LETTER: Wake up to angry Obama

I pray that more people are waking up to the president of the United States. Americans are losing their jobs and lifestyle. However,
Sandusky Register Staff
May 13, 2010


I pray that more people are waking up to the president of the United States. Americans are losing their jobs and lifestyle. However, our president is content to travel the world, have parties at the taxpayers' expense and continue to campaign. He also is wonderful at blaming everyone else for his continued failure. This person was elected to be president of the United States. As president, he has been placed in a position that requires leadership. Leaders accept responsibility and losers loathe responsibility

With total control of Congress, he has failed to accomplish anything. The only thing consistent with him is his continuous blaming of George Bush. President Bush was not perfect. However, he did not continually place blame on President Clinton. I know of no past presidents (Democrat or Republican) who blamed the previous administration.

Americans need to stop watching reality television and wake up to the reality of their life under this individual. He is an angry man. All you need is to start paying attention to the look on his face when he does not get his way.

Dan Carroll




Let me explain this private and public thing. It doesn't matter what sector you are talking about, it's who it pertains to. It goes like this: If it the taxpayers money or belongings it's "PUBLIC PROPERTY". If it belongs to those in government it's "PRIVATE PROPERTY".


I wonder what the hourly rate is for those strippers and prostitutes?

FDR not only sold the country out for the sake of his maniacal ego, he blocked anti-lynching laws in order to do so.

here in ohio

February 12, 2010
Blackwater Allegedly Charged U.S. Taxpayers for Strippers and Prostitutes.

brutus smith

According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators.

According to data provided to the House panel, Regency charged ESS an average of $1,100 a day for the same people. How the Blackwater and Regency security charges were passed on by ESS to Halliburton's KBR cannot easily be determined since the catering company was paid on a per-meal basis, with security being a percentage of that charge.

Halliburton's KBR blended its security costs into the blanket costs passed on to the Defense Department.

How much more these costs are compared with the pay of U.S. troops is easier to determine.

An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S. taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170 a day.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.



It's so sad that the left can't distinguish between public and private sectors.

brutus smith

So that means we shouldn't have a military and shouldn't be involved in wars because we don't make a profit and nobody is held accountable. No police or fire since they are not profitable, and we should equip our EMS with credit card machines to see if you can afford being treated before they perform any services.


If a company, whether it is operated by the government or private entity is profitable, it can only improve the product or service it provides. Further, in the private sector, when companies are not profitable, the leadership is terminated, or the company goes bankrupt. Further, when services are "provided" by the government, a person's ability to control their own destiny is inhibited.

brutus smith

Rabbi, do you think the Gov. should make a profit providing services to the citizens of America?


Hey Brutus- remember Amtrak? Government's attempt to intervene in the passenger railroad market has never seen profitability, or self-sustainability since it's inception, despite a steady increase in ridership. This would indicate to most that government cannot efficiently manage money-taxpayer dollars. Don't get me wrong- I think we all have a right to affordable health care, but history tells us that government shouldn't get involved.

brutus smith

Still think private insurance is working??

Among the report's findings on specific insurance companies:

* Wellpoint increased profits 91% from 2008 while it chopped 3.9% of its total enrollment.
* United Health's profit increased 28% from 2008, while enrollment dropped by 3.4%
* Cigna's profit increased 346% and enrollment dropped 5.5%
* Humana's profit increased by 61% while enrollment decreased by 1.7%.
* Aetna was the only company with a drop in profit and a gain in enrollment. The company's profit declined by 8% from 2008, and enrollment grew by 7%


brutus smith

When unemployment went from 25% to 14% something obviously worked. In fact most Economists agree that the Gov didn't spend enough money to stimulate the economy back then because they listen to Conservatives, who like now were only looking to get elected. The end result was most of our infrastructure was built during these times, roads, bridges, schools, most of which are still standing today. Anyone coming out with a new "study" today whether it be Conservative or Liberal about things back then, should be deemed suspicious, and see who is behind it. And if that is your opinion fine, but don't try to say Liberal economists agree with you, because its just not true.


Brutus: I didn't expect you to actually let facts stand in the way of your agenda. These are only two economists out of more than 100 that have researched the effects of FDR's New Deal. I don't however, expect to change your mind. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions as am I. Welcome to America.

brutus smith

rbeau, you're joking about Cole and Ohanian being Liberal right????? Are you basing them being Liberal because that teach at UCLA??? Are you saying educated people who teach are only Liberal??? LOL. When you tell people to research something you should follow your own advice. Google Cole and Ohanian. They are Libertarians, like Winston, not Liberals. Bwahahahaha.

6079 Smith W

Worth a read:

'The New Poor; Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs':


Unemployed in Ohio?

'Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.'

- Horace Greeley

6079 Smith W

@ rbeau69:

Regarding bs’ comment on U.S. spending ‘it's way out of a Depression.’

The dynamics of the economy were totally different and he’s interpreted the lesson wrongly.

Young men returning from war had a pent-up demand for 'private' goods and services.

Today, the U.S. is faced with an increasingly aging population that are net users of 'public' services.

In 1946 and thereafter, it wasn’t the ‘spending’ that created the boom; it was the demand.

bs is promoting a fallacy.

6079 Smith W

@ rbeau69:

Add Amity Shlaes to your list:


Her book, “The Forgotten Man”:




Adding the unfunded liability of govt. entitlement spending with our 'known' Federal debt burden and the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 847%.




I've most definitely read this about FDR's programs in a couple books where this "wasn't" the major topic. I couldn't post, because I can't remember which books they are. Several economists do have this theory. I'd wager many economists share this same opinion in 2010 and many more agree but are afraid to voice an opinion.


Add John T. Flynn, a FDR contemporary, to that list.


Brutus, How about two. Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. Both liberal economists from UCLA. Oh and here is the link since libs such as yourself tend to enjoy taking the easy way out, rather than researching it yourself.


brutus smith

rbeau, name one.


Brutus says: " Ahhhh Winston there was this one little country that spent it's way out of a Depression. Let me think for a minute, it's right on the tip of my tongue, give me a minute, got it, THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, with it's massive Gov spending with FDR's programs and WWll's MASSIVE GOV SPENDING. "

Actually, maybe you should do more research. Even most liberal economists have found that the massive government spending actually prolonged the great depression. They found that had FDR not crafted the new deal we likely would have pulled out of the great depression much sooner.

brutus smith

That's funny nick, he, she, it thinks we are the same person. Like you said they must be new to not have witnessed some of our scraps. LOL

digger nick

Starry you MUST be seeing stars or new to the forum. Clue Up!


obviously bruta$$ smith and nickydickey are the same moronic person.

6079 Smith W

@ wetsu:

Glad you liked the article - me too.

Regardless of who is president in the coming yrs., I continue to believe that with its massive debt spending that the U.S. is potentially headed for a loss of confidence and a subsequent credit collapse.

Remember a number of years ago whenever conservatives would even hint at the suggestion of cutting domestic spending and the collectivists would parade out the widows, orphans and seniors?

Cut spending? Ain’t gonna happen.

Politicians continue to sell a gullible constituency on the sustainability of a tenuous taxing, spending and borrowing economic model.

Keynes was wrong, Mises was right.

TANSTAAFL – There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

I started reading: “This Time Is Different.” I’ve never found the adage, ‘ignorance is bliss’ to be comforting.


6079 Smith W

redrider07419 wrote on Feb 20, 2010 12:07 PM:


And what exactly were the steps that Mr. Clinton took in order to secure that elusive surplus?

Perhaps it was the Republican controlled House and Senate that helped to curtail Clinton’s spending?

You are conveniently forgetting the bursting of the Tech Bubble that began in March 2000, 9-11 and hurricane Katrina; both of which cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars.

The most devastating manmade and natural disasters to ever hit the U.S. occurred in 2001 and 2005 respectively.

In light of those unpredictable events, no surplus was sustainable.

digger nick

Typical Democrats, Accountability and fiscal responsibility are something the average Democrat missed their 2nd year in 6th grade.


brutus smith

At least he doesn't use a redneck teleprompter like Palin does. Bwahahahahahhaa!!!!!!!!


ezob..thats what i am saying

bs..you know every time obamass opens his eyes and reads from the teleprompter, because he's not smart enough on his own, the first words out of his mouth are "we inherited this mess". will he still be blaming bush in two years? like i said earlier when he was a senator, and i use those words loosely, he contributed to this mess, as his record shows, so he does not have much room to blame anyone.

brutus smith

Typical Republicans, nope wasn't me, I didn't do it, must have been someone else. Responsibility and Republicans don't go together.


Are you aware that Bush was working with a Democratic House and Senate the last couple years? He actually reduced the amount the Dem's wanted to spend. I'm definitely not a Bush fan but sooner or later these 545 people representing us should take responsibility for their own actions.
O'Bama blaming Bush? Heck, he's blaming everybody back to those who wrote the Constitution.

Don S



redrider..i believe you are ignorant or something. you can only blame bush for so long. there once was a senator from illinois by the name of barack obama. in the two short years that he actually was at his job he voted for every tax increase as well as every spending increase that was presented to congress. so, in effect, he is as responsible as bush. obamass just can't say no to anything his evil stepmom nancy pelosi and stepdad harry reid put in front of him. as far as war spending goes almost every war this country has been in has been initiated under a dem prez except the gulf war. so blow that one out your butt.



A George Will column from 2-3 weeks ago extolled the possible economic virtues of a Daniels/Ryan presidential ticket largely due to the reasons provided in the Barron's article you provided. When I read the article it made me wonder whether the steps taken in Indiana could be extended to the federal level. The Barron's article filled in some of the gaps.


Banks in Calif., Ill., Fla., Texas are shut down
Regulators shut banks in Calif., Ill., Fla., Texas, putting US bank failures at 20 for year

Buzz up! 40 Print..By Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer , On Friday February 19, 2010, 9:26 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Regulators shut four banks from California to Florida on Friday, boosting to 20 the number of U.S. bank failures this year following the 140 closures last year in the worst financial climate in decades.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over La Jolla Bank, FSB, in La Jolla, Calif. The bank had 10 branches and about $3.6 billion in assets and $2.8 billion in deposits.

Also seized was George Washington Savings Bank in Orland Park, Ill. It had four branches and about $412.8 million in assets and $397 million in deposits.

The FDIC said OneWest Bank in Pasadena, Calif., agreed to assume all deposits and essentially all assets of La Jolla Bank. The takeover is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund an estimated $882.3 million.

The FDIC and OneWest will share losses on about $3.3 billion of the failed bank's loans and other assets.

Meanwhile, FirstMerit Bank, National Association of Akron, Ohio, agreed to take over deposits at George Washington Savings Bank. FirstMerit is also taking over essentially all the assets. For George Washington, the FDIC predicts the takeover will cost the insurance fund $141.4 million.

The loss-sharing agreement for George Washington covers $324.2 million in assets.

The other seized banks were smaller and located in Florida and Texas. They were Marco Community Bank, with a single office on Marco Island, a wealthy barrier island near Naples on Florida's Gulf Coast, and La Coste National Bank of La Coste, Texas.

Marco Community Bank had about $119.6 million in assets and $117.1 million in deposits. Mutual of Omaha Bank, a division of the big insurance company Mutual of Omaha, agreed to assume the assets and deposits of Marco Community Bank.

The failure of Marco Community Bank will cost the deposit insurance fund an estimated $38.1 million.

In addition, the FDIC and Mutual of Omaha Bank, which is based in Omaha, Neb., agreed to share losses on $104.8 million of the failed bank's loans and other assets.

Florida is among the states with the highest concentration of bank failures and where the meltdown in the real estate market brought an avalanche of soured mortgage loans. Last year saw the failure of 14 banks in the state. Also high on the list are California, Georgia and Illinois.

La Coste National Bank had a single branch and $53.9 million in assets. Deposits totaled $49.3 million.

Community National Bank of Hondo, Texas, agreed to buy the deposits and assets of La Coste National Bank -- whose failure is expected to cost the insurance fund $3.7 million.

As the economy has weakened, with unemployment rising, home prices tumbling and loan defaults soaring, bank failures have accelerated and sapped billions of dollars out of the federal deposit insurance fund. It fell into the red last year.

The 140 bank failures last year were the highest annual tally since 1992, at the height of the savings and loan crisis. They cost the insurance fund more than $30 billion. There were 25 bank failures in 2008 and just three in 2007.

The FDIC expects the cost of resolving failed banks to grow to about $100 billion over the next four years.

The agency mandated banks prepay about $45 billion in premiums last year, for 2010 through 2012, to replenish the insurance fund.

Depositors' money -- insured up to $250,000 per account -- is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. Besides the fund, the FDIC has about $21 billion in cash available in reserve to cover losses at failed banks.

Banks have been especially hurt by failed real estate loans, both residential and commercial. Banks that had lent to seemingly solid businesses are suffering losses as buildings sit vacant. As development projects collapse, builders are defaulting on their loans.

Smaller banks are more vulnerable to the losses than their bigger Wall Street counterparts, because commercial real estate makes up a larger portion of their portfolio.

If the economic recovery falters, defaults on the high-risk loans could spike. Many regional banks hold large concentrations of these loans. Banks face as much as $300 billion in losses on loans made for commercial property and development, according to a report issued last week by the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors the government's efforts to stabilize the financial system.

The report said the defaults could crimp lending and cause the eviction of families from rental properties. Bank failures also could contribute to job losses and hurt the economic recovery.

President Barack Obama recently promoted a $30 billion plan to provide money to community banks if they boost lending to small businesses. The program, which must be approved by Congress, would use money repaid by banks to the $700 billion federal bailout fund.

Hundreds of banks, including major Wall Street institutions, received taxpayer support through that politically unpopular rescue program, enacted by Congress in October 2008 at the height of the financial crisis.

AP Business Writer Tim Paradis in New York contributed to this report.
More hope and change


http://gatewaypundit.firstthings... From the master of the big lie


I bet you were the same person who called people "unamerican" when they ripped on your beloved George Bush. Here's the truth of the matter: Bush never blamed his problems on Clinton because WE WERE AT A $200 BILLION SURPLUS WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE YOU IDIOT!!!! Not to mention Clinton was one of the greatest foreign policy presidents; George Bush on the other hand, not so much. Do you have any idea how much it costs us everyday to fight a war? And are you too dumb to understand that it will take us more than a year to pull ourselves out of the worst economic period since the great depression. Just because we elected a new president, it does not automatically reset the economy. We are going to continue to suffer for George Bush's screw ups for years no matter who the president is. And about Obama "wasting our money to travel the world"...He's not taking his family on vacations, he's trying to fix our foreign policy since everyone in the world hates us after the last jackass president.

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Feb 19, 2010 10:48 AM:
‘They keep recycling the TARP money that was already allocated.’

TARP stands for Troubled Asset Relief Program, meaning that the assets that were allocated were to be used to buy the non-performing assets on bank balance sheets.

To date, not one of those non-performing (junk) assets has ever been purchased by the govt.

IOW, the funds have NEVER been used for their original intent and they remain with the banks festering.

TARP is a lie and is being used as a political slush fund.

Here’s an interesting article in Barron’s about how the state of Indiana has balanced their budgets without tax increases and how it may be a template for the U.S.:



Ask your brother or dad Brutus, I don't know

brutus smith

Just out of curiosity, why would Log Cabin Republicans be interested in female prostitutes??? Just asking.


That I know, but did you see where Switzerland is going to train their prostitutes on the use of defibrillators for emergency situations. They have to be hot.


Prostitutes need somewhere to live too.


Winston, 1.5 billion to help the Las Vegas housing. You can't make this stuff up.


They keep recycling the TARP money that was already allocated. Think about it. When the economy recovers, can’t the government sell off all of the GM, AIG, etc. shares to recoup that $$ plus some profit?. Also, some of the TARP money has already been repaid with interest. While it looks bad now, we can (hopefully) get that money back.

As for spending cuts, good luck getting congress to do that. I think the bi-partisan committee will be an attempt to shame congress into spending wisely.

6079 Smith W

We were dialoging about spending cuts? ROFLMAO!!!

Here’s more proof on why it ain’t gonna happen only ONE DAY after the Con Artist -in-Chief talked about a bi-partisan commission to control deficit spending.

Today Obama will announce another spending program in an attempt to continue to pump money into the busted housing bubble as well as help his buddy Harry.

‘Obama to Unveil Additional Homeowner Aid’:


Pumping money into housing is like blowing air into a tire with a huge gash!

How long are you true believers gonna believe this joker?

6079 Smith W

One of my faves:

‘Taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.’

- James Madison

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

A VAT will not replace the income tax but would merely be added to it. It’s a canard.

A VAT decreases the standard of living for the citizens and is regressive. It disproportionately affects the poor.

The states will fight it a VAT, as sales taxes have traditionally been the purview and the majority of their source of revenue.

If the U.S. gets a European style VAT, expect European style taxes.

Taxes help to determine who controls the means of production. Do you want the state or individuals controlling it?

The problem with the U.S. is that money is not considered property - and it should be.

The state cannot come into your home and steal your TV and it should not be able to steal your monetary assets.

Rather than raising taxes, why not look at cutting some of the federal tax expenditures?



6079 Smith W

@ wetsu:

One of the major basic problems is that the spending cuts never materialize.

See TEFRA-82 as a most recent example:

‘President of the United States Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes.’


Kindly show me where one fed. govt. program, department or agency over the past 40 years has been eliminated.

Starve the beast. Diets only work if there is less input and more output.

BTW: When POTUS Bush oversaw fed tax cuts, states continued to increase taxes AND spending. Don't focus only on the fed but also state and local taxes as well.

Trust me, the Feds will inflate their way out of debt, there will be no spending cuts of any consequence.



I’m not an economist, so I only know what I’ve read. A sales tax may be the way to go. A value added tax (VAT) is used in many countries including Canada. That way, you only pay taxes when you purchase goods. Of course our libertarian friends will claim that a VAT will reduce the number of goods sold. Maybe it will. But if it works well, perhaps they could reduce income taxes. All that I know is there is no magic bullet. Those that claim tax cuts alone are the answer are smoking crack from the same pipe as those who say Palin would make a good president. But that’s another blog…

6079 Smith W

jimbo wrote on Feb 18, 2010 1:53 PM:
‘The wealth that leaves the USA and goes to China
and Japan, is what we should be concerned about.
When that money comes back, it's borrowed and
carries an interest charge.’

You’ve got it backwards as usual.

The Chinese and others are savers; Americans are spenders.

The U.S. has been borrowing their savings and selling them Treasuries in order to help continue our standard of living.

The U.S. has been living beyond its means for decades.

You had better look up the word ‘nebulous.’ You continue to misuse the word.

Here, allow me to help educate you:



It strikes me that duhast is correct in saying that a tax hike will be necessary along with spending cuts. What type of tax hike, duhast? A sales tax?

I don't like the prospect in light of it being unlikely that the needed spending cuts will materialize, but a temporary tax hike (if there is such a thing anymore) looks to be part of a successful equation.

I now await my comeuppance from Winston and libertarian, among others.


Pastor rANT - perhaps you'd find it in your heart to speak to The Log Cabin Republicans.


From the this is weird note, I was watching the news about the guy who flew the cessna into the IRS bulding in Austin. Evidently he had problems with the IRS and the UAW for some reason. During the newscast there were three ads for IRS lawyers. Yet Obama has hired more IRS agents evidently to hassle homeless on street corners to give them a percentage of their beggings. Somebody has to pay for hope and change.


Oh no Mikel. I don’t think taxes should be raised on the rich only. I think an across the board hike will be necessary along with spending cuts to even come close to balancing the budget.

The panel was in response to congress voting down a similar panel. His current panel would have no power over congress, only the ability to make suggestions. I’m not exactly sure what you are afraid of. Why would a bi-partisan panel on reducing the deficit be a bad thing?

BTW: The president alone does not have the power to raise taxes. Congress passes laws for that sort of thing. You have you messiah from Mass. What are you afraid of?


brutus..not always true..many people in this area have made a business for themselves and in an honest manner. all of the hard work just does not always pay. as you try and better yourself the gov always wants more of our paycheck. this results in the people that have the money to spend to do less of it.

brutus smith

mikel, What a joke, "top wage earners". The way these guys make money is through someone elses pain. That is mergers, plant closings, pay cuts, benefit cuts, reduction in workforce, betting on loans, gambling with our money in general, and so on. Not because they were creative.


Wealth leaves one State for another, a nebulous comment.

The wealth that leaves the USA and goes to China
and Japan, is what we should be concerned about.
When that money comes back, it's borrowed and
carries an interest charge.


He lied today, this blue ribbon panel to find ways to reduce the deficit is nothing more than a CYA when he raises taxes. He is going to blame the increase on this panel.


see thats the problem with you die hard lefties. anytime the gov needs money the first thing you say is "lets raise taxes on the top wage earners" because they can afford it. but what you don't realize is that after a while of out-of-control spending like obamass is doing, you just can't raise the taxes enough on the "rich". everybody will have to pay. so, instead of obamass doing his spending spree maybe he ought to figure out how to make cuts.

one of the funniest things obamass has said is that he will authorize up to $6000 tax credit for small business's who hire a full time employee. but, what he didn't come right out and say is that you have to pay that person an annual wage of $106,000 or more! like there will be a lot of small business's jumping on that one.

you will see more and more of the "rich" keeping cash out of banks so obamass and his band of merry thieves can't track their money and "steal" it from them as easily.


Obama lied yesterday, he said the stimulus saved the economy. Wrong liar, Tarp was supposed to save the economy and the stimulus was to create jobs. Both of which did neither.


Duhast, get a clue, taxes will go up if he gets health care. Obama is a pathological liar.


A one time event is not a tax cut. Did your taxable income level decrease? Once you get your Obama puff money this year will you get it again next year?


473,000 job loss last week, unexpected. According to Obama math that must put the rate at 8%.


So a tax credit is not a tax cut, but when someone suggests mandatory health coverage or something similar that doesn’t change tax rates, it's a "back door tax"?? Goofus, your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.


"This" is the epitome of a slanted article, ie. propoganda. Bush IS to blame. The senate IS to blame. Corporate America IS to blame. Insurance companies ARE to blame. Barack is NOT to blame. Whoever penned this article is foolish or far right-winged.


Obama's tax cut was not, it is a one time ceredit, no rates were cut.


N.J. loses $70B in wealth during five years as residents depart
By Leslie Kwoh/The Star-Ledger
February 04, 2010, 5:15AM

MTCDelray Beach, FloridaMore than $70 billion in wealth left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008 as affluent residents moved elsewhere, according to a report released Wednesday that marks a swift reversal of fortune for a state once considered the nation’s wealthiest.

Conducted by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, the report found wealthy households in New Jersey were leaving for other states — mainly Florida, Pennsylvania and New York — at a faster rate than they were being replaced.

• Rutgers University economists say it could take seven years to recover from recession


“The wealth is not being replaced,” said John Havens, who directed the study. “It’s above and beyond the general trend that is affecting the rest of the northeast.”

This was not always the case. The study – the first on interstate wealth migration in the country — noted the state actually saw an influx of $98 billion in the five years preceding 2004. The exodus of wealth, then, local experts and economists concluded, was a reaction to a series of changes in the state’s tax structure — including increases in the income, sales, property and “millionaire” taxes.

“This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth,” said Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and president of Verizon New Jersey.

The report was commissioned by the state Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of New Jersey to study the effects of wealth migration on charitable giving after executives noticed more affluent philanthropists were moving away. Wealth includes assets such as real estate, stocks, bonds, 401ks, mutual funds and vehicles.

John O'Boyle/The Star-LedgerDennis Bone, president of Verizon New Jersey, inside his Newark office in 2004.
But economists say there are many other implications for the state’s financial health.

Wealthy residents are a key driver for everything from job creation and consumer spending to the real estate market and the state budget, said Jim Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. In New Jersey, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more than 40 percent of the state’s income tax, he said.

“That’s probably why we have these massive income shortfalls in the state budget, especially this year,” he said.

Until the tax structure is improved, he said, “we’ll probably see a continuation of the trend, until there are no more high-wealth individuals left.”

He added the report reinforces findings from a similar study he conducted in 2007 with fellow Rutgers professor Joseph Seneca, which found a sharp acceleration in residents leaving the state. That report, which focused on income rather than wealth, found the state lost nearly $8 billion in gross income in 2005.

Findings from the Boston College report show that about 302,780 households left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008, only slightly lower than the 323,350 households that moved into the state. However, the average net worth of the departing households was about 70 percent higher, at $618,330.

Those who left were also more likely to be older and more educated, with jobs as entrepreneurs or in the finance and professional industries, the study found. Those replacing them tended to hold management or support jobs in the manufacturing industry. The study analyzed data from three main sources: The Federal Reserve’s Survey on Consumer Finances, the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service.

Experts pointed to an abundance of anecdotal evidence to support the numbers. Ken Hydock, a certified public accountant with Sobel and Company in Livingston, said in this 30-year-career he’s never seen so many of his wealthy clients leave for "purely tax reasons" for states like Florida, where property taxes are lower and there is no personal income or estate tax. In New Jersey, residents pay an estate tax if their assets amount to more than $675,000. That’s compared to a $3.5 million federal exemption for 2009.

Several years ago, he recalled, one of his clients stood to make $60 million from stock options in a company that was being acquired by another. Before he cashed out, however, the client put his home up for sale, moved to Las Vegas, and “never stepped foot back in New Jersey again,” Hydock said.

“He avoided paying about $6 million in taxes,” he said. “He passed away two years later and also saved a huge estate tax, so he probably saved $7 million.”

Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Christie’s administration said the report is just another reminder of the difficult tasks ahead.

“It’s the consequence that we’ve been talking about for so long, of the spending and taxing habits that we’ve all experienced,” said Mike Drewniak, a spokesman for Christie. “It’s the sort of thing that we feel the need to stop so we can get New Jersey back on a prosperous path.”

-Staff reporter Lisa Fleisher contributed to this report this be very careful about this taxing the rich


Actually, he did lower our taxes. Anyone making under $250,000 in 2009 had their tax rates lowered. But as Brutus said, we didn’t vote for him because of his tax policy. We voted for him to execute laws passed by congress. Hence the “Executive Branch”. Had McCain been elected, I doubt he would have done anything different. The stimulus (or part of) was already passed and in effect. A president sets a budget guideline , but it’s the congress that actually puts together the spending bill the president signs.

Mikel, you exude anger with little substance to your rants. If you have any helpful suggestions in lieu of name calling, I’d like to hear them. Also, if you made under 250K last year, I think you should write a check for the difference that you saved and mail it to the white house. I’d hate to think you would accept the benefit of such a heinous policy.


Since he duped you lefties on the war it stands to reason that you would apply a measure of outrage to the collateral damage he is causing not to mention how he has expanded the war.

Is that why you voted for him? War was wrong under Bush, why is it OK now?

brutus smith

We didn't vote for him over tax issues. That is why you wingnuts vote for candidates. Anything to get out of paying taxes. Taxes that pay for roads, street lights, police, fire, etc. A bunch of freeloaders and mooches, that is what wingnuts are.


its funny that all you lefties that drank the obamass kool-aid and voted for him on the premises that he will lower taxes on all but the upper class wage earners. now..he is saying that one of the only ways for the country to right itself is to raise taxes on everyone! haha left wing idiots. not even raising the taxes on top wage earners will work this time. maybe obamass should have paid attention in his economic classes instead of sleeping through them. he has our country in the shape of a funnel and we are half ways down.


60% would be a bit of an exageration. But, our nominbal tax rate compared to other developed countries is low.

columbus avenue

Dan you are correct about Bush not blaming President Clinton! In fact, Bush did NOTHING except get us in this mess.

You seem to be the angry one. Get over it.

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

So you're OK with potentially 60% or more of your income going to taxes?

How hard are you gonna work for your 'fellow man'?

I've been currently working less in order to help keep my income down in order not to increase my marginal tax bracket. And I ain't the only one!

Remember when seniors attacked Dan Rostenkoski when he had the Medicare premiums raised?


Regardless, like I wrote before, most countries inflate their way out of debt as spending less and taxing more is so politically unpalatable.

Inflation is a silent tax that robs a currency of its value. It tends to heavily discourage savings and investing.

Here's another entitlement mess for you:

'States pension plan funds fell $1 trillion short in 2008':


Trust me, this whole debt mess ain’t gonna end pretty.

Only by collapse might we eventually re-discover fiscal conservativism.

I recently bought, but have not yet started to read the latest ‘must read’ book, “This Time is Different”:



I agree with you, but a tax increase in addition to a spending decrease is going to be required. Both sides are going to have to take a hit and like it.

6079 Smith W

Here are some facts and their very reasonable implications:

The current economic crisis is the result of the blowup from too much consumer and business spending due to the Federal Reserve's loose money policies.

In it's place, the federal govt. is attempting to create credit in order to stimulate the economy.

We have been taking private debt and turning it into public debt and thereby adding to an already massive state, local and federal entitlement spending debt load.

IMO, using a different strain of the disease of the overextension and misuse of credit, in order to cure the disease will result in a further economic disaster sometime in the immediate future.

We cannot tax our way out of this, we cannot spend our way out of this and we cannot borrow our way out of this.

Only cutting non-discretionary spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Soc. Security, Defense) will get us out of this.

But cutting spending is politically unpopular and so we will be faced very soon with a loss of confidence in the ability of the U.S. to service its debt.

And loss of confidence leads to economic chaos.

For some lessons, watch Greece and its debt story as it unfolds.

BTW: By buying gold, Soros is betting against the strength of the U.S. dollar.

digger nick

Chung I am sure Goofus knows this, much like cumma sum yung guy no make a man. Egg Woll On


Ron, if you presume that all muslims are damned, or if you presume to know where any individual is going, you may find yourself in the 'pit.'

Where I'm going is not for you to know; it's between me and God. Should I make it to paradise, I'll try to find a really long rope and send you down a glass of water.

Chung Lee

Chung Lee wonder if Goofus realize that a dude in a wig no make a woman?

Pastor Ron

Stormy don't ask for mercy when you are cast into the pit of fire along with the Muslims, Nazis and Communists!


Oh, here we go again. So the good Lord made the Earth to LOOK billions of yrs old, fossils and all, to test our faith.

What a load. God is not a con artist! A just and loving God wouldn't fill the world with phony but convincing evidence, then send us to he11 when we fell for it.

Pastor Ron

Yeah we should have let Saddam keep on killing those muslims in Iraq. He killed more than 300,000 muslims and I know that is true because he got that information from the same guy who told us they had weapons of mass destruction. We have only been able to kill about 100,000. Only an idiot or a liberal would think that WMD didn't exist. They are buried in the desert like Rumsfeld said. We will eventually find them and then it will be proven that President Bush was the greatest president ever.

I pray that the Lord Jesus will give these liberals the ability to use the brains that he gave them. These liberals have to be the dumbest people in the Earth's 6,000 year existence!


win stone you wern't being addressed. strudel nugen

Richard Bebb

So the dems plan is to label the right as obstructionists (even though they held super majorities in the house and senate and still overwhelming majorities and still couldnt get anything accomplished due to their own incompetence) or to continue place blame on Bush (even though Barry has been in office for over a year and the only accomplishments he can claim is soaring unemployment and debt while hamstringing our intelligence agencies while we are at war). If that is the plan to save their political rears I can see why so many dems are fleeing like rats off a sinking ship - C'mon November !!!!

digger nick

duhast, The weapon of mass destruction WAS found. It's name was Sadam, who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people much like Hitler. Unless of course you are one of the fools who claim the Holocaust never happened? As far as being President, I don't think I could take the pay cut.


Wetsu, the republicans should not become the party of no, they should become the party of h*ll no. It' not an olive branch it's a snake disguised as an olive branch. Obama has said he would like input on his plan, excuse me he has no plan and the congress has two. Nothing good can come from the meeting.


So is the president on the right track with the nuclear olive branch he extended to the R's?

brutus smith

Duhast, good thing we have an intelligent, educated person in the W.H, instead of someone like goofus.


More revisionist history? Still blaming Scooter Libby for outing Valerie Plame when it was Richard Armitage.


Dude, I couldn't be president, With one ex wife and two trophy ex wives,and lived with two other women, nothing good could come out of that. I would make Clinton look like a choirboy. The price I pay for being so good looking and charming.


Duhast, if I were president, GM and Chrysler would just about now be coming out of bankruptcy court, restructured and ready for business. My cabinet would be like Eisenhower's with 87% from the private sector not like Obama's 4%. I would surround myself with individuals that know how to create and operate businesses rather than career politicians and lawyers.


Hmmmm Duhast good question. If I were president, there would certainly be no hesitation of the private sector on expansion. There would be no looming national health care,card check, or cap and trade or any other socialistic Obama agenda. The climate would be alot more private sector friendly and less union and public sector friendly. I would cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15%. I would cut out capital gains tax for one year then roll it back in at 10%. I'd take small steps and step back rather than saddle future generations with a huge national debt. This is just a meager start.


Yea, I hate when president's lie to me (WMD's). It's like you can't believe anything they say (secret prisons). I always expect (Scooter Libby) my elected official to be honest and forthwith.


What Republican obstruction? Democrat have super majority in both houses. Maybe american people obstruction. Some people have short term and long term memory loss. Bush unemployment at 4.7% when democrat take over house in 2007.Me no yankee fan who you talk about. You so funny. Good democrat no own car, green richshaw.



The only person in Congress I can think of that would genuinely cut spending in a meaningful way is Ron Paul. The other 430+? Yeah, well, that's part of the point here...


To all bloggers, I'm sorry about ranting. However when the president of the United States has the arrogance and audacity to lie to me and the american public, I get irate.

Chung Lee

Chung Lee is amazed by the chicken littles who think that 8 years of Bush destruction can be fixed by Obama in 1 year with Republican obstruction. Of course the unemployment went up because the economy was in a nosedive. Objects in motion stay in motion until acted upon. When Chung Lee take out the rickshaw and go to stop the rickshaw it doesn't stop immediately.....nor does Chung Lee Toyota.

Chung Lee would also make an analogy. Yankees down 8 to 5 to the Indians and the Yankess bring in Rivera in the 7th. If the Yankes lose the game 8 to 7 should the fans blame Rivera for not winning and criticize him for losing the game? Apparently, if you a Republican you do!


The stimulus spending was not supposed to reverse the economy, only slow it’s decline until it could turn around on it’s own.

Goofus, let’s say you were the newly elected president. What would you have done instead? What would have happened with no bailouts or stimulus spending? Hmmm?? I’d like to heat alternate suggestions. Would you have just cut taxes? What would you have done differently?


All approved by the democratic congress. The democrats are good at it, I never had sexual relations with that women, my stimulus created 2 million jobs. you knew that AIG is the insurer of the pension benefit guaranty board didn't you. Bush never said his bailouts, approved by democratic congress, was a job creation bill. Joe Biden in an interview said the government is dysfunctional. With a super majority in both the senate and house,wouldn't you think that either their agenda of Obama is dysfunctional. Even Evan Bayh said not one job was created by the stimulus.


You forget to mention Bush’s stimulus spending. How soon we forget…

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Bush created TARP at a cost of $700 billion.

September 16, 2008: $85 Billion AIG bailout.

Oct. 24th 2008: Additional $37.8 Billion granted to AID for a total of $122.8 Billion.

December 2007: Bush sent out $170 Billion in “stimulus” rebate checks.


If the stimulus worked how come 2million jobs created still equates 10% unemployment. BIG LIE, even Hitler in Mein Kampf gave lessons on how to use the BIG LIE.


If the stimulus is working, where's the debt reduction? Why are the chinese dumping american bonds.


Brutus, New York Times, give me a break. They also propose the "big lie".

brutus smith

Economic Scene
Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success


digger nick

A year ago, President Obama and Democrats in Washington pushed through their massive $787 billion stimulus package. They claimed this stimulus bill was the silver bullet to fix the economy and bring back jobs. They claimed the best way to end the recession was to go on an unprecedented spending spree.

They were wrong.
$787 billion later, the unemployment rate is two points HIGHER than it was just a year ago. Even Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer acknowledged the stimulus' failure by stating that Democrats "over-promised" the bill's effectiveness. And many Democrats, most recently Senator Evan Bayh (IN), are choosing to retire instead of face increasing voter backlash over their votes for failed fiscal policies.

Unfortunately, it's not just Washington Democrats that will have to pay the price for these missteps, but generations to come will be footing the bill for this fiscal recklessness.

Foreign countires are taking less and less interest in our T-Bills, Our currency continiues to weaken and gold is near an all time high in fear of this fiscal debacle.

But I guess there are still a few kool aid drinkers who will say it's all Bush's fault along with the earthquake in Hati LOL


What you are proposing is known as supply side economics. It’s been tried before and failed. The only way it cold possibly work is if spending was proportionally reduced as well. Know anybody in congress willing to do that?? Anyway, this school of thought has never been proved to work. Proponents often cite examples of Bush tax cuts, but other economists disagree and can site other factors leading to an increased economy.

brutus smith

samadams, give us an example where lowering taxes reduced the debt.



The best way to "raise" taxes is to lower them. Lower taxes mean more jobs, more discretionary income, more expansion, and, as a result, more NET tax income. If taxes are lowered concurrent with stopping the government from spending money on all of the crap it's not supposed to be responsible for, we'd have a surplus even WITH two wars.


Oops wrong blog...


We created god before he created us…


When you are heavily in debt, you increase your revenue and reduce your spending. There is no other way around it. Raise taxes, gut and revise entitlement programs, and reduce federal spending (including defense). While they are gutting Medicare, they can open it up to anyone that wants to pay to be in it. It should obviously be self sustaining. There is no magic bullet, only total systemic changes that need to be implemented.


Hey it worked for Glen Beck! He got a sponsorship for a cash for gold and then went on his show fear mongering and telling his viewers to put all of their money in gold.

6079 Smith W

Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President says U.S. in potentially huge fiscal trouble:

‘U.S. fiscal policy is on an "unsustainable course" and the government must adjust its tax and spending programs or risk a crisis, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig said Tuesday.

"It is that simple. If pre-emptive corrective action is not taken regarding the fiscal outlook, then the United States risks precipitating its own next crisis," said Hoenig.’


6079 Smith W

Off topic, but potentially enlightening for our lib bloggers:

George Soros '...speaking last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, called gold the “ultimate asset bubble” and said the price could tumble,'

Then, it was just reported this morning that:

'Billionaire George Soros’ Soros Fund Management LLC more than doubled its holding in the biggest gold exchange-traded fund (GLD) in the fourth quarter.'

So Soros talked down the commodity and then bought it?

Opportunists come in all political stripes don't they?


Thanks George. I own (GLD)!

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Feb 16, 2010 1:00 PM:

" Neither party wants to take the steps to fix the budget.

During the 1990s, the Repubs suggested a Constitutional balanced budget amendment. I’d like to see that perhaps dusted off and debated.

There are essentially three ways out of the federal debt:

1. Raise taxes
2. Borrow internally from the country.
3. Inflation.

Most countries take the third way out. They print their way out, resulting in massive inflation and a cheapening of the value of the currency.

Higher prices for all goods and a lower standard of living typically are the outcomes.

If inflation worked, Zimbabwe would have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Also, watch how it works in Venezuela.

A bi-partisan commission is a delaying tactic and a political smokescreen. It’s meant only to give the appearance of action.

6079 Smith W

kURT wrote on Feb 17, 2010 3:15 AM:

‘gene -ZERO........You said you didn't vote.
Then you can't complain.’

The U.S., unlike some countries does not have compulsorily voting requirements.

As an American, he’s free not to vote and also to complain if he so chooses. What business is it of yours how he acts or doesn’t act?


gene -ZERO........You said you didn't vote.
Then you can't complain.


I agree with the things that are being said in the story and I for one didnt vote at all , cause i didnt trust obama or the republician party due to the lack of doing not what he wanted , but what was in the best intrest of the country , and making the unenployemnt what it is , is not the answer
All our goverment is doing is pushing the u.s debt to a all time high . Instead of feeding the unemployment , put them to work . if you put them to work you are not adding to the problem , you are solving it .
Comeon Goverment , lets get back to the tables and this time , lets get it right , and stop the waste and place the u.s tax dollars into helping americans get back to work.
I am so tired of goverment waste and I hate to say this , But as far as i can see it , Obama is not much better then Bush and in some cases they are just alike . they both make promises that they arent going to live up too .the only thing is that if Obama was really intrested in gettting this country back up and running , he would stop the senseless killing over seas and invest that money on Americans
Hey President Obama , what is the price tag up too now ? I bet its not going down any , as a matter of fact its going up , . You need to stop this stupid war that is never going to end , cause no one wants to admit they may or may not win , . how many more or our children have to die before someone stops it .
This is one of the most costly things that we have on our plate , not health care not anything else , just the wars that we got tripped into


Neither party wants to take the steps to fix the budget. The difference between what is popular and what is needed. No republican that wants re-elected would EVER suggest raising taxes even if they knew it was the correct thing to do. And no Democrat would EVER suggest cutting entitlement spending even if they knew it was the right thing to do.

It’s time to elect intelligent and qualified people for congress. Just because they like the same beer as you do or can field dress a moose is not reason to vote for them. Maybe we should pass a constitutional amendment that at least 1/3 of congress is required to hold at minimum a masters in economics.

brutus smith

It's up to the President to develop the budget. Congress funds the budget, which is why it is changed from it's original form.


It is. In a perfect world, budgets will be bipartisan and for the good of the country. As you well know (to state the obvious), budgets are usually filled with the ruling party’s priorities. Hnece the need for a commission. Clinton’s balanced budget was a good example of checks and balances.


Not to overstate the obvious, but it's both sets of cowards playing politics in the case of the budget commission.

Explain the need for the commission, please. I thought that one of the primary functions of the House and Senate was to develop a federal budget.


Obama suggested a bi-partisan budget commission. The Senate rejected it. WTF?? Why would you oppose this?


brutus smith

PNAC role in promoting invasion of Iraq

Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum––such as Democracy Now! and American Free Press, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jody Williams and former Republican Congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley––voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.[37][47] Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton, which urged him to embrace a plan for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,"[10] and the large number of members of PNAC appointed to the Bush administration as evidence that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. [39][43][48]

The television program Frontline, broadcast on PBS, presented the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the leadup to the Iraq war.[49]

Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) included such Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

As has been said: Politics make strange bedfellow.

You're undoubtedly aware that both Paul and Sanders agree for a need to audit the Fed. Reserve?


H*ll! I think that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) should audit every d*mn Federal department, agency and office!

According to forecasts of the U.S. Census, Ohio will lose two seats in Congress and Texas will gain three.


I found the book:

'Five Days in London: May 1940':



I find Ron Paul very entertaining. Especially with main stream republican’s reactions to him. I think he has a snowball’s chance at ever getting elected president. Same with Kucinich. I like Kucinich, but he had that whole weenie persona. Someone like him could have gotten elected before televised media, but not after.

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Feb 16, 2010 8:33 AM:

‘Most of congress were too scared of being painted as unpatriotic and voted for the war.’

If they were indeed fearful, and voted against their true convictions, then they were/are gutless and need to be voted out!!!!

Ron Paul vote against it! The man voted his politics and conscious – I admire that.

Monday morning quarterbacking is for the amateurs who never take the field.

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

‘Think’ you had cereal??? :)

Mostly coffee for me – breakfast of champions!

The problem with history for most Americans is that they approach it with a sense of recency – what their mindset and attitude is today.

How do we know with any metaphysical 100% certainty, beyond the shadow of a doubt how Clinton would have reacted if 9-11 had occurred on his watch? We don’t!

IMO, the only way to view history is to attempt to put oneself in the mindset of the people at the time with the amount of knowledge and lack thereof that they processed at the time.

IMO, an understanding of most history should be approached with a deep sense of humility toward most of the players, unless of course they are blatantly malicious.

Last yr, I started, but never finished a book about how the British govt. was in utter chaos in how they should respond after France fell in 1940 and Dunkirk was unfolding.

Attempting to discern correct actions while the clouds of war are gathering is extremely difficult.

I like to ask questions, using somewhat of a Socratic method and feel that attempts at mind reading should for the most part be left to the charlatans and scam artists.


Most of congress were too scared of being painted as unpatriotic and voted for the war. You could see it. Even Hillary was running scared. It was like the red scare of the 50’s. If you didn’t wear your flag pin and vote for the war, patriot act, etc., you were un-American. People were scared @#%less by 9/11, to the point of knee jerk reactions. Bush, Cheney, and the republicans capitalized on this. Don’t talk about short memories. Your were there.

6079 Smith W

Digger Nick wrote on Feb 16, 2010 8:13 AM:

‘I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.’

When one thinks that one may be confronting a scam, what is one of the first phrases that should come to mind?

If is sounds too good to be true, it probably is.


Politicians and scam artists – the difference?


I think I had cereal…. Yes, my memory was a bit muddled. Those horrific 8 years just blended together. You have jogged my memory though. It was the “Axis of Evil speech”. I told her he would invade so he could get re-elected. Hardly matters when I said it to my wife, it happened, didn’t it?

Even if regime change was the declared US goal, there is a difference between surgery with a scalpel and an axe. If Clinton’s intention was to invade and take over the whole country, I think he would have done it. Shock and awe indeed…

6079 Smith W

82 Dem. Congressional Reps and 29 Dem Senators (111 Dems total) voted for the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.


Either they believed in what they voted for at the time, or they were stupid and outsmarted by the Bush administration.

At the time, approx. 70% of the U.S. population supported the invasion.

Where is the news media’s outrage and the massive liberal street protests against Obama’s Afghanistan surge?

If this does not prove that the news media is the back pocket of the Democratic Party what does?

digger nick

Cash for Clunkers, hmmmm, let me see......

Oilfield Math

Think of it this way:

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons
of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline
consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs
about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

6079 Smith W

Correction: '1988' s/b '1992'.

6079 Smith W

@ citizen:

1. During the election of 1988, Dems like Clinton and Gore excoriated GHW Bush for not ‘finishing the job’ during the Gulf War.

2. Regime change in Iraq became official U.S. policy under Clinton:


IMO, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, their knowledge of 'history' goes back to whether or not they ate breakfast this morning.

Oliver Hardy

Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak - Cicero

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife. - Theodore Roosevelt


Duhast...you are a joke. You said, "Bush had his mind made up to invade when he took office and the American people and Congress were blind to this. When he was re-elected, I turned to my wife and said, “watch him invade Iraq”. Well, wouldn’t you know it… "

Hello? Bush gave the orders to invade Iraq in 2003. He wasn't re-elected until Nov. of 2004. So when, exactly, did you turn to your wife and say that? Your credibility just went out the window.


This looks like a room full of the
"nattering nabobs of negativism".

Dan Carrol
Is this the car salesman?


Those who suggest that both parties tend to blame the other are absolutely right. But what no one is saying is that both of them DESERVE to be blamed!

You can criticize George W. Bush all you like for the USA PATRIOT Act (and please believe me, I was criticizing, and loudly!), but not without jumping up and down over Obama's "you can't expect privacy on a cell phone!" desire to go after such calls without a warrant. You can whine all you want about George W. Bush going on vacation, but you'd better recognize that Obama's lunatic "date nights" are at least as expensive and don't accomplish anything but, perhaps, appeasing his wife. You can, like Obama did, complain bitterly about Bush's executive orders and signing statements. But if you don't lament the fact Obama is doing the same, you're as much of a hypocrite as he is.

Where are the people who think the government should do no more than it was constitutionally established to do? Where are all of you who understand that both freedom and prosperity tend to grow when the government gets the he11 out of the way rather than stands IN the way? Where are the complainers when it comes time to stand up and accept personal responsibility and condemn entitlement programs of ALL stripes?

Yeah, I thought so. Which makes a whole lot of us as much to blame as the politicians who are blaming each other, doesn't it... And until we're willing to stop complaining and start doing something about it (that does NOT include demanding government steal from some to give to others as an all too temporary solution), we're going to keep living in some freedom-stealing version of where we're at now.

John Adams once said that if people valued safety and comfort more than freedom, he hoped that we'd forget he was ever our countryman. I sure wish some of you would remember that he was once OURS!


So much partisanship going on. I can remember very clearly President Bush blaming President Clinton for the down turn in the economy after he took office.
Why can't we come together to solve this Countries problems instead of tearing down this President because we did not vote for him!
It's quite evident Mr. Carroll is disgruntled because his man did not win!
President Obama has his work cut out for him, and he will not solve all the problems in one year of office . Presient Bush took many trips while he was in office, and spent much of his time at his Ranch in Texas instead of the White House as I can recall.
Where was Mr. Carroll's indignation then? Not to mention all the debt that was compiled on our Country while Mr.Bush was in office?


They can have their civil war for all I care. The problem was the Janjaweed rape squads attacking and murdering civilians. The UN wouldn’t send troops. They finally left it up to the African Union who were as disorganized and undersupplied as the Keystone Kops. We should have sent military to protect and help evacuate the refugees. Instead, we left them to fend for themselves.

You SHOULD worry about what the middle east thinks of us. Until they feel that we are no longer imperialist invaders, they will produce an unending supply of suicide bombers. PR is just as, if not more important than, military action in the middle east. It’s a good thing you aren’t in charge.

How would you feel if Canada accidently bombed your house and family when they shot a missile over the lake to hit a Quebec separatist maple syrup smuggler?? Would you be happy that they got the bad guy or would you shout “Death to Canada!”??


Seems like the last "civil war" we got involved in the left wing whackos had a field day. Remember Vietnam. Although not a civil war, just don't tell the left.


It is convenient for the Republicans to blame the Democrats. It is equally as convenient for the Democrats to blame the Republicans. But the truth is that both the Republicans and Democrats are selling America down the river. Dan Carroll has fell into this trap. While in this mindstate people have selective memories. Dan says Bush don't blame Clinton, but that is not true the whole Republican party blamed Clinton (i.e. no offshore drilling,for cutting the military) and I could go on. But the Dems do the same. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats are on the same team. Example: the Republican say they don't want abortion, but when Bush and the republicans controlled the house, senate and the white house they never outlawed abortion. I wonder why.Its because They really don't care about abortion. Just like the Dems; they controlled everything, but we are still in two wars and they are even trying to start a third war, but I thought stopping the wars was why OBAMA was running. NO, that is just what they tell us to get power. Both major parties never can agree, but some how they still pass laws. And every law they pass costs America money, jobs and freedom. And that is their goal. Its easy to see; just look at the end outcome.


It is convenient for the Republicans to blame the Democrats. It is equally as convenient for the Democrats to blame the Republicans. But the truth is that both the Republicans and Democrats are selling America down the river. Dan Carroll has fell into this trap. While in this mindstate people have selective memories. Dan says Bush don't blame Clinton, but that is not true the whole Republican party blamed Clinton (i.e. no offshore drilling,for cutting the military) and I could go on. But the Dems do the same. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats are on the same team. Example: the Republican say they don't want abortion, but when Bush and the republicans controlled the house, senate and the white house they never outlawed abortion. I wonder why.Its because They really don't care about abortion. Just like the Dems; the controlled everything, but we are still in two wars and they are even trying to start a third war, but I thought stopping the wars was why OBAMA was running. NO, that is just what they tell us to get power. Both major parties never can agree, but some how they still pass laws. And every law they pass costs America money, jobs and freedom. And that is their goal. Its easy to see; just look at the end outcome.


Who cares what the middle east thinks of us. The Kurds and most of Iraq love us, why do you think we are leaving. The marines have already left. It's always that muslim thing with you Duhast. At least we might be safer when we fly, the will soon be a fatwa telling muslims not to enter body scanners.

Richard Bebb

When did America get involved in wwII, after the German expansion into Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Netherlands, and England. Then of course the bombing of Pearl Harbour. The German expansion and eradication began 2 years prior to America declaring war on Germany so what are we talking about. German expansion was a civil war????? Read a history book.

And its not my argument that we should not be involved in the atrocities that are occurring in Darfur, its the left's, due to the fact that their talking point is that we shouldn't be getting involved in civil wars as they claim the conflict in Iraq was. Again the left changes the argument to fit their agenda, sorry for calling you out on it.


http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geni... Try this post about the left's savior of the World the United Nations. Their peacekeepers lead the way in sex abuse among children.