, gold will enjoy a new low threshold of $2000 in the coming months.

        There is no free lunch. Work hard, millions on welfare depend on you. Obama said we should be emulating the European economic model. Well, we’ve got it now. Is everyone feeling better?

      • Bernanke will print money until there’s no more trees

      • Rather harsh on Ben Bernanke I think… Bernanke doesn’t have any good choices here. He can debase the currency or he can bring on a recession. A recession would be politically untenable. I feel really really sorry for you guys. Your country is screwed…

      • I can’t agree with you at all. Printing money is taking the easy way out for the bankers and those in government. They will feel no effects. They will stay rich and comfortable.

        But money printing will cause inflation. That inflation will hurt 905% of people. Food prices will go up so high it will cause hunger among lower middle class people and suffering among the elderly since their Social Security checks will no longer be enough to cover their needs. The cost of everything will be going much higher but the amount the elderly get in the Social Security checks will not change. their buying power will go drastically down. Most of them will not be able to keep their house warm in the winter. some of them are going to die.

        Printing money is the worst possible option for the average person. But those in the banking system don’t need to care about that. They can print money and keep themselves in living large.

        The right option is to reduce the money supply, cut all needless programs in the government—which are mind bendingly numerous. Cut almost all overseas military bases out—-we never needed them in the first place, they only existed because of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower knew would happen. Drastically cut regulation on businesses, regulations that have caused so many to leave America, so they will come back and hire Americans to work for them. Cut out all government subsidies of farming programs that had artificially created markets, etc., etc., etc., etc.,

        There’s a lot of things that could be done instead of endlessly printing money. Printing more and more money is the worst of all options.

      • What’s more, making it very difficult to borrow money is something that should have always happened. But it’s too late. The debt Titanic is going down. It has already hit the iceberg. It’s going to be very ugly in America. Riots here are going to make Greece riots looks like children playing during recess.

  21. slimething says:

    Ah yes, Norway, that great Socialist model can’t evade laws of economics either.

  22. I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. As a matter of fact, I’m not even an American. 😉

    But I did read a few of David Appell’s comments and while he cites many facts and figures, he tends to assert claims that are remarkably childish. It’s been my observation that extreme ‘left/progressives’ and extreme ‘libertarian’ world views tend toward the juvenile. It’s a rejection of the possibility that there are shades of grey. That the world is a complex place and not easily divided into good guys and bad guys.

  23. Andy DC says:

    I usually vote Democrat, but I find issues that are disqualifying for both. If Bozo the Clown ran as a third party candidate, he might have been the best choice. Same goes for each of the last six times. You wonder after awhile if that is totally accidental.

  24. Sundance says:

    Obama had a direct hand in Illinois in forcing banks to make “no income verification” loans to high risk applicants. No one is more culpible for the housing bubble/disaster in Illinois than Obama. Obama’s slumlord and real estate tax cheat associate Valerie Jarett made so much money from the housing bubble and there is no end in site. That’s the real world and Obama and Jarrett don’t give a flying f_ck if David Appell or anyone else choke on dirt and died poor tomorrow. David does not walk among the powerful political elites and thus only knows the pretty propaganda they fill his brain with.


    David Appell has no idea what and who Obama is and I’ll bet David fell hook line and sinker for hope and change. What a naive putz. lol

    • Eric Barnes says:

      Agreed, David “Horse” Appell is quite the putz.

    • As an outside observer it seems apparent that both sides of politics on this issue owe culpability for the financial crisis. The more worrying concern is that the present government seems to be committed to short term gain for long term pain. But it’s not self evident that the other side will address the serious challenges either.

  25. slimething says:

    David Appell, you’re an idiot. The link to the so-called statistics on infant mortality is full of lies and half-truths, but I have little doubt you know these are rigged numbers but you don’t have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it.

    • gator69 says:

      Congratulations! You did what Appell could not, you found the truth.

      The United States probably values life more than any other country, through our constitution and Judeo-Christian based society. Free people tend to value life more. The US is the only country that accurately records ALL infant deaths.

      That’s why Davids little cut-n-paste stats are pure propaganda, facts are not derived by comparing apples to oranges.

      • His ridiculous claim that unemployment has gone down since Obama became President is mindless. I don’t want to watch him sliding the shells with the pea under one of them around.

      • Gon says:

        You have tens of millions of people living in poverty, on food stamps and without health insurance. You’re a moron if you think that does not reflect badly in just about all health statistics. Of course 1st world countries without such desolate underclass fare better on quality of life, healt care, education etc. etc.

        What would Jesus do? Follow Ayn Rand?? HA Ha!

      • gator69 says:

        Does “Gon” refer to your brain? Do you see anyone fleeing our “poverty” stricken state? Or do you see us building a massive wall and placing the National Guard along the border to keep people out? I would rather live in “poverty” here than as a middle class citizen just about anywhere else.

        BTW – Jesus offers free will, and not Obamacare. 😉

      • Gon says:

        Sure it’s great to be in the 1% over there, p[robably the best place in the world for that. For the rest…well…there are plenty of 1st world countries where the quality of life is leaps and bounds higher…and especially for the poor (which you have so many).

      • Is Gon the same as Gond and Gondo?

      • Gator says:

        Gon, this is why you will remain eternally ignorant. You obviously failed to either read my response, or you were unable to comprehend it. You must be able to absorb new knowledge to grow.

        I am far from a “one percenter” (class warfare is so noble) and have no issue with that. You on the other hand must be a miserable wretch, always wanting what you cannot have. I am grateful for the rich, without them I would have no job, no roads on which to drive, no parks, no bridges, etc…

        So in recap, I would much rather live in “poverty” here than be your rich neighbor. 😉

      • Gon

        Put your hand in your pocket and take your money out and give it to fix these problems you talk about. Don’t give me your bleeding heart and then tell me what you want to do with other people’s money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s