Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Debate: Budget Balancing?

Jim Lehrer did his usual great job of moderating last night, but in one of his questions, to which he returned several times, he voiced an economic viewpoint whose support among establishment opinion-makers is as broad as its actual merits are narrow. The question, posed to both candidates, was what they would give up from their programmatic wish list, inasmuch as they would take office at a time when the budget deficit, swelled by the financial bailout congress soon will pass, will be very large.

Lehrer’s question failed to consider one crucial point: The United States will almost surely be in the midst of a worsening recession when the next president takes office, and balancing the budget under those conditions would only make the recession worse. States and cities would slash more services and jobs than they are already slashing. The dearth of private-sector investment would be compounded by the dearth of public-sector investment.

Now, in fairness to Lehrer, he may have been fishing for just such an answer. The conviction that budget balance is the first task of the next president, however, is already standard fare on the editorial pages of America’s leading newspapers. Have the nation’s opinion leaders really forgotten so completely the lessons of the Depression? Is it news to them that by cutting government spending as revenues diminished following the 1929 crash, Herbert Hoover helped turn the recession into the Great Depression? Now as then, budget balance is the worst possible remedy for a nation that is shedding jobs and seeing millions of Americans lose their homes.

As well, budget-balance mania often fails to distinguish between public spending that makes the economy stronger and more competitive, and spending and tax cuts that do not. One could balance the budget by slashing spending on education, but that would create an American work force that is less competitive than those of other nations. Barack Obama made a case, in answering Lerner’s question, that investing in alternative energy, in infrastructure, in health care and in education would make us more competitive, but he didn’t make it forcefully enough to challenge the assumptions of the budget balancers. (If he wasn’t going to pick fights with McCain, he sure as hell wasn’t going to pick a fight with Lehrer.) McCain made no such case at all, and even suggested he might veto all spending bills -- probably misspeaking, but possibly not.

In one sense, our economic situation may be more dire than it was during the Depression. The failure of both public and private sector then to invest in American industry and workers was catastrophic, but in an era of national economies, the Depression didn’t prod investors to go searching for more competitive industries and workers in other countries. In today’s globalized economy, however, we fail to invest in
the upgrade of our industry, infrastructure and work force at our own peril. If our public sector doesn’t invest in these kinds of improvements, our banks and corporations – and other nations’ banks and corporations, too – will simply put their money into nations that do.

There’s little indication that John McCain has thought about these matters. Barack Obama plainly has, but based on last night’s performance, you wouldn’t put major money on the prospect of his taking on budget-balance mania in either of the forthcoming debates.

By Harold Meyerson  | September 27, 2008; 2:47 AM ET
Categories:  Meyerson  | Tags:  Harold Meyerson  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Debate: An Edge for Obama
Next: Absentee Landlord

Comments

Both candidates had trouble answering the bailout question, but Obama's response that he hadn't seen it, made more sense. His answer indicated that he was cautious, reserved and was not a hothead like McCain who immediately said he's support... Support what? The bill hasn't been written. I would think you'd want to know exactly what you're signing off on especially since it involves a trillion dollars...duh! Obama is clearly the intelligent choice.

Posted by: hisgrace03 | September 27, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-wins.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008
Obama Wins

CNN Poll of Debate Watchers:

Who won:

Obama: 51%

McCain: 38%

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-wins.html

Posted by: caraprado1 | September 27, 2008 5:45 AM | Report abuse

The question isn't about balanced spending, it's about foolish spending. Bush inherited a balanced budget, but he made short work of destroying it even without the classic excuse of needing economic stimulus. What do we have to show for his spending, besides empty shell casings?

Immediately balancing the budget, come january, would almost certainly send us into a depression.

Instead, we must make choices. Do we spend $4B for one fancy military jet, or do we give 400,000 qualified students a $10,000 college scholarship so they can find better jobs, make more of their life and be better citizens.

Not everyone wants to go to college, so we should also make investments in infrasructure and pay a fair wage for people who are willing to work hard and work smart on the job. We may not need a bold new $10B high speed rail system in California, but that bridge that collapsed in minneapolis obviously needed work, and why on earth does commuter rail in Los Angeles share a single track with north and south bound freight!?! All we have to do is maintain two parallel sets of tracks to make commuter rail, amtrack and freight rail faster and safer. In many cases, the rightof ways are already there!

Posted by: rwolf01 | September 27, 2008 5:58 AM | Report abuse

Great point Harold.

When I hear McCain talking about spending cuts I'm left scratching my head. It's like his unyielding belief in the magic of de-regulation and tax cuts. The guy is an ignoramus.

In addition to Roosevelt's WPA; we also have the Interstate Highway Act under Eisenhower; the Space Program under Kennedy. Eisenhower also created DARPA -- which years later produced the idea for the Internet -- that invention alone has paid for every dollar ever put into the program several fold.

The private sector took things like the internet to another level -- but these technologies and ideas got their start with public funding.

This is going to be especially important with the development of alternative energy technologies. McCain seems to be working under the illusion that these technologies will magically appear because he says they should be a priority. However, Obama actually puts money into these areas (and has a voting record that supports his stance, contra McCain).

One concern that I do have with deficit spending -- especially after the Bush years -- is that those debts can have severe negative consequences for the value of the dollar.

The Clinton years tax rates may not be sufficient to cover the gap at this stage -- but the current rates are going to bankrupt the Treasury before we can start turning the corner.

Posted by: JPRS | September 27, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008
What A Debate Reveals: Anger, Entitlement and Contempt

What I found shocking reflecting on last night's debate was how angry and entitled McCain was, in a very open way.

McCain's manner was one of that who believed he should not even be on the same stage with this person. This indicates a person of extreme rights and extreme wrongs, not a statesmanlike persona, but an angry and impulsive one.

McCain carries strong ideas of what a liberal is, ideas that very little from his cherished ideas of who betrayed the nation during the Vietnam war. A stock character, driven and created by his own rage, carried, as it has been since the '70s, with a virtual ideological blindness--blinded by a contemptuous rage--that there are others who cannot understand the world the way he can. This is not judgment, but angry certainty. This is not readiness, but a just-contained rage that he should be confronted by such ideas.

You can see it in his constricted "can you believe it" rage at one who disagrees with him. This kind of contemptuous, angry dismissal of others ideas leads easily into the impulsive decisions of the last few months--generated with barely contained contemptuous rejection of those who would reject his ideas--only the most recent forms of those essential constructs--a contemptible media, easily fed with false notions and panaceas, as he believes they were earlier in his life; intellectuals, whose reason and deliberation is contrasted with the sharp, impulsive action that for his life has constituted a certain knowledge, and an angry, certain need to sweep away those who would stand in the path of righteous certainty.

What is beautifully ironic is how McCain maintains this contempt even as he switches from one position to another in the opportunistic second--this is when the look of contempt and entitlement turns, for a moment, to anxiety and panic.

Soon, however, the gaze is back. No matter what the new position is--impulsively determined, desperately grasped--if only "they" knew better. If only "they" knew the truth.

This kind of ideological rigidity and certainty (note how Obama could not contain himself from smiling when McCain attempted to compare him to Bush in that regard) combined with impulsive decision making, from the "gut" of sure knowledge, is what has created the outcomes of the past 8 years.

It was--in a setting where one would not expect it to be, where one would expect McCain to contain it--glaring apparent last night.

This is an amplification of the last 8 years rather than a change.

We do not need to experience this type of decision making again.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Posted by: caraprado1 | September 27, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

As a Canadian who had to suffer from major budget cuts [or rather the revamping of the Treausry's priorities] as the Canadian $ tanked, due to the size of the accumulated national debt, and constantly large National [and provincial] deficit[s], I understand the concern of of Mr. Lehrer.
The USA can not continue with the present line of deficits, especially as due to the financial mess receipts will shrink, while expenses will rise due to the imminent recession[we hope not depression].

Now, it is preposterous to ask either Presidential Candidate to spell out how they will rearrange spending. Certainly DoD, war in Iraq/Afganistan/, Somalia [via proxie] will have major cuts. As will the subversive efforts in Bolivia, etc be deleted. Major expenses growing will include, interest on the debt, infrastructure needed re global warming, power lines and alternate energy sources, and social spending re recession.

The days of yore are over, unfortunately the USA will have a stagnant [if not contracting] economy, with major decrease in the standard of living - mirroring the Canadian exsperience of the past. Sad but necessary.

Posted by: yeolds | September 27, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

rwolf01 makes some very good points. I have a somewhat different perspective.

The US has become addicted to "growth" at any cost. Similar to a drug addiction, Need more growth, cut taxes and ignore your "credit limit". Need growth, eliminate regulations that require responsible risk management. Need grown, allow consumer to buy now but pay later. Well the bubble has burst. We need to restore responsible spending and (in the near future) to balance the budget.

Unfortunately both candidates seem to be regurgitating the tired rhetoric of less taxes means more growth. McCain, at least, seems to be a bit more vocal on actually cutting expenses.

Posted by: SteveR1 | September 27, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I dispute the assertion that balanced budgets during the depression made it worse. Where's your evidence? Just because you say it is so doesn't mean it is true.

We must balance the budget at all costs, otherwise we will suffer ever increasing inflation which will destroy our standard of living. That means cutting spending and increasing taxes. The military budget should be cut in half, the occupation in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan stopped, medicare cut, and Social Security cut. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do any of these things.

That is why our standard of living is going to continually decline, and there is nothing we can do about it. The American people are simply unable to understand or accept that continued deficit spending both on a government and private basis are the root cause of all our problems.

Look for an economic "collapse" meaning unemployment >10%, inflation of 15% or greater, and negative economic growth indefinitely within the next 12 months.

Posted by: mscheurer | September 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

There are some, like Robert Reich in a recent television interview, who believe that budget deficits aren't a bad thing, as long as the economy grows by a proprotionate amount. But we as a country have been spending like a person with weak self-control with a credit cart with no limit. The result is that the interest on the national debt is now about the same size as the budget of the Defense dept. Those who believe that government can acheve positive results must face the fact that a large national debt reduces the possibilities as to what can be done. Conservatives who would like to roll back social programs are heartened by the prospect that such may now be necessary to run budget surpluses to pay down the debt.

We will probably avert a financial collapse, but hard times are coming because of the national debt. For one, the decline of the dollar and the damage done to Wall Street are causing other countries to re-think their dealings with the US. This is invariably going to drive up interest rates and increase the interest to be paid on the debt. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance budget deficits, and the upcoming financial bailout will exacerbate the problem.

All this comes at a time when the country needs to re-invest in infrastructure and to aggressively develop alternative sources of energy. The way things have been done the past 40 years or so has brought this country to its knees. Get used to a generation of hard times.

Posted by: blankinships | September 27, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

GOP spend-and-debt politics under Reagan and the Bushes have moved America into a dead end. We're now in a lose-lose situation:

Option 1. Cut spending and raise taxes to balance the budget raise taxes: Hard years to come - paying the price for living over the budget over decades.

Option 2. Business as usual, spend and debt: Look into double digit inflation rates to come. After all, when a Hamburger comes at $1000, $10T debt aren't that much any more. Downside: Forget about savings and nest-eggs.

Posted by: theirllbelight | September 27, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Seven hundred billion dollars would create ten million seventy thousound dollar jobs if spent in infrastucture which the country is in desperate need of. Those jobs would last twenty years, that is approximatly how long a renewed infrastructure plan would last. This would increase tax revenues over the same time span. It would not even include new jobs created by the new energy companies created to change they way we fuel our economy, oil is not going to last and these new technologies would spur the national economy into overdrive. We fail as a nation because we are reactive not proactive, infrastructure and energy industries would be a proactive move that would benifit all Americans. National strength starts with a strong economy which our is not at this moment in time.

Posted by: tommic856 | September 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I hope that this debate will at least retire McCain-Palin’s misguided crusade against earmarks as a crucial source of governmental waste and deficits. Senator Obama rightly noted that earmarks amount to only $18 billion a year -- less than 0.1% of the total federal budget and barely 3% of the current federal deficit.

McCain started his campaign for the GOP nomination by confronting the fearful anti-immigrant vigilantism of the Minute Men and other demons in the GOP outskirts. After a long journey, he seems to have fallen prey to other GOP demons, shrinking into the role of a Minutia Man who focuses on budgetary bushes lest he confront the forest of Federal spending.

One wonders whether Senator McCain will ever evolve beyond his small-bore approach to budgets and grapple with the fiscal big picture: how do you enhance the economic security of millions of Americans beset by stagnant wages and unpredictable domestic markets and project our military security abroad without a sizable great-power budget? Moreover, how long can we continue to pay the shortfalls in that budget with loans increasingly from China and other major trading partners?

Posted by: jonathan2 | September 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

John McCain clearly won the debate last night.

Baracky Hussein Obama seemed to be extremely nervous.

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008.

Posted by: hclark1 | September 27, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama understands the basics of modern (= Keynesian) macroeconomics and is perfectly capable of answering Lehrer's question along the lines you outline. And McCain is stuck back in the world of Dwight D. Eisenhower (and--to be honest--of Harry Truman and FDR) when it comes to understanding economics.

But, alas, a presidential debate is no venue in which Obama could discourse on such matters. He already has the problem of being perceived by voters as "Professor Obama" who's more comfortable conducting a seminar. Given the format of presidential debates, McCain would have ripped to shreds any response that Obama might have given that reflects serious economic ideas. And that ripping to shreds would have been all the easier for McCain because Col. Top-Gun doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about. So of course McCain would have looked great in the sound-bite world of presidential debates, and Obama would have been made to look foolish in the eyes of millions of simple-minded voters.

The time for Obama to try to re-educate the voters about what needs to be done is after he's installed in the presidency and has to start defending his budgetary decisions. And at that point he'll be back where JFK was in 1961 or 1962. (When, by the way, JFK himself had to get a crash course in Econ. 101 from his economic advisers, such as Gardner Ackley and J.K. Galbraith.)

Obama did OK under these dismal circumstances.

Posted by: jm917 | September 27, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Why? Because DEFICITS MATTER!

The US dollar has plummeted as US deficits grow. The current Recession is being triggered by growing inflation due to imports, namely oil, spiking in price due to the weak dollar.

The US has a debt crisis, not a credit crisis. Unless we balance the budget and begin to pay down our debts, the US will see an economy that matches the Stagflation of the 1970s.

Posted by: AxelDC | September 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what I saw with Obama unfortunately, I wanted to be impressed and I was not. It appeared he was more worried about losing than he was about telling me anything I wanted to know.

On the other hand, McCain, a bitter little old man who can't understand the difference between quitting a stupid war and losing, who thinks "victory at any price" is the way for a nation to behave. This is a fine attitude in our soldiers, if they are willing to pay with their lives they have the right to demand victory at any cost - McCain is not running for Soldier, he's running for President.

He's still stuck in Vietnam, he's ashamed of his nation for not having won that stupid war.

McCain's recent stunt this past week and his choice of Palin for VP have completely poisoned any positive feelings I had for this man.

Oh, and "Baracky Hussein Obama seemed to be extremely nervous." -- isn't it wonderful to have people like that in our country? I thought you had to be 18 to vote. This is part of the reason we were stuck with George Bush.

Apparently McCain is relying on these voters, and Obama is relying on our disgust with these voters. Why aren't either of these men appealing to the grownups?

Posted by: barferio | September 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Normally, I would agree with Mr.Meyerson about balancing a budget during an economic depression or recession. But the rules are different now. In 1933, the US was not already trillions of dollars in debt, and the situation was so desperate that Roosevelt literally had nothing to lose. Things are not that bad YET. A lot of potential Federal spending cuts are things which will have little or no impact outside of the DC area, or will have little or no impact outside of specific sectors of the economy like aviation, defense or agriculture- and only for certain subsidized agricultural commodities like cotton or for ethanol production. These are things which can be cut without impact to the broader economy. Do we really need THREE high-tech fighter planes- F-18, F-22 and JSF? Have we closed all unnecessary military bases? Could some Federal lands be sold to private property owners? Is it really necessary to have Federally-funded airports in places like Lynchburg, Danville and Charlottesville, Virginia? If we can't make fairly easy choices like this, painful though they may be, then we might as well turn over Federal finances to some kind of foreign stabilization board and let them make the cuts that our politicians won't make. That's what's going to happen sooner or later, anyway, unless we act relatively soon- within the next 10 years on each issue I previously mentioned plus a lot more.

Posted by: ripvanwinkleincollege | September 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry McCain- you're a 20th century relic- only one place to cut spending= MILITARY! Everything else is going to be politically impossible as we descend economically- Printing money will only go so far with our lenders- Let's get used to the fact that we're only gonna be a second rate power in the rest of the 21st century

Posted by: FamFiz | September 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that Democrats have learned from the last time they tightened their belts. Remember, Bill Clinton gave a budget surplus to George Bush. And Bush immediately turned around and gave this surplus to the richest 1 percent of his supporters.

The same thing happened with Social Security. Remember when the Medicare limit was raised? This was done to fix Social Security. Instead, this became a hoard of cash to be looted by the Bush administration.

Our nation badly needs long-term financial discipline, which means that we must find a way to return to surpluses over the long haul. After the events of this year, however, I don't want to see our President constrained by any campaign promises re tax or budget issues. We've had eight years of savage looting of our national wealth, and it's going to take a while to turn this ocean liner around...

Posted by: jerkhoff | September 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't know much for a senator of some 26 years. Maybe that's because he's lived a life of privilege his entire life, and never really had to work for anything except his freedom from Hanoi.

American's need to see past McCain's bravado. He doesn't even know squat about "winning wars".

Iraq and Afghanistan aren't about the "surge", how many troops are in theatre, or even about counter-insurgency.

It's all about yielding and overcoming the adversary.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all the others failed from the beginning -- McCain is a hard-head and a loose cannon merely magnified the obvious flaws of a chaotic approach to a dumb idea (Iraq).

McCain tries to convince everyone the "Surge" was his idea -- not only was way too late to "surge".

The "surge" paper is here:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061219_ChoosingVictory.pdf.

The surge only served to put fuel on the fire (metaphor). The author never put on a uniform, and is only a history teacher with a specialty in russian studies.

Even if violence subsided -- the Iraqi's want the United States OUT OF THEIR country.

But McCain is to hard-headed to admit this.

He just wants a WWII style victory parade and celebration, but needs some way of getting there.

He doesn't know what to do.

Posted by: FranknErnest | September 27, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Meyerson's argument here in this article is that he is arguing that the government perpetually make investments with no returns in sight. This only causes increasing debt. Increasing debt with no plan to pay down leads to a crash. Debt that is never repaid equals a faulted investment. At some point, the American people have to begin producing. The future cannot be delayed indefinitely. Hence, the crisis we're in now. The bill is due. Meyerson proposes we keep making more bills until they begin paying for themselves. This is an impossibility.

Posted by: forgetthis | September 27, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Let's be honest, probably at least half of the national debt of this country happened because of the tax and spending policies of Reagan, Bush I, as well as Bush II. The fiscal policies initiated by Clinton balanced the budget and left a projected considerable surplus.

McCain said he would balance the budget in four years, but refuses to specify the reductions in spending he would advocate to achieve this goal. He seems obsessed with earmark spending, $18 billion in a federal budget or about or close to $3 trillion. He advocates a spending freeze on federal spending except military, veteran's benefits and entitlements. Those programs and interest on the national debt take up about two thirds of the federal budget.

Mr. Meyerson is correct, there should not be significant spending reductions during a recession. Barack's proposed tax policies, which would essentially return tax rates on the upper class to where they were during the Clinton presidency, would be offset by wise investment spending in improving health care, education and the nation's infrastructure. These are important national priorities which should not be scaled back because of the huge initial outlays of the bailout for Wall Street.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | September 27, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

It is certainly true that where the US gov't spends its money is actully important in the long run (Eco.102 said that in the short run it didn't matter). But what has changed since Eco.102, is that the US has more debt, private and especially public, in the hand of gov'ts and people not in the US. (Also, back in Econ.102, which dealt with US macro econ., we "assumed" the rest of the world didn't exist, and way back then that was good enoungh for Econ.102. Now that assumption is ridiculous).

Paulson's real concern (or a major part of it but not said) is that we need to protect the dollar. And to that extent a *more* balanced budget is needed. We cannot continue to borrow from the Chinese etc. without concequences. The way we got away with it before was that international trade transaction(including things like oil prices) were cleared in US dollars. That will slowly change. It has to unless we get our "house" in order very very quickly. But if we continue as we have, then it will occur rapidly. There is some talk in some foreign capitals already, that the Brenton Woods agreement of 1944 is dead. Continution of our budget deficits will not be possible without some pain, real major pain, of some sort.

Who ever is elected, be it the Pres, or in the Congress, is going to have to do a balancing act of trying to stimulate the economy to the extent it can be done but preventing the dollar from crashing. The dollar is going into the tank, but with luck we might get a soft landing. If not watch out.

And for those who say Bush inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit, it was only a surplus because of the stock market bubble.
A year after the bubble burst in 2000, surprize, we were heading back to deficits.

And after the bubble burst, the US economy never really recovered, except to create a new bubble in real estate. The bubble it self could not have been prevented since it was a result of all those dollars we sent over seas (buying oil and chinese electronics) that came back as low interest loans. If there had been appropriate regualtions and if they had been *addequately enforced*, OR if the mortgage brokers had enforced/monitered them selves, AND/OR Congess hadn't told Fanny and Freddy to provide loans to the less finacially solvent, the bubble might not have been so bad, and we would not have the sub-prime mess as bad as we do.

If Obama wins, and he does "stimulate the economy" then probalbly we will see the dollar fall quicker, faster and sooner. And after that, I don't think our economists have thought about that too much, and even if they have, I doubt they have anything but theoretical models, but no history to look at. If McCain is elected and he starts to control the deficits, it may just get us into a recession. But Paul Volker had to do that in 1979 to 1982, to get inflation under control. And while it was painful, very painful for many people, for a while, it ultimately worked.

While it might seem "easier" in the short run, Obama will more than likely be just throwing gasoline on the fire. McCain will be more painful in the short run. But no one ever said the cure would be painless.

Posted by: OldGeezer | September 27, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

McCain looked like a disturbed knit-picker in debate one. Obama has the self confidence to recognize when his and John McCain's views are similar - McCain lacks the courage and confidence to do likewise. Obama shows respect - a quality that earns him as much. McCain showed contempt - a quality that has earned him as much.

Posted by: tigman_2 | September 27, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA AND HIS FACIST BROWN SHIRTR
Missouri governor goes nuclear on Obama for using prosecutors on campaign “truth squad”posted at 6:30 pm on September 27, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | regular view Oh, now. Would people really refrain from criticizing Obama just because they fear being, er, sent to prison for it?
This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
More at the link. Needless to say, no one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearing of David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he?

Posted by: DrRevere | September 27, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

If the govt goes to the debt markets and borrows a trillion, there will be less of the money supply available for the rest of us to borrow. So they spend our tax dollars and pump the economy, while int rates rise which drag the economy. When Clinton left town there were no 30 year govt bonds, mortgage based 30 yr bonds looked great, int rates sank to historic lows.

Borrowing money to bailout the banks in exchange for an equity stake is a win. Most Americans will pay their mortgages is a safe bet, JPM, Citi, and the biggest banks will come out winners- as always. They are already bottom feeding on wachovia, wamu, and others. next up National City, the biggest bank in the biggest swing state (who sold their subprimes to Merrill right before the crash.)

Posted by: mikey999 | September 27, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Do not discount the SNL factor in this election.
Saturday Night Live has a knack for calling out politicians on their BS, in a silly, but effective manner.

Tonight, SNL just made Palin look like even more of a joke than she really is (not a small feat).

I really thought there was NO WAY someone else could make Palin look more comical and ridiculous than she does herself, but it's hilarious seeing another person so perfectly capture Palin's utter ignorance of basic issues!

Then they lampooned McCain for his string of political gimmicks designed to distract Americans from the real issues. Accurately portraying McCain as a grumpy old man with no new ideas in the debate.

Thank you, SNL. Let's hope the media follows your lead!

Posted by: jgarrisn | September 28, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

While balancing the budget is a worthy goal, the one time that conventional wisdom usually considers deficit spending acceptable is during a recession, where government spending can spur economic activity. That's basic Keynesian economics. So both Obama and McCain were right not to indicate where they would cut.

I wish Obama had done more to point out McCain's disingenuousness on budgetary matters. As Obama pointed out, $18 billion of earmarks is a rounding error in the federal budget (and the $3 million earmark for bear DNA research McCain derided beyond trivial).

What Obama should have called McCain on was when he said that in cutting the budget, he would exempt military spending, veterans' benefits, Social Security and Medicare (and cutting interest payments on the debt is also not an option). That's about 80 percent of the federal budget, which leaves about $500 billion for discretionary programs. If McCain's tax plans would cut $300 billion in taxes, he can't possibly offset that revenue decrease through spending cuts. And cutting even from this discretionary part of the budget isn't easy: One person's wasteful spending is another's critical government program, and even tax-cutting, small government Republicans love and refuse to do without many of those programs.

Posted by: mvelikonja | September 28, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Meyerson posts here out of mere ideological reflex. Serious talk of "balanced budget mania" at a time when the federal deficit is nearly half a trillion dollars and rising, Congress never cuts spending on anything, and both Presidential candidates are proposing major tax cuts can hardly reflect anything else.

Posted by: jbritt3 | September 28, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the refreshing honesty. When I first heard the question I wondered where Lehrer what coming from with the premise of his question. I was waiting for someone to say, "Look, we just spent $600b on a war, we're going to spend $700b on a bailout, and we're going to spend what we have to to improve our infrastructure, health care, education, and of course our military. Any complaints?"
I knew, of course, that no one would. Too many Americans have perfected the knee jerk reaction to increased debt to the point that, for a candidate, being honest is suicidal.
The question isn't really one of debt, it's whether we have the grit and determination to pay in down as soon as possible.
On that note, I'd like to see Obama select Tom Coburn as his budget director.

Posted by: GuySturino | September 28, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

This adds more credence to Senator Obama's answer to Lehrer's question, when he said, "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel."

Senator McCain on the other hand was looking at a spending freeze. Which candidate do you think answered the question with the current economy in mind?

Senator McCain's knee-jerk reaction to all situations would be a debacle. He proved this when he suspended his Presidential Campaign last Wednesday.

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | September 28, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Is this article a joke?

The problem with Obama's answer is that he still plans to cut taxes, and only raise taxes on the wealthy who actually create the jobs, bringing in tax revenue, and he still plans on pushing through his hundreds of programs..
He wouldn't answer the question, because as soon as he says he might cut something, hes afraid he'd lose that special interest group.

The most important thing to do is to cut business taxes, capital gains taxes, and cut the WASTEFUL spending so you can focus on the important things

Posted by: matteucs | September 28, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

The difference the author doesnt seem to understand is that during the Great Depression we had over 25% unemployment and NEEDED the government to create employment. Those who were employed prior to these programs were making absolutely nothing. There is no comparison between the wages of the times and those of even the lowest paid workers today.

Also, inflation was out of control and the value of a dollar was virtually nil. Now, while the dollar hasn't been at its best its still doing pretty well, and lately has been gaining ground. we have a huge swath of people who still have money, still have jobs, still can invest.

The need for a national worker program is not there. It was during the Great Depression. So if you could please pick up a history and/or economics book and stop just making up bull to meet your own political purposes i'm sure everyone would appreciate it.

Right now we need a balanced budget focusing on important programs, not necessarily cutting jobs right away, but getting rid of the pork that doesnt do ANYTHING

Posted by: matteucs | September 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The Democrat Party a Criminal Enterprise
Friends of Angelo get new invitations — to a federal grand jury
Countrywide Mortgage CEO Angelo Mozilo offered sweetheart deals on loans to his “friends”, who just happened to be people who had oversight responsibilities on his business. People like Fannie Mae CEO/chair Jim Johnson, Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, and others got below-market-rate loans from Mozilo through a “Friends of Angelo” program at one of the main lenders at the heart of the subprime collapse. Now a federal grand jury wants to talk to Angelo’s circle of friends to determine whether indictments for corruption are in order:

Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest U.S. mortgage lender, made large, previously undisclosed home loans to two additional executives of Fannie Mae, the government-chartered firm at the center of the U.S. credit crisis.

One of Countrywide’s previously undisclosed customers at Fannie was Jamie Gorelick, an influential Democratic Party figure whose $960,000 mortgage refinancing in 2003 was handled through a program reserved for influential figures and friends of Countrywide’s chief executive at the time, Angelo Mozilo. Ms. Gorelick was Fannie Mae’s vice chairman at the time.

Another Countrywide client was recently ousted Fannie Mae Chief Executive Daniel Mudd, though it isn’t clear whether he received special treatment on two $3 million mortgage refinancings he made when he was the company’s chief operating officer. …

Countrywide loans on preferential terms to influential figures are the subject of a federal grand jury investigation in Los Angeles, according to people involved in the inquiry. Prosecutors subpoenaed records of many of the so-called “Friends of Angelo” loans in August, lawyers and others familiar with the matter said. …

While Countrywide was developing a closer working relationship with Fannie Mae, the company also had created a special path to handle loan applications from influential figures. The “Friends of Angelo” program channeled loan applications from celebrities, public figures and sports stars — often singled out by Mr. Mozilo — to a department where the borrowers received special treatment, sometimes including lower interest rates and a reduction in fees.

It’s been a while since we’ve heard from Jamie Gorelick. The former 9/11 Commission panelist wound up being one of the focal points of the dot-connecting afterwards, as she pushed for further separation of law enforcement and intelligence efforts in the years prior to the 9/11 attacks, even while al-Qaeda attacked American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. Now she turns up at Fannie Mae, taking the same kind of insider loans while having oversight responsibilities for the GSE and the manner in which its business got transacted with other firms, including Countrywide.

Gorelick claims she never knew she got preferential treatment. For that matter, Barack Obama’s campaign adviser Jim Johnson says the same thing. However, both got loans a full point lower than market value at the time, after going outside the normal channels to get their loans handled. Are we to believe that the CEO of Fannie Mae and a member of its board were completely ignorant of the going rate for residential loans at the time of their application? What business did they think they were in, anyway? The rate for residential loans is the center of Fannie Mae’s business.

The notion that they were ignorant of their preferential treatment insults both their intelligence and ours. I suspect that a federal grand jury will feel the same way if Gorelick and Johnson try to use that line in their testimony, assuming they don’t just take the Fifth when called.

Gorelick hasn’t had any role in the presidential campaigns, but Johnson has been a high-level adviser to Barack Obama — and still is. Chris Dodd has taken leadership on the bailout bill negotiations on Capitol Hill. With two Democrats this closely tied to a federal grand jury action, they’d better hope that the grand jury takes its time in assessing the evidence. This to me seems a lot more worthy of an investigation than a dismissal of a political appointee in Juneau.

Posted by: DrRevere | September 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?
By Warner Todd Huston
September 28, 2008 - 03:53 ET

Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte.

Posted by: DrRevere | September 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Yes, we ban (more on the Obama effort to jail critics)
National Review ^ | Sunday, September 28, 2008 | [Mark Steyn]

For all the entirely false rumors about Mayor Palin banning books from the Wasilla library, the only candidate using agencies of the state to suppress views with which he disagrees remains Barack Obama. In Missouri, the Senator has managed to enlist various county officials to threaten TV stations running "untrue" anti-Obama ads. The Governor, Matt Blunt, responds:

St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment... Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.

As Stanley Kurtz, Milt Rosenberg and David Freddoso can tell you, this pattern is well established: The Obama campaign's response to uncongenial allegations is not to rebut them but to use its muscle to squash the authors. This is especially true when it comes to attempts to lift the curtain however briefly on the Senator's mysterious past. The New York Times' general line on the Obama candidacy may approximate that of Bagehot on the British monarchy ("we must not let daylight in upon magic"), but the last time I checked that was not yet constitutionally enshrined.

Throughout my travails this last year with Canada's capricious, totalitarian "human rights" commissions, I have expressed my appreciation for America's First Amendment. Free societies do not criminalize opinion. What Obama is doing via pliable Missouri public officials is disgusting - and a revealng portent of what his Administration would do to its [political] enemies.

Posted by: DrRevere | September 28, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

This election is a choice between a bad plan (Obama) and no plan (McCain). The bad plan is preferable simply because I will know what kind of poison I'll have to drink.

Posted by: rmpatera | September 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The disparity between Barack "Acorn" Obama's debate commentary and his actual Senate record was astounding. Had McCain chosen to, he could have spent the entire night exposing Obama's outright distortions. "I support a missile defense system." Obama has vowed to CX the program if elected. "I recognize the need for a strong military in dealing with rogue Nations." Obama has vowed to cut tens-of-billions from the military budget; and, to terminate advanced weapons programs. "I support the gasification of coal." Obama voted against it. "I support nuclear power." Obama has vowed to terminate the production of fissile material. The feedstock for nuclear power plants. I'll give 95% of Americans a tax reduction in their Federal Income Taxes." A real Obama 'hat trick' since more than 40% of Americans don't pay ANY Federal Income Tax. "I agree, we need to control excessive government spending." Obama has proposed hundreds of billions of $s in NEW government spending; to include Foreign Giveaways mostly directed at Africa; and, even to the point of providing government funded health care for 20million+ illegal aliens. "I warned of the deregulation of the mortgage industry." Obama fought Bush Administration efforts to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; and, even proposed legislation to prohibit mortgage lenders from tightening standards on low income borrowers. Not to mention the fact that he was a primary beneficiary of industry largess; tried to funnel tens-of-billions of $s in the Democrat's recent "Bailout Package" to the Acorn extremists; and, welcomed the likes of Bob Johnson, Franklin Raines and Penny Pritzker into his campaign structure. Etc. Etc. Etc. The only way to express Obamaspeak in a civil dialectic is to note that the man is a congenital liar. God help us if the majority of Americans are beguiled by this novice circus comic. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | September 28, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to the Republicans, we know the things that McCain was right about with respect to Obama's analyses. What is missing is that Obama is also willing to demonstrate what bipartisanship looks like. McCain, the egocentric, smug, and grumpy old man, demonstrated what four more years of extremely partisan politics will look like.

With John Kerry in the audience, McCain could have acknowledged Kerry's assistance with the normalization of relations with Vietnam. Both men went to Hanoi in 1993. Whenever McCain has been given the opportunity to acknowledge Democratic support for mutual programs and legislation, he has declined to so state. McCain is as bipartisan as my little toe.

Obama is confident and honest enough to acknowledge the assistance and good work of others, regardless of party. Now, who puts country first? Who is the true nonpartisan? Which type of President do you really want?

Obama '08

Posted by: EarlC | September 28, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

How could one country go from a road to a balanced budget within a very few years to one in which the grandchildren and maybe the great grandchildren of the current crop of voters will only HOPE to pay off the current deficit with which this administration has saddled this nation? Its very simple really, elect or have the party steal the election for you then take that surplus with which the nation is supposed to balance the budget and get involved in a war in a country that had no weapons of mass destruction, no yellow cake for building nuclear weapons in short no reason to decide to war on this nation other than the fact that it tried to have his father assassinated shortly after the first gulf war. Granted that was not something which "fair minded" nations try to do. I believe that even if there had be a reason to remove the dictator it would have been fairly simple once we destroyed most of the military and captured him. At that point we should have left the country right after elections were held no matter who won! Instead we broke it and now we bought it as the saying goes to the tune of how many trillion dollars? In short, the road to the balanced budget is not even a spectacle in the rear view mirror.

Past history has shown that the Republican party is one of fiscal constraint and restraint, working always to lower taxes, allow and encourage companies to grow and create jobs. This current administration has taken that mold and broken it beyond repair in my estimation. Yes, they lowered taxes for the large corporations and the rich and embraced the "trickle down theory" of economics. But all this while increasing the defense budget beyond all believable limits because of this war in Iraq, a war in which we should never be involved!

I can only hope that Mr Obama is elected president and that he will look at the needs of the citizens of this country and begin to address them. Lets hope that he takes action to bring the education of our children up to modern day standards so we have the engineers, scientists and technical help to research the problem of an alternate source of energy rather than continue to pour money into another countries treasury buying crude. I can only hope that new industries are created that will KEEP the jobs here in the U.S. for the next one hundred years at least and cause other companies in the U.S. to expand and create more jobs. I can only hope that he sees the need to address the damage done to the enviornment and attempts with congress to bring some sane control measures online to turn back the upward spiral of the amounts of carbon we pump daily into our atmosphere. I can only hope that he will cause the oil companies who have been making rather obscene profits in this day of over $4/gallon gas to pay a much higher tax on those profits, invest in the future with those profits to create alternate energy jobs. I can only hope that he will cause the agencies responsible for regulation of the various industries to be rehired and begin to police these industries which have placed us in the position we are regarding the environment, the budget, the economy, airline safety and so forth. Yes, I can only hope right now that Mr Obama will not fall to the sirens song of the get rich bunch in D.C. who currently control our taxes and the destiny of our country and have taken this land I love and attempted to turn it into a nation of either very rich or very poor. Hope, that is what we have now. Hope, that our future will turn around. Hope that a man of another race, an American will do what the last administration has failed to do and that is put the good of the country before his own personal gain or the gain of his friends. Hope.

Posted by: BookMan4848 | September 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"Deficit omne quod nascitur"
(nothing is certain, but death and taxes)

"Venit summa dies et ineluctabile tempus"
(here comes big trouble for the Dow Jones Average - Virgil -seeing Troy fall of Troy imminent "the final day has come and the inescapable moment")

Posted by: HailCaesar | September 28, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Bet Ya didn't hear about this on NBC

Family with Down Syndrome Child Meets John McCain and Sarah Palin

September 9, 2008

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Kurt in Pittsburgh , hello, sir. Nice to have you on the EIB Network, and how about the Steelers defense?

CALLER: How about those Steelers, huh?

RUSH: How about that?

CALLER: Hey, listen, Rush, longtime listener, first-time caller, one of those Bible, family, gun clingers from western Pennsylvania .

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: And I wanted to share a story with you. A week ago last Saturday we went to the Palin-McCain rally in Washington , Pennsylvania , was the day after he announced her, and we have a five-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, and we made a sign that said: 'We Love Kids with Down Syndrome.' So when they pulled in in their bus the sign did catch their, McCain and Palin and the rest of their family, it caught their eye, we could tell, they gave us a thumbs-up from the bus, so we were all excited just by that --

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait. Who gave you the thumbs up, McCain and Palin?

CALLER: McCain, Palin, Cindy McCain, we could see them from the bus. We were in a position where we had eye contact with them --

RUSH: Oh, cool!

CALLER: My wife was holding our daughter.

RUSH: Very, very, very cool.

CALLER: It was really cool, Rush. I was like, 'Wow, that's awesome,' because I love Governor Palin and so I thought that's really neat. So then we moved around as the bus was getting ready to pull out, we kind of positioned ourselves so we could just wave them on and a Secret Service agent came up to us and said, 'Hey, can you come with us?' I was like, 'Do we have a choice?'

RUSH: (laughing) You shouldn't have worried. It's not the Clinton administration.

CALLER: Right. So we accompanied them up the hill, we went right to the bus, where it was, and Governor Palin, Senator McCain, Cindy, Todd Palin, they're all standing there. We're in this inner circle with just us and them, and the Secret Service agent, and they came right up to us and thanked us for coming out, said they loved our sign, and Governor Palin immediately said, 'May I hold your daughter?' and our daughter Chloe, who's five, went right to her, and I have some pictures I'd love to send you maybe when I'm done here, but Governor Palin was hugging Chloe, and then her little daughter brought their baby Trig who has Down syndrome from the bus, he was napping, and Chloe went right over and kissed him on the cheek, and my son Nolan who's nine, he thanked her.

RUSH: This is amazing.

CALLER: I will send you all the stuff, Senator McCain was talking to my son, and we thanked him for his service, and he asked my son if he wanted to see the bus, and we were hanging out and it was very surreal. I felt like we could have had a pizza and a beer with them, they were so warm.

RUSH: You know what? I want to put you on hold. I want Snerdley to give you our super-secret, known-only-to-three-people here, e-mail address.

CALLER: I will send you everything, Rush.

RUSH: And then could you send us these pictures? Would you mind if we put them on the website?

CALLER: I would be honored, and my main thing is they are warm, kind, genuine people, and they represent the best of this country.

RUSH: That's right. And when you send these pictures, make sure you identify them. I mean, we'll know Palin and McCain, of course. Identify yourselves.

CALLER: I will, I will identify everybody in the picture, Rush, and God bless you for being a beacon of hope and truth in this country.

RUSH: Oh, no, no. It's nothing, it's nothing. You're doing the Lord's work.

CALLER: Well, we're very blessed and I want people to know what a blessing it is to have a child with Down syndrome. These kids, they're angels.

RUSH: That's the thing. There's always good to be found in everything that happens. It may be a while before it reveals itself.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Right, and when she hugged my daughter I said, here's the difference, this candidate embraces life and all its limitless possibilities.

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: That's what she is.

RUSH: Terrific, okay, I gotta run here, but I'm going to put you on hold.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, Kurt. I really appreciate it.

END TRANSCRIPT


Posted by: DrRevere | September 28, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a liar and a thief. Check out his criminal associates. You are judged by the company you keep. Johnson and raines embezelled Fannie Mae to the brink. They are his advisors. Obama is a poverty pimp. He is like a vampire embezzling from the Govt hand outs to the poor and he sends the majority of US TAXPAYER MONEY to ACCORN and a list of convicted thieves Rizko. Obama is a Marxist communist with friends like Bill Ayers Rev. Wright Farrakhan. His Hollywood image is like a bad dream. Facts not words speak living volumes. Of course if you shine the light on him he screams racist. He hires goon lawyers to scare and threaten people. All of the middle east dictators including Chavez and Castro endorse Him. Hello are you awake yet?

Posted by: DrRevere | September 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

DrRevere:
If all the things you say about Obama were true, I would take comfort in the likelihood that he would last as President just about as long as it took to impeach him. Hugo Chavez and Fidel (or Raul) Castro are closer than the Middle East, and I couldn't care less about their endorsements, or the one from that fool from Iran.
I suggest that you calm down a little.

Posted by: rmpatera | September 28, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has had a long association with his friend William Ayers, who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list for nearly a DOZEN terrorist attacks.

NOBODY in the mainstream media has wanted to talk about this fact -- until WE started FORCING them to.

We are beginning to have success in spreading the word about Obama's ties to this TERRORIST -- thanks to supporters like YOU!

Just this week, the Wall Street Journal's Stanley Kurtz ran a HUGE exposé on the long relationship between Obama and Ayers, entitled "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools" -- giving details about what they did together, and revealing to the nation what we've been saying all along

The truth is finally starting to get out about Obama's terrorist ties -- but we need YOUR help to FORCE the media to deal with that truth and NOT LET UP or "sweep it under the rug!"

HELP US REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA -- SELECT HERE!

William Charles Ayers and Barack Obama have been friends for decades.

This is a man who has admitted to BOMBING THE PENTAGON -- and has never expressed one ounce of regret for his actions. Ayers is a terrorist -- and Obama is his friend and political student.
Obama has tried to dismiss Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) archives, housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago, make it VERY clear that Ayers and Obama were partners in the CAC in the 1990s. But that's not all -- there is clear evidence that Obama and Ayers were friends all the way back in 1986.

Obama and Ayers served together in 1995 on the CAC, overseeing the distribution of about $50 million to area schools through radical left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN). As the Journal reports, Ayers "called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism."

That same year -- 1995 -- Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a gathering at Ayers's own home!

THE WORD IS FINALLY GETTING OUT about Obama's connections to this radical left-wing terrorist -- but we need YOUR help to FORCE the media to deal with that truth and NOT LET UP or "sweep it under the rug!"

HELP US REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA -- SELECT HERE!

What does the association between Ayers and Obama say about Obama's political views and perspective?

Ayers was an anti-American, traitorous radical who will stop at nothing to push his hateful communist agenda. (Yes he called himself a "radical, Leftist, communist"!)

In the 1960s and '70s, he was a leader in the notorious underground terrorist group, the "Weathermen." The Weathermen declared war on the United States government, and they bombed over 30 establishments (leading to multiple fatalities, including police officers).

Ayers is unapologetic about his terrorist activities. In fact, he even said he didn't do enough bombing!

Incredibly, on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted by The New York Times as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs … I feel we didn't do enough."

WHAT??? How could a man like Barack Obama associate with such a dangerous radical? And even defend him?

Obama and Ayers not only worked hand-in-hand at the CAC; they worked together at the "Woods Fund," and had a number of forums to fight legislation together. And guess what "nonprofit organizations" benefited from funds directed to them by Obama and Ayers? How about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, for starters?

And now Obama, Ayers' friend, could be sitting in the White House next year

Posted by: DrRevere | September 28, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Remember what I said. It is true and part of a misinformation plan is to make the truth look paranoid. Just look around and see the media and DNC parroting the party line. The Christian Religion is evil. Homosexual is normal. Patriotism evil. Rebellion and changing the Constitution normal. Disarm the citizens normal. NRA and hunters evil. The Military and heroes evil. Anti military and ridicule heroes normal. Success and hard work evil. The government owes me normal. Shocking this is right out of the handbook of communist and Islamic terrorism guides to revolution and over throwing a country.. Schools teach the government is evil and socialism utopia normal. Divide the races through agitators and media. Destroy marriage and the families. The state is the parent. Call evil good and smear and destroy good. Look at the Hollywood crowd. McCarthy was right and history has proven it. They flock around dictators and tyrants Chavez, Castro, Iranian, and Syrians. Wake up and vote for McCain if you want freedom. After 40 years of Intelligence service I can just say look and watch. Look at Obama’s friend’s Islamic terror operatives. Rev. Wright preacher of Racist William Ayers radical terrorist. Farakhan. Research the hidden years at Columbia University. Also the overseas trips. Victor Marchenco, Ivan Scholos, Gory Machlinsos. Fhaad Hussan these are a few of the KGB friends who financed and open doors here through contacts. I am not long for this earth. A Terminal Sickness has attached to me. I want to warn my beloved country.

Posted by: DrRevere | September 28, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I thought I was on the Washington Post website, but I find it's nothing but Freepers and their lies, half-truths, distortions, and character assassinations.

Conservatives can't stand Obama because he's not part of the criminal enterprise that's been running this country, taking away our constitutional rights, borrowing billions to give to campaign donors, and engaging in the largest government-driven transfer of wealth in U.S. history.

Posted by: JacobtheWrestler | September 28, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

If 5 or so posts from one individual is "nothing but Freepers", then I guess you're right. He protests too much, but that's his right.
As far as "conservatives" hating Obama, that too is an overstatement. I would not dignify George W. Bush and his associates with the word any more than I would use the term "liberal" to describe some of the left-wing hate peddlers so prevalent on the blogs.
Getting back to the original thread, I find it ironic that ol' GW is joining up with Democrats to pass a bailout measure that is essentially socialism. So much for political ideology.

Posted by: rmpatera | September 29, 2008 6:36 AM | Report abuse

No,no,no...it was a good idea to keep interest rates at record low levels for 10 years in an effort to pump up buying power for a society that was seeing no real increase in income. All that paper wealth more than made up for it, until it all disappeared one dark and stormy night. I think the Republican administration, is claiming gypsies stole it, but we all know they only steal babies.
The Republicans are funny people, if we don't say the word "recession" then we aren't in a recession. If we redefine inflation to mean the movement of the price of paper clips in Istambul, then our inflation rate is low.
No recession, no inflation, cheap money...aren't we all feeling better already?
On a totally unrelated note, conservatives at the Heritage foundation have determined that is you put an American taxpayer in a pot of water over a low flame, they predict he will sit in the water until it begins to boil.
Stunning, eh?

Posted by: dijetlo | September 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I wish I could claim authorship for the following premise, but can't: The American people will have to decide whether to wish to have their middle class entitlements or be an empire. One of the major ( if not the major) impediments to a balanced budget is the fact that defense spending seems to have no contstraints whatsoever..there is no strategic thinking as to what our valid defense needs are..as opposed to WANTS. Take a CAREFUL look at the declining budgets during the latter Clinton years..the defense budget shrank in real terms. I would like to say that we need is a bipartisan effort to decide a long term defense strategy and a budget that is driven by our actual needs rather than vice verse...but until this country decides that it can no longer police the world, I see little chance of a balanced budget. Written by a person with 22 years military service.

Posted by: PTBea | September 29, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I wish I could claim authorship for the following premise, but can't: The American people will have to decide whether to wish to have their middle class entitlements or be an empire. One of the major ( if not the major) impediments to a balanced budget is the fact that defense spending seems to have no contstraints whatsoever..there is no strategic thinking as to what our valid defense needs are..as opposed to WANTS. Take a CAREFUL look at the declining budgets during the latter Clinton years..the defense budget shrank in real terms. I would like to say that we need is a bipartisan effort to decide a long term defense strategy and a budget that is driven by our actual needs rather than vice verse...but until this country decides that it can no longer police the world, I see little chance of a balanced budget. Written by a person with 22 years military service.

Posted by: PTBea | September 29, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

PtBea,

Your comment is interesting. When I think about it, there IS no strategic thought to how the military is used. This could also be the reason that their budget is so big; they have to do anything and everything. I've served in the military and only then realized how big the global reach of the US military really is. We're Everywhere.

It does seem that we could radically re-tool the military and strategy in a way that would provide better use of it. We spend about $500B per year on the military.

There are many approaches but ending the policing of the world would go towards significantly reducing spending. We do have to ask ourselves why we need to be in this position. Ultimately, I think it stems from our wish to help. We don't want to see genocide, or dictators, or any other evils, and we selectively apply the military solution.

Posted by: AndyMN | September 29, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Heads UP Here! Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Has Just Announced Congress Will Vote On
This Bail Out Again ON Thursday 10/2/08
So Please Get Your Calls,E-mails and Faxs
Going To These Losers Again Right Now And
Vote Every Incumbent Do Nothing Democrat
And Loser Republican OUT on Election Day!

KEEP TELLING CONGRESS NO DAMN BAILOUT EVER!

Posted by: Patty2008 | September 30, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Under NOBAMA we're all likely to be jobless... what happens to the markets when none of us can pay our mortgages?

All I keep hearing about is NOBAMA's tax plan... what's his plan to help create JOBS? Taxing the rich sure isn't it. That will only encourage them to hire more illegal aliens or move their business overseas.

Posted by: tmacioszek | September 30, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I cannot say if Meyerson is a "made man," but he is a gangster, a co-conspirator in murder, kidnapping and theft. I don't know if Meyerson has ever held a gun, but he and the gang he conspires with are responsible for more armed crime than the Crips, the Bloods, the Aryan Nation and the Latin Kings combined. Mr. Meyerson is a liberal, and necessarily entailed in the liberal notion of the redistribution of wealth are all of these things, and Mr. Meyerson and his cronies have brought this notion into reality.

The simple definition of theft is the taking by one person what belongs to another. Mr. Meyerson must say that property rights are determined by legislation - that society decides what belongs to the individual and what belongs to the state. Only under such terms is the notion of a tax on earnings possible. Under such terms, however, the Nuremberg laws that dispossessed Jewish German citizens were entirely blameless. If we can call one's life one's property, the murders at Auschwitz were entirely legal and morally good. These were legislated by the state, and if only the state may determine the terms of property rights, there is no basis for vilifying Hitler or deeming criminal any of the conduct of the Third Reich.

Clearly, rights derive legitimacy somewhere other than legislature. It was criminal for non-Jewish Germans to take what they wanted from Jewish Germans simply by majority vote of the German legislature - because they wanted to - and it is equally criminal for non-rich Americans to take the property of rich Americans simply by majority vote of our legislature. Voting for such theft is to conspire to commit such theft, and committing such theft by armed, lethal force is as much murder in the case of an American wage earner as it was for German Jews.

Prior to the Second World War, the Great Depression had affected Germany even more gravely than it had affected the US. Hitler's administration did, for German finances, what FDR's administration did for US finances. If Hitler's evils cannot be excused because of the good they did for a majority of Germans before the war, neither can the evils of FDR's administration be excused because of the good they did for a majority of Americans, before the war or since.

The ends do not justify the means.

Is it irresponsible hyperbole to compare the policies Meyerson and other liberals advocate with Hitler's policies? Not at all. If it is easier to recognize murder when it is committed with a chain saw than when it is committed by a doctor's unjustified administration of sleeping pills followed by a lethal injection of sodium pentathol, being easier to recognize as murder does not make the doctor's conduct less criminal. Hitler's policies differ from Meyerson's only in that they took more and resulted in killing more often: it does not make Meyerson's policies better than Hitler's that they only take 10% of what Hitler's policies took, or that they result in only 0.001% or less of the deaths. Theft of one dollar is the full, moral equivalent of the theft of one billion dollars, and the murder of one person in the commission of that theft the full, moral equivalent of the murder of 6 millions. Less astounding, maybe, and less horrifying, but not less morally wrong.

Government must spend, but it is not compelled to spend stolen money. There are other ways of raising government revenues than taking private property, possibly the most fair of which being certain kinds of consumption taxes. Meyerson and his gangster-cronies will object that, funded on these taxes, the government would not be able to afford any of its social programs. This is only true if people do not wish to fund them by consuming those goods that are taxed to fund them. Every day, in every store, the people would have the power to vote their pockets for what they really believe government should do with their money. Democracy at work - but this kind of democracy is a kind Meyerson wants nothing to do with.

He wants to steal your money for his purposes, and he'll vote to send a man with a gun to take it from you with lethal force if that's what it takes.

Posted by: dryrunfarm1 | October 1, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

I must score this to Obama. McCain only answered everything with the well-worn campaign cliche "cuts in spending".

We all know that many tax dollars are being wasted and siphoned off by war-profiteers. However, knee-jerk draconian cuts in spending to unpopular but needed domestic programs is not the answer.

Clinton took a huge budget deficit from Bush Sr. and ended up turning in four consecutive years of budget surplus. He did NOT acheive this with flat-out cuts to programs. He achieved it by effectively managing spending boosts to the programs that would grow the economy from the bottom up and taxing those at the top (though not brutally). This type of management will never be delivered from a GOP president.

Americans for Obama.

Posted by: free-donny | October 1, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama's Not Exactlys:


1.) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)


2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.


3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.


4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establi sh Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.


Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.


5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.


6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs... Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth cert ificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....

http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_


7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.


4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559


8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).


February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times : Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash t roubling facts.'


9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.


10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.


11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.


12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine


13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.


14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.


15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.


16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.


17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.


18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.


19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.


20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.


21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.


22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.


23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.


24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.


25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.


26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.


27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.


28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.


29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel .


30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.


31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.


32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State

Posted by: DrRevere | October 2, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I would criticize both sides. McCain and Obama are cut from the same cloth. Only Bob Barr has spoken against the bailout bill. Unfortunately we were not able to hear Bob Barr debate.

If you give the bill a read, then you'll be outraged that anyone could support this.
read it:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/news/pdf/index.htm

The first 100 or so pages sounds like a bailout...but then the politics as usual starts. The bill includes:

p.279 Rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

p. 280 Mine rescue/mine safety

p. 290 motorsports racing track facility

p.295 wool modifications

p. 297 child tax credit

p. 300 children and wooden arrows

p. 127 Tax credits for Steel industry fuel(boy, I’d like some tax credits for my fuel)

p. 175 Carbon sequestration credits

p. 202 Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit

AND stuff about Exxon Valdez compensation, mental health benefits (p 324)

This is politics as usual and everyone should be outraged at BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS who are taking our money for this stupid stuff. PORK plain and simple.

Posted by: AndyMN | October 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse


Washington Prowler
Obama’s Fishy $200 Million
By The Prowler
Published 10/2/2008 12:08:46 AM
FUNNY MONEY
An auditor for the Federal Election Commission is attempting to have his bosses seek a formal investigation into the collection by the Obama for President campaign of more than $200 million in potentially illegal political donations, including millions of dollars of illegal, foreign donations, and has sought a request for assistance from the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the analyst's requests have largely been ignored. "I can't get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it."

One reasons cited by his superiors, says the analyst, is that involvement by the Justice Department or FBI would be indicative of a criminal investigation, something the FEC would prefer not take place a month before the presidential election. Such actions, though, have been used to scuttle Republican campaigns in the past, the most famous being the Weinberger case in the days leading up to the 1992 re-election bid of President George H.W. Bush.

The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign's fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. "Without formal approval, I can't get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking." And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.

The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system.

"The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?" says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. "There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost. In this case, there is no way the Obama campaign will be held accountable before Election Day, unless someone raises holy hell."

The FEC analyst says that Obama's filings indicate he has received large, bundled sums of donations from overseas, sometimes exceeding a quarter millions dollars. "It's suspicious, but it's the small donations made by credit card that need to be examined. We've raised red flags on many of these and the Obama campaign just ignores us. After this election, after we've sifted through everything -- if we're allowed to sift through everything -- I am confident that we are looking at perhaps the largest fine every leveled against a national campaign entity."

Just as frustrating as the lack of desire on the part of his bosses to act, says the analyst, is that major media outlets have ignored the story he has been attempting to tell. Thus far, Newsmax is one of the few publications to cover the Obama campaign finance scam story.


FAN, FRED, AND FRANK
House Democrats are concerned that it wasn't just Rep. Barney Frank who was having extracurricular relations with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, and that those relationships will come to light before the election a month from now.

According to a former Democrat staffer working for the House Committee on Financial Services, there were a number of stories involving Democrat members of the committee, as well as staffers for those Democrats, participating in retreats and getaway weekends paid for by Fan and Fred executives and lobbyists.

"Republicans were in the majority, and they weren't getting invited on these trips," says the former aide, who now works for an investment house in New York. "It's not that Republicans weren't enjoying themselves, but not the way my guys were. If I were a Democratic member in the mid to late 90s and dealt with financial services or housing issues, I'd be real nervous right now."

Frank has not hidden the fact that he was in a romantic relationship with a former executive for Fannie Mae. Frank now chairs the Financial Services Committee and was one of several longtime Democrat members who sought assurances from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that no action would be taken on Fan or Fred investigations until after the election in November.


Posted by: DrRevere | October 2, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama to give away our tax money--Larry Leff




By: Larry Leff October 01, 2008



Email to a friend Voice your opinion


For those of you who are not familiar with The Global Poverty Act, of which Barack Obama is the lead sponsor, it is a tax on Americans which will total $845 billion (this is 0.7 percent of the Gross National Product). I doubt you will ever hear this discussed in any debates.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our current population is 305,154,108 with 111,162, 259 U.S. households. If G.P.A. is enacted, our cost will be $2,800 per person or $7,800 per household.
Here is a condensed explanation of the G.P.A. (along with some of the Millennium Development Goals. The entire provisions are accessible online by typing in Global Poverty Act 2007 into the Google search engine.):
G.P.A. directs the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people who live on less than $1 per day.
G.P.A. is required to incorporate specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: 1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; 2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate; 3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate; 4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; 5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and 6) integrating principles of sustainable development (this has a direct tie to the U.N. Agenda 21) and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.
Listed here are some of the Millennium Development Goals for you to ponder: 1) a "standing peace force," (a U.N. standing army-I wonder where the vast majority of soldiers will come from?); 2) A U.N. arms register of all small arms and light weapons (NRA members will love this one); 3) peace education (covering all levels from pre-school to university level); and 4) political control of the global economy. The goals also require implementation of all U.N. treaties that the United States has never ratified. These sound like more Big Brothers taking over at a global level-just a thought.
I do not believe it is the responsibility of American taxpayers to reduce world poverty. We have more than our share of poor and underprivileged in our own country that we cannot get out of poverty, how can we do it worldwide? None of this $845 billion is dedicated to the poor in the United States. America already gives enormous amounts of aid to impoverished countries whose leaders (dictators) probably never distribute the aid. Who do you think will disperse this money? Obama is about taxes, socialism and giving away our sovereignty. Obama is not a good choice for America.
Larry Leff
Chetek

Posted by: DrRevere | October 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse


RICH AMERICAN MUSLIM MAY HAVE HELPED OBAMA INTO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
CHatham Republican Town Committee ^ | 10/4/08 | staff

Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2008 16:40:57 by pissant

When Barack Obama was seeking to get into Harvard Law School (he entered in the fall of 1988) he had the assistance of Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

There is some suggestion that Mansour had provided financial assistance to Obama for Harvard Law School, though the Obama campaign denies this.

Obama has refused all requests that Harvard and Columbia open up his records for examination, as he has refused requests to have the official birth records of the State of Hawaii opened to resolve questions that have been raised about his place of birth. [Nonetheless Columbia confrmed Obama graduated in 1983 with a degree in political science, but without honors.]

At that time Obama was applying to Harvard Law School he was a community organizer in Chicago working with, among others, ACORN, the national housing advocacy group that has been involved many times in cases of fraudulent voter registration. Mr. Mansour lives in Texas. Since Mansour is described as a black Nationalist, it is possible that the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan might be the person who put Obama and Mansour together. Farrakhan was a close friend of Jeremiah Wright, a former Muslim, whose church Obama was attending.

Mansour refused to comment one way or the other about his Obama connection.

Here's the gist of the story:

[Former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.

Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”

That Obama had substantial ties to rich, influential Muslim radicals in 1988 at age 26 or 27, long after he had left Indonesia and about the time he joined Jeremiah Wright's church is surprising, if true.

UPDATE: Later a press release from a "spokesman for the Sutton family" said that Percy Sutton's memory was faulty (he was 88) and his account should be disregarded. Timmerman, the author of the initial report, contacted the Sutton family who said they knew nothing of the press release or the person said to be their spokesman and that Percy's mind was sharp. The Obama campaign denied the report and referred Timmerman to the "spokesman," but Timmerman went to the family instead.

Posted by: DrRevere | October 4, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama worked with terrorist
Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.

Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.

The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities."

It reportedly has worked on projects with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which supports open boarders and education for illegal aliens.

The AAAN in 2005 sent a letter to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in which it called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims."

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line.

The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948.

According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands - some Palestinians claim over one million - Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.

(Story continues below)


Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.

The theme of AAAN's Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom."

Another AAAN initiative, titled, "Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding.

A post on the AAAN site asked users: "Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?"

That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction.

Pro-PLO advocate held Obama fundraiser, describes Obama as 'sympathetic'

AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi was reportedly a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, while the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group. Khalidi's wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA's English translator during that period.

Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed worked on behalf of WAFA. Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991.

During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state.

He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.

While the Woods Fund's contribution to Khalidi's AAAN might be perceived as a one-time run in with Obama, the presidential hopeful and Khalidi evidence a deeper relationship.

According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.

Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor Show of New York's WABC Radio and Los Angeles' KFI Radio, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama.

"I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated.

Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."

Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can't talk with the Iranians."

Asked about Obama's role funding the AAAN, Khalidi claimed he had "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago."

He terminated the call when petitioned further about his links with Obama.

Contacted by phone, Mona Khalidi refused to answer WND's questions about the AAAN's involvement with Obama.

Obama's campaign headquarters did not reply to a list of WND questions sent by e-mail to the senator's press office.

Obama, American terrorist in same circles

Obama served on the board with Ayers, who was a Weathermen leader and has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released on Sept. 11, 2001

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.

A $200 campaign contribution is listed on April 2, 2001 by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two taught appeared speaking together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"

The charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.

Ayers is married to another notorious Weathermen terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who has also served on panels with Obama. Dohrn was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the "most dangerous woman in America." Ayers and Dohrn raised the son of Weathermen terrorist Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for participating in a 1981 murder and robbery that left 4 people dead.

Obama advisor wants talks with terrorists

The revelations about Obama's relationship with Khalidi follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.

Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.


Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.

Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.

Posted by: DrRevere | October 4, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company