LAMBRO: At what cost Obama?

Da...I am glad to read that someone in the press is saying what I have been saying all along. Don't listen to BHO but read what he has said. Yes, he speaks well, he is verbal or verbous which is the polite description for a sentorial gasbag. He passes a lot of hot air without saying anything of value. Like watching an entertainer in the Winters, Robin Williams or Sid Caesar generations they could dumbfound observers with their speech and antics, but always in fun. BHO is a danger if placed into the executive seat. NOBAMA

"Democratic, representative control over fiscal, monetary, and trade policy would enable citizens to have a voice in setting the basic framework of economic policy--what social investment is needed, who should own or control basic industries, and how they might be governed." - Vision of Socialist economy; The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America. This is right out of socialists play book. The Democratic Socialists will determine social investment and when it reaches 51% of your paycheck they own you. The Democratic Socialists will determine who own or controls basic industries like energy. In Venezuela they called it nationalization, here they call it progressive politics. And how they might be governed? It does no good for Obama, Reid and Pelosi to redistribute the inequities of capitalism if you cannot govern them. Vote against those that own you and control you 'basic" industries and you will end up with those "uneducated" soldiers returning from Iraq being permanently enrolled in Obama's Civilian Conservation Corps.

MICHELLE: Barack, does this dress make me look fat? BARACK: Err-ahh-ahh-ahh... No sweetie. If you are pregnant, we will kill the baby a few minutes before it is born. MICHELLE: Thank you Barack. We have to stand by what we said in the fundraiser letter in 2004. Partial-birth abortion must be protected as a ligitimate medical procedure. BARACK: Ahh-ahh-ahh Thats right sweetie. MICHELLE: You are so smart Barack. No wonder you are supported by Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Jane Fonda,, Barney Frank, Hamas, and the rest of the Islamic world.

Lambro, you take Obama to task for saying we have problems with the Economy by saying we DON'T really have any problem with the Economy? That it is largely caused by ARM and subprime borrowers who tried to game the system, or were too stupid to understand it? Standard GOP talking points. I guess you don't want to discuss the REAL facts. Look where we're at: The highest budget deficit in history. The highest National Debt ever recorded by this Nation. A huge part of our annual revenues to servicing interest on that debt. Real wages dropping. Inflation at the highest point in 27 years. Unemployment the highest in 17 years. More people on welfare and food stamps, including our soldiers' families, than ever before. The US dollar has lost half its value in less than a decade. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our manufacturing base has been outsourced. We have lost close to A MILLION construction jobs in a year. Our educational rankings have dropped. Our consumer debt has spiraled. Our trade deficit, despite your happy news that we have a trade surplus in some places, is over half a trillion dollars a year, most of it to China. Bankruptcies at an all time high. Foreclosures at an all time high. Loan and credit card defaults at an all time high. Gas prices at an all time high. Heating oil at an all time high. Diesel fuel at an all time high. Jet fuel at an all time high. You and the GOP want to pretend that none of this is happening, and that by giving tax breaks to millionaires and free oil drilling on our heritage of National parklands and fragile oceans to global oil corporations that somehow all these problems will magically fix themselves. Only Obama understands that these problems will need new energy, new perspectives, and new effort from everyone who has a stake in America if they're ever going to be solved. Only Obama says this HAS to include the rich, and the corporations who have enjoyed their privileges and breaks for years under Bush and have been promised lots more of the same by you and John McSame.

The Democratic nominee has no idea what he is doing. His mother and grandmother are going to tell him what decisions he makes are wrong or right for the country and the world? Is this the same grandmother he threw under the bus for having racist thoughts. You know, the same thoughts Jesse Jackson had while walking through Georgetown late at night. The Democratic Party can't be serious about nominating someone so devoid of any ideas that weren't given to him as Democratic talking points. The guy is dangerous. When it comes time to make the difficult decision to do something militarily for the safety of this country, he will procrastinate until he puts our safety in jeopardy. Mark my words!!

First of all, Obama is a TERRIBLE public speaker. What is all this horsesh*t about him being good in front of people. He speaks like a robot. He's mechanical and like a broken record. He stammers. He is slow and emphatic at the beginning of every sentence, then finishes every sentence quickly with a downward inflexion. Try it yourself. Start a sentence reeaaallll slllloooww, perhaps stutter a bit, like he did with the Rev. Warren on each a-a-a-a answer. Then go really fast and downward to finish off the sentence. Just throw away the end of the sentence. Anybody can do the Obama imitation. It's real easy. It kind of makes it seem like you actually just said something. NOT. He's a robot. A terrible public speaker. Anybody with any experience can tell you. Compare him to someone like Reagan or Kennedy and he comes off looking ridiculous. Sadly so. No emotion, no inspiration, no uplifting ideas. Just mopey, depressing, BORING bad news. Obama is like this "Wellstone's Legacy" guy who WANTS the economy to be bad because they think that'll make their candidate more attractive. What if the news isn't so bad? Uh-oh, that's bad for Obama, isn't it? They have to run America into the ground to push their guy up. Well, I hate to say it, but Clarence Thomas is more qualified than B.O., and B.O. wouldn't vote for him.

You are preaching to the choir here, you need to say this to the Obama-followers who are not using any reasonable analysis of what he is offering. He conveniently tells them what they want to hear and then "fluffs" over the details about how this would all work. They need to be made to understand that what he is promising, can't, in reality, happen. That is McCains's job this fall.

Message to SDindependent below. It's interesting that you commented in another one of today's TWT stories as being against more domestic oil and gas production via increased drilling. Since we are sending some $700,000,000 (read Billions) overseas, don't you think that would be a huge reduction in the balance of payments as well as providing badly needed relief to millions of Americans? You don't happen to be a member of moveon.org do you? Just curious.

Every time NOBAMA exhales, he emits the noxious fumes of CO2..... Maybe we could ask him to stand in front of Al Gore for his next speech and 'gas' that nut to death. The real problem with our economy is that the government redistributionists are throwing more than 700 BILLION dollars a year at people who don't work, never have and never will, and are constantly encouraging more to do more of the same. When you throw away more than you spend on national defense, I'd say you have a real problem.... To those who want to know, that problem is called STUPIDITY, and the liberals have that in spades.

SDindependent - The WSJ runs lots of editorials. Unlike the NYT The Journal will run editorials from all sides of an issue. I read WSJ everyday. Most of the breakdowns of economic policy favor McCain. Wellstone guy - I reject your usage of statistics. Why not just go back a few more years and compare today's numbers to the numbers when Carter was President. Carter's misery index is twice as high as Bush's. Or just go back to the year before Democrats took over Congress. Try using the numbers from 2005. Quite enlightening to do so and obvious "proof" that the Democratic Congress is all to blame. By the way, the numbers for Bush and Clinton are nearly identical (misery = unemployment+inflation). You could look it up. Meanwhile the GDP is the highest it has ever been. We manufacture more goods (even in inflation adjusted dollars) than ever before. Oh and when I was a kid I could buy a coke for a dime and a Hershey's candy bar for a nickle. So the "value of the dollar" is much worse than you could ever imagine. Oh and home values. Do you know how much it costs to buy a home these days compared to the 1960's? Or even a car. I bet today's car prices are the highest in history. Did I mention that I had to pay $400 for a VCR instead of $40-$60? And the price of a computer 27 years ago? How does that compare to the price of one now? I paid more for my first scientific caculator than one pays for a computer now. So perhaps the "value of the dollar" is not so straight forward when comparing it over time. And you might have said oil is at an all time high (you must be talking real dollars) since heating oil, diesel and jet fuel are all derived from oil. I assume by "gas" you meant gasoline so ditto on that too. I suppose with Democratic lawmakers pushing and cheering on high oil prices you figured that we wouldn't connect the derivatives from the actual resource. By the way, you left out that wages are at an all time high too. The population is at an all time high. The number of home owners is at an all time high. Come to think of it, is it not odd how so many statistics that have population as a variable are at an all time high? Amazing. Truely amazing.

I will never understand how someone like Lambro could be taken serious on the ecomony. After spending the last 8 years trumpeting the economic policies of Dubya, I think listening to Lambro about the economy is a little like taking career advice from Brittany Spears. How often does a conversative have to be wrong on something before they think to themselves "Maybe I should look at alternative ideas." I now understand why the GOP uses the Elephant as their party symbol, apparently they share the same brain capacity.

Legacy – Help me out here. Let’s see, first question. Compared to the budget deficit what percentage of our total outlays do the entitlement programs represent? Next question. Wasn’t it our astute congress that mandated back in 2003 that mortgage companies could no longer refuse to lend to people if they couldn’t document how they were going to pay it back? Red Lining I believe it was called. Am I right? Last question. Who are the RICH? I’ve always been curious about that and know you can set me straight. Is it determined by ones annual income? Does it include what one owns, house car maybe even a boat? I am really glad to here that Mr. Obama understands all these issues and is going to apply his new perspective in the resolution of them. I’m still waiting here how he’s going to do it.

Right on. When tax rates are reduced tax revenues go up. Basic,right? As for the so-called "rich", when tax rates are reduced MORE PEOPLE GET RICH. There were more millionaires AFTER taxes got slashed by Bush than before. That's why the tax coffers got filled---a bigger affluent demographic. If you are an idiot like SDIndependent you think that "rich" is some weird mysterious foreign blob from outer space. No, "rich" is YOU AND ME after the frigging government GETS OFF OUR BACKS. And, personally speaking, I would rather be a millionare than get that ridiculous $1000 hand-out B.O. is proposing. I am so sick of the Dimocrat Party's philosophy of everybody's a VICTIM. If B.O. gets in we all will really be Victims---victims of socialism, victims of weak foreign policy, victims of terrorism---you name it. I don't want to be a victim---thanks anyway, Obama.

The ignorance of economic understanding is endemic in the party of Democrats. Their deficiency is compensated by intellectually arrogant and silly sound bites, i.e. The rich are getting richer,...etc. Sometime in late 1986 or early 1987, I was having dinner with several friends, one of which included a future governor and senatorial candidate. His contribution to the conversation was the requisite sound bites: "Reaganomics, Herbert Hoover..etc." I then asked him if he were aware that we had just entered a record peace time economic expansion since the 1940's, and included the dramatic positive economic changes since 1980 (GNP, CPI, unemployment, interest rates...etc.). He was truly stunned as he was unable to even address or refute one of my stated facts. I guess in his circles, facts were not as important as the intellectual chic of good sound bites. I am sure since then that he finally did some economic homework, as his policies as a Governor did minimal harm to the economy of his state. In a sense he was like Bill Clinton in that he took credit for a good economy on his watch, he just didn't know how he did it. Anyway, watching the convention and listening him to speak, I am afraid that he has gone back to the intellectual appeal of chic-chic sound bites. I guess its only about politics and not reality. It is really sad when form trumps substance. RVA