Meet "Fiscally Responsible" Obama

Maybe if he would have eliminated all earmarks from the budget he could have saved even more. Besides, according to Rev a couple billion here and there isn't even real money, so 100 million is not even worth writing about.

Considering the cabinet budget is about $3.5 TRILLION, the $100M doesn't much matter. That's a rounding error in accounting.

We all knew, with the banksters collapse and all, that the federal government would have to spend money, unless we all were planning to go back to, you know, an agricultural existence.

It's kind of simple minded to be as cynical as it seems King is are being here. Obama was setting a tone. If you don't think that has any value….then so be it.

It's not so much, I don't think, that Obama is spending money….it's what he's spending it on that the rightwing is really upset about. We simply did not have all this microscopic worry-wartism during all those Bush, war driven, deficits. So, it's WHAT we spend it on that matters.

And see, here's where I have to challenge King's libertarian claims. Wars of adventurism cost money. King wasn't for going to Iraq….but he was relatively silent about all the deficits we were running, and still are, primarily driven by Iraq costs.

Now, after less than 100 days of a newly minted Democratic majority complete with the presidency, now the deficits are coming to smother us in our beds with IOU's.

It's the trend of a leader that's important. Bush's trend was unfortunate for the country. Obama looks very focused and strong, with the welfare of Americans foremost in his leadership decisions. I'm sure he'll have weak moments…..but he's the best I've seen out of the gate. The best.

Assumption is the Libs favorite tool. They love to tell us what we are thinking. I heard a gay blogger this morning talking about Miss America and her comment concerning gay marriage yesterday. His claim was the American public is overwhelmingly in favor again telling us what we are thinking and being as far from the truth as can be. Just like Rev telling us it isn't the money being spent but what we are spending it on. just sayin'…..

Obama has already spent and promised more in 100 days than the Iraq war has cost. They expect to keep up with the cash flow pace with people making less money than they were 10 or 15 years ago. It's like a man that worked at Ford getting laid off and getting a job that pays $15 per hour instead of the $28 per hour he was making and still expecting to maintain his lifestyle. This isn't nor can it happen. We are being flushed down the commode.

Rev says, "King wasn't for going to Iraq….but he was relatively silent about all the deficits we were running"

Reverend, please. You know better than to say something like that. I've criticized Bush's deficit runups at least a hundred times. Probably more.

And you're going to have a difficult time convincing me that Obama's $5 billion for Americorps, or his record $3.55 trillion budget, or his $9 trillion in projected deficits for 8 years are all because of the banking crisis. Such a contention is mere political misdirection. Unlike myself, you are outing yourself as having an extreme double standard. When Bush runs deficits, you think it's terrible. When Obama run deficits twice as fast, you think it's great.

Folks it is only money. Bush wasted it on killing and terrorizing mankind. Obama on the other hand is spending it for GOOD causes.

Well, it's sure a relief to know Obama is bankrupting the country for a good cause, lol. Now I feel better.