My Prediction if Romney Loses

Could you please show me where I blamed BUSH (or rather where my sources blamed Bush) for ALL THE DEBT?

Because the arguments against the welfare state have always been a part of a political discussion and it should be isolated as the only important part of the discussion.

Lets make a pact to always focus on the few important things in any discussion. Who cares if some politician slept with his secretary when all of them are smkimming off the top as they redistribute our wealth? In every post find some way to mention one of the few fundamental issues that are important.

That is a good plan, but you know it won't happen. We have one political party who's foremost goal (outside of murdering unborn babies) is providing free stuff to citizens and non-citizens. The other political party is too afraid or too incompetent to protest this obvious vote buying scheme and bankrupting of the nation. The SC and executive branch are corrupted too or pursuing the same goal. Most of the MSM will not allow a reduction in the welfare state without a fight (see media accounts of the Tea Party). So changing the political discourse will be nearly impossible.

Obama and the Ds have in four years, dramatically increased the welfare state and few in political power or the media, have opposed him. Four more years and we could reach the proverbial tipping point. We can easily recognize this, but others do not or are merely putting their heads in the sand. Many demand that government care for them because America is so unfair. This kind of delusional thinking has been promoted by the left for decades and has worked fantastically.

That's why it's important for them to learn that "elections have consequences" at the hands of the people they put into office. And it's already started. Food stamps are going to be decreased $50 per month and unemployment is going down to six months, not 99 weeks, or whatever it was.

"What the government giveth, the government can taketh away".

I welcome "questionning in good faith,". Unfortunately these are rare, and seldom done by anyone but you.

The rest usually consist in a short and belitteling refusal to even consider arguments I present (generally with evidence tha I am certainly not the only one thinking that way, reliable sources from experts), or, worst, insulting comments.

Open your eyes.

And, Obama didn't add 4 trillions dollars deficit. IF YOU ARE A BUSUPINESSMAN, you KNOW that deficits grow exponentially, and that deficits habe been growing since Reagan, with a short break at towards the end of Clinton's Administration.

It is obvious that the servicing on the accumilated deficits at the time Bush took office were a LOT SMALLER than the servicing on the accumulated deficits of $1 trillion when Obama took office.

The HIGHEST increase in deficit came in 2009, a year when the budget was STILL Bush's.

Here is another statement and another graph that shows what part of the deficit belongs to Bush (and his predecessors) and which part belongs to Obama.

I notice that you do not bother to present any alternatice sources ro support YOUR OPINION that 4 trillions in deficit is entirely Obama's fault.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-did-we-get-to-trillion-dollar-deficits/

Deficits are the shortfall between revenue collections and spending in a given year. Debt is the total accumulation of those deficits. I wanted to point that out because you seem to confuse the two concepts as being one in the same although they are not interchangeable.

Now please, address the $830 billion that was supposed to be "one time" emergency spending that has now become additional spending every year. If that money was authorized under Bush, then the additional spending for that year belongs to Bush. However, once Bush was out of office, the decision to continue spending that money falls on Obama - he owns responsibility for that spending now, not Bush.

Obama continues to spend that "one time" emergency money every year, which makes it the primary driver of his trillion dollar deficits. Had Obama allowed that "one time" spending to only occur that "one time" under Bush, then Obama's deficits would have been $830 billion less each year.

Yes...there is a theory that once the party of freebies (Dems - really commies) starts making cuts to their beloved welfare state, it will face a revolt. Should be fun to watch, though knowing those assholes they will try to burn the house down.

maybe...

Again, so long as it's Dems in charge of doing it, there will be no revolt against the Dems. The people of Detroit have yet to catch on to the devastation that letting Dems run the show has caused, they simply blame the "rich" and Republicans for their deprivations and continue to believe that Democrats are actually trying to help.

A part of Missus Obama's Anti-Fat Campaign?

I'd like to see them enforce food stamps with a "no-fattening food" codicil.
No Pop-Tarts.

But Pop-tarts are high in Iron. Imagine the rampant anemia if poor people were expected to eat spinach.

Since it is the gov that is handing out the cards doesn't the gov have the right to limit how the money is spent? One can't buy booze right? And if enough people use the cards doesn't that mean that the gov is gaining control over an ever larger portion of the population. Just think what politicians could do if 90% of the population were on food stamps. Why the gov could have enough influence on the eating habits of Americans as to be able to shut the doors of any business at all with one swipe of a pen. Today Sebelius eliminates Pop-tarts and tomorrow Kellog's is out of business for failing to donate enough to her Presidential re-election campaign. If a gov gets big enough in even seemingly benign areas like food stamps then it gains virtually limitless power.

Good post. Big Ag is behind a lot of food issues, like "free" school lunches and farm subsidies. The government paying some farmers to NOT produce or the FDA imposing restrictions on others. Ever wonder why meat costs so much these days? Everyone is blaming the draught for not having enough feed. Like hay and feed grains can't be stored for draughts? Ever wonder why old Soro's bought up a bunch of grain storage businesses?

If the government can control the food they can control the people, and if they want to, they can limit what's available that is affordable.

*Requires the dog-leg detour through the liquor store barter system with the obligatory "tribute percentile" to the slum-lord merchant. Same with drugs and guns or whatever else is needed in the 'hood.

Return to commodities--FOOD--get a 10-pounder of cheese (imagine--the photo-op for Obama passing it out from a flatbed truck with Maxine Waters smiling on affectionately!), powdered milk, big cans of beef and pork and butter and whatever else can make a child grow up healthy.

And you gotta cook it yourself--hell--you got nothing else to do!

I think you are saying that food stamps can be used to buy booze if one trades. that is true.

Are you suggesting that powdered milk and canned beef are healthy? The fact that the gov does not really know what is healthy is exactly why the gov should not be allowed to dictate who eats what. Additionally, it should stop encouraging people to make different food choices at a great expense to the rest of us.

Other than find a job. The welfare system encourages not having a job and that is why it should be as small as possible and not run by the gov - which the Fed does not have the authority to move money from one citizen to another anyway. Not that that stops the gov from moving money from less favored people to more favored people as seemingly its major activity.

Well what happened to the spending cuts? BO presented his plan on Capital Hill and there weren't any cuts. Did he lie to YOU again or did he 'misstate' his position?