Laugh -- Carter was handed an economy in free fall due to oil going from 2$ a barrel to 10$ a barrel in the Ford administration -- sound familiar?
The only thing of note in that article:
"The odds of Obama staying true to his current rhetoric are so poor that not even the boldest gambler should bet on it."
So, according to this "prophet," if Obama does what he says (and I have to admit that I hope he does not do all he says,) we should vote for him, but we should consider him a liar and not vote for him.
Revenues went up 16 % under Nixon while spending increased by 21% (a 5% deficit). Under Ford, revenues rose 10% and spending rose 21% (and 11% deficit). Under Carter revenues rose by 14% (a happy medium between Nixon and Ford) and spending rose by 8% -- in other words, Carter began balancing the budget and prepared the way for the disastrous 10% revenue increase by Reagan with the 21% increase in spending.
Under Bush 2 revenue has increased 7% while spending soared by 22% -- under a republican controlled congress.
Occasionally, check some numbers. Oh, the source of my numbers? _The Heritage Foundation_.
Considering that the source of the article was "The National Review," founded by a man I admired greatly but usually disagreed with passionately, William F. Buckley, I decided to remind you of their latest fall from grace: firing WFB's son, Christopher Buckley, for endorsing Obama.
Of course, one democrat did endorse McCain -- Lieberman.
"The National Review" lost the little credibility it had by firing , "accepting Buckley's 'resignation'," Buckley.
Sadly -- heh, while I obviously disagreed with the magazine, I read it often. I enjoy smart people I disagree with. Now, they are not so smart, losing the remarkably humorous Buckley.
It was a sad day for thinking people of all political stripes.
3 comments:
Laugh -- Carter was handed an economy in free fall due to oil going from 2$ a barrel to 10$ a barrel in the Ford administration -- sound familiar?
The only thing of note in that article:
"The odds of Obama staying true to his current rhetoric are so poor that not even the boldest gambler should bet on it."
So, according to this "prophet," if Obama does what he says (and I have to admit that I hope he does not do all he says,) we should vote for him, but we should consider him a liar and not vote for him.
Revenues went up 16 % under Nixon while spending increased by 21% (a 5% deficit). Under Ford, revenues rose 10% and spending rose 21% (and 11% deficit). Under Carter revenues rose by 14% (a happy medium between Nixon and Ford) and spending rose by 8% -- in other words, Carter began balancing the budget and prepared the way for the disastrous 10% revenue increase by Reagan with the 21% increase in spending.
Under Bush 2 revenue has increased 7% while spending soared by 22% -- under a republican controlled congress.
Occasionally, check some numbers. Oh, the source of my numbers? _The Heritage Foundation_.
Hugs,
Nick
Considering that the source of the article was "The National Review," founded by a man I admired greatly but usually disagreed with passionately, William F. Buckley, I decided to remind you of their latest fall from grace: firing WFB's son, Christopher Buckley, for endorsing Obama.
His endorsement can be read here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama
Or, maybe we could read Ken Adelman's endorsement here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-adelman/why-a-staunch-conservativ_b_137749.html
Of course, one democrat did endorse McCain -- Lieberman.
"The National Review" lost the little credibility it had by firing , "accepting Buckley's 'resignation'," Buckley.
Sadly -- heh, while I obviously disagreed with the magazine, I read it often. I enjoy smart people I disagree with. Now, they are not so smart, losing the remarkably humorous Buckley.
It was a sad day for thinking people of all political stripes.
Nick
Post a Comment