This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, August 15, 2009



Liberal POV said...


Why do we not see the dept clock during the Bush Admin as thing were spinning out of control.

Why only now as Obama tries to fix the Republican mess?

matt said...

I do sort of have to agree with POV on this one.

Where was this post 5 years ago? After bailout #1? After the war in Iraq started?

Granted, we have gone from bad to worse...but I don't think republicans better be pushing this issue for a while.

Gregg said...

IMHO you guys are missing the point. The fact that the debt is an issue that resonates illustrates how bad it is. Even the liberal press can't ignore it. Usually the press shapes the debate. For instance, what happened to the running death count in Iraq and especially Afghanistan where US deaths are increasing? Gone, because it was only important if it made Bush look bad. This groundswell over concern for the debt is trumping anything the press can say and it's not persuasive to keep blaming Bush.

Matt mentions bailout #1 and Iraq. Iraq was a just and necessary war after 12 years of failed diplomacy. The world is safer because of it. I know Matt and Lib don't agree but you have to rewrite history and be delusional about the threat to our civilization to think otherwise. The bailout #1 scared Bush bad enough to go against his principals and instincts. You can fairly say it was a mistake and you can say Bush spent too much throughout his Presidency but you can't say that the bailout was an attempt to take over the private sector as Obama is doing. There is evidence that Bush loved the country and was doing what he felt he had to do. There is evidence that Obama doesn't love this country, has radical roots and does want to take over the private sector. Apples and oranges.

I'm not trying to rehash these old debates but this idea that Bush justifies Obama's spending is nuts. Here's the thing, we know the whats and whys (right or wrong, agree or disagree) of Bush's spending. Does anyone know what Obama's doing and why? He's not only spent more in less that one year than Bush did in eight. Add in ALL of the previous presidents for good measure and Obama still has them trumped. Also money was pouring in at record rates during the Bush administration largely because of his tax policies. Now money is coming in at record lows. In the real world that should have an affect on spending habits. Not in DC.

Maybe just maybe that's the reason why the debt clock is more important now.

oatz said...

Well said Gregg.

Sarkazein said...

Republicans have always disliked deficit spending, even during President Bush's administration. The odd thing is that all of the sudden, the Left hated deficit spending during President Bush's administration. Liberals everywhere whined about President Bush's deficit spending and so did Republicans. Now deficit spending (increased by many times) is brilliance and must be done to make up for President Bush's smaller deficit spending.

Things like a trillion dollar cost increase in health care would make a little more sense if the US Treasury was debt free and was $5 trillion in the black, with a $500 Billion annual surplus. Now its like being broke, and leasing $2,500 rims for your ride.

Reader said...

Yes, well said Gregg. Sark, you are also correct.

R T Sender said...

There's plenty of blame to go all around the Beltway. The question is "What are we going to do about it now?"

Blogger said...

Matt Besides all the major countries' intelligence sources knowing Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (which he had already used), he was also shooting at our planes. He was already at war with us.

Would you have felt better if had waited until he downed one of our planes and then we attacked? Also, would you have felt better if he had used his Sarin gas on a major U.S. city and then we attacked?

Along with the Liberals, yours is a revisionist history. I doubt they teach real history at ASU.

Blogger said...

Blogger Blogger said...

Matt and Liberal. When do you plan to admit that under our Constituion, presidents don't spend money. Congress does.

Quit saying the Bush administration and start saying it like it is: "Congress, Democrats and Republicans, run up deficits."

No one yet has responded to my pointing out on another post that Obama used the phrase "I can't pay for it."

Has he already persuaded you that the Constitution is null and void.
There is no "I" with money in our government unless a president means his or her own personal stash.

Sarkazein said...

It is this ONE malignancy in the Ron Paul Libertarians keeping them from ruling the Republican Party, their lack of understanding our enemy. Their Michael Moore/Cindy Shehan alliance will keep them in a Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr standing in politics.

Sarkazein said...


The "I" quote, goes along with the "We will allow you..." quote the Obama also uses.

Blogger said...

Thanks Sarkazein. Coming next: "I will allow you."

Reader said...

I noticed it awhile back Blogger and was stunned to hear it. To me it is pure arrogance. I can find no other word for him. That's why I have always questioned, why do so few people, tell so many what to do and how to do it? I don't believe 535 (congress) up against millions, should have that much power. Who gave them so much power? Us? Themselves? Who?

You see how the citizens of Honduras handled their so called arrogant king. He was living high on the hog one day and trying to root his way back across the border the next.

Liberal POV said...


How about doing a basic civic course on here.
after reading Readers comments as well as Guys and other conservatives who want a police state and dislike demorcracy I think it's needed.

You side lost the election in a little more than three years you will get another chance.
Dick Cheney is no longer in charge, get use to it.

I understand how you feel I had to deal with incompendence for eight long years and watch my saving disappear and fine young Americans die for Bush's leadership failures.

Obama is just cleaning up the mess made by conservatives.

Liberal POV said...


"I do sort of have to agree with POV on this one."

Be careful these folks would rather side with David Duke than a liberal.

They don't believe liberal can ever be right no matter how extreme the right position.

Did you see the post by Guy wanting a ploice state and not a single conservative objected because a liberal was supporting freedom and Liberals can never be right.

Gregg said...

R T Sender asks: "What are we going to do about it now?"

Evidently we're doing it insofar as health care reform is concerned. The "public option" is now dead. Our voices matter.

matt said...

If Iraq was such a threat, then what we did was right.
What (I believe) is wrong with this 'war' is that we are still there. This should not be a humanitarian mission. Our government should never be in charge of humanitarian missions.

You are right that it is the congress that spends money, all I am trying to say is that republican congressmen have been voting to spend way too much money too. Lesser of the 2 evils? maybe, but they still suck. Congress is at fault, and the American people are at fault for putting up with scumbags for too many years.

Sark you are right to point out the left's criticisms of the deficits under Bush, it is hypocritical. I am not trying to argue against that. I am only just trying to say that a lot of republicans are doing the same things now.
You will find that Ron Paul, along with the 1 or 2 other 'libertarian' congressmen voted to go after bin laden in Afghanistan. We do understand the enemy. Like I told blogger, even if Iraq was such a threat...get in, blow it up, do what needs to be done and get out. Not this 8 year humanitarian mission costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

POV, it all is all too partisan. Anything that comes from the left is garbage, anything that comes from the right is golden. I don't understand it and I think somewhere it has to do with why we have kept re-electing so many awful politicians the last decade

Gregg said...

"Anything that comes from the left is garbage, anything that comes from the right is golden." - Matt

I get Matt's point and there is a kernel of truth to it but not much. The right DOES criticize their own. There was much that Bush did that angered the right. Harriet Meyers and the immigration bill were two Bush issues that were completely killed by the right. There was even much opposition to the war from the right including William F. Buckley. Conversely, Clinton got support from the right for Bosnia, welfare reform and other issues. There was overwhelming support for Ruth Bater Ginsburg and Breyer.

Who on the left is critical of anything Clinton or Obama did or does? Who on the left supported Bush? Oh yea, Liebermann. Look what his party did to him because of it.

R T Sender said...

Gregg, your comment about our voices matter has merit. Thanks for the optimism.

Blogger said...

Gregg you wrote the public option is now dead. I thought that also, but have been waiting for the other shoe to drop which it did on Morning Joe this morning. Howard Dean describes the double-crossing strategy Democrats plan.

The scam works like this. The House passes their public option bill. The Senate passes their bill without the public option. It goes to the joint committees to be reconciled. The House members push the bill with the public option out to be voted on by the Senate. The Democrats then use the Reconciliation (originally meant for only budget bills) process which only requires 50 votes and voila, they have their public option bill. Questionable procedure. But since when then that deter these b. . . . .ds?

Gregg said...

I'm still optimistic Blogger even though I'm now hearing waffling on eliminating the public option. The procedure you describe is much harder than plan A (ramming it through unread before the break). And boy oh boy how the dynamics have changed...because of us.

I read that James Carville says to drop the public option, label the Republicans as "the party of no" and run on it in 2010. This is funny because Democrats have the numbers but not the votes. Blame Republicans anyway.

They're scrambling. Trial balloons are being floated. One step forward two steps back. The message has become incoherent (removing the "death panel" language that "doesn't exist") and inconsistent (public option/no public option, mandated compliance/ no mandatory compliance which is it?). Public opinion is clear. Nationalized Health Care is not a feta compli.

guy faulkes said...

How about doing a basic civic course on here.
after reading Readers comments as well as Guys and other conservatives who want a police state and dislike democracy I think it's needed.

You side lost the election in a little more than three years you will get another chance.
Dick Cheney is no longer in charge, get use to it. - POV

This is going to be a long one. Consider yourself warned.

First of all, we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. There is a huge difference.

Secondly, I am far from in favor of a police state. I am firmly on the side of the individual as you could see by going back in the archives and reviewing my stance (and that of the Wolf) on the Patriot Act. I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I believe that laws should be obeyed until they are changed by one of the three boxes. The first box is the ballot box. The second box is the jury box. The third box which is only used as a last resort from governmental tyranny is the cartridge box. These three boxes represent the workings of our Constitution. As a matter of fact, if the Libertarians were cognizant on a greater extent of the need for a strong national defense in order to protect individual liberty, I would be Libertarian.

We do not have to wait three years to make Obama a lame duck President According to the trends of the polls, there will be a Republican landslide in 2010. After this, Mr. Obama will be powerless until 2012. This is assuming he survives this long without being impeached as is possible after an objective investigation of ACORN and other issues.

I can only hope that when the Republicans achieve their landslide, they elect true conservatives instead of liberal lite candidates that abandon their base.

As far as the debt clock goes, it should be an ongoing concern in every administration. Bush abandoned his base and allowed the growth of the size of the Federal government as bad as would have the liberal section of the Democratic party. He let it grow more than the conservative Democrats would have done.

Finally, I would like to make a comment about the conservative base. Sarah Palin is now a private citizen. She has no political office, yet she merely mentions the death panels contained in the health care bills on Facebook and supporters of the bills say these death panels will be removed from the bill. This took about a week. Apparently Ms. Palin has more power than any ten members of either party when it comes to influence on legislation issues.

Gregg said...

"Bush abandoned his base and allowed the growth of the size of the Federal government as bad as would have the liberal section of the Democratic party. He let it grow more than the conservative Democrats would have done." - Guy Faulkes

I hate to quibble with Guy because he's a very smart fellow but I could not disagree more with the assertion. I'm not speculating because we are now seeing how the liberals spend and it's no contest.

guy faulkes said...

Gregg, you are correct as to the degree that Bush allowed government to grow versus the Obama abomination. However, it was Bush's big government policies that allowed Obama to go into office along with the Republican candidate was McCain. McCain was so liberal, there was so little choice between the two in my eyes (and the eyes of many others) that no one would support him I did support Palin. (as did many others).

Also, I did not make my meaning clear, I was not talking about the far left whackos as the liberal side of the Democratic party. I was referring to the liberals that do not support socialism, etc. These people want about the same things we do. They just want to get there in a different (misguided) way. My apologies. There is no comparison between Bush and the far left whackos. They are inexcusable.

Gregg, you should have met my brother. He was a Democratic that made me look like Ted Kennedy. Being liberal or conservative does not necessarily have anything to do with party affiliation. My brother said the advantage of being a registered Democrat was that he got to vote against a lot of liberals twice in one election.

Anonymous said...

I used ”Credit Solution” to settle my debt and avoid bankruptcy. They managed to reduce my debt up to 58% and improve my credit score. It's legitimate . I came across this company on NBC News Special Edition. Check it out here:

Anonymous said...

Reagan and Bush Sr. spent money like mad and Clinton was running surpluses and paying the debt down. Bush Jr. spends like crazy again.

Here in Canada: Record deficits under the Conservatives in the late 1980's, Liberal surpluses in the 90's, and our current Conservative gov't has the biggest deficit ever and we're once again above the 500 billion mark. All the pain and suffering of spending cuts in the 90's wasted.

The right wing is populist and does whatever it can, and spends whatever it can, to remain in power for short term political gain. On both sides of the border we have wrecked the capacity of government to deal with the aging population due to the right wing pushing through tax cuts we can't afford. Just wait and see how bad the fiscal mess gets then.

The Canadian Liberals and the US Democrats have proven to be better fiscal stewards in recent years. The contrast between them and their right wing opponents cannot be more clear. How do you campaign on fiscal restraint and small government and turn around and spend more than the opponents you vilify? It is ridiculous. It is a lie.

It is political suicide to campaign against tax cuts, this always puts the left in a corner. However, with the looming fiscal crisis of the coming decades we cannot afford tax cuts in Canada or the USA. But it doesnt matter because the important thing is how you get elected today, forget about tomorrow. Thirty years from now taxes will be through the roof and I hope that the uneducated, religious loonies will be happy then.