U.S. Economy Grows for the First Time in a Year

Angela,

Please stand up because i can hear your chair screaming to be saved from here.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Lefties play fast and loss with the facts. It means they lie all the time. Presidents cannot spend any money or bail out Wall Street. Only congress can do that.

Paulson's 3 page plan was buy toxic Collateralized Mortgage Backed Obligations. The Democratic congress told Paulson, since he was a Republican appointee, to shove it - they were in charge and know better than you do. They then wrote their own 450 page Wall Street Bailout bill. where no toxic CMBO's were ever Paulson's Plan) were ever bought and instead decided to force Wall Street to take government loans in return for stock warrants - in effect nationalizing them. No conservative would ever do that. Progressive Socialists and Marxists nationalize private industries - It is their trademark.

As you can see, the facts are that Bush had nothing to do with bailing out wall street nor did Paulson. The democrats used the financial crisis created byn them on their watch after they took over congress in November 2006, to bail out Wall Street. Why? Because Wall Street is located in one of the most Democratic parts of the USA and Wall Street had given the Democrats millions of dollars in campaign contributions to get them all elected. They just wanted to get paid back and saved by those that they had previously bought and paid for. The Democrats in congress were just saving their own crooks and nationalizing them like good little Marxists do.

Those are the facts.

Then provide a link.

Something else they miss is that America has always been in debt. The amount of the debt varies, but we've always owed money to some one. The biggest question is what do we get for our debt? If we're beating the Nazis and ending the great depression then I think 24% of GDP debt is worthwhile. If on the other hand trying to use welfare to end poverty without effectively eliminating the causes of poverty is a waste even when the deficit is only 5% of the GDP.

Nonsense. Government deficit spending never got us out of any recession much less a depression. The only thing that government deficit spending does is put you so far in debt you can never ever get out if it without defaulting on it. No. Keynesian Economics did not get us out of the Great Depression. That is a bald faced lie. We were farther in a depression in 1939 than we were in 1931 because of Keynesian Economics. What got us out of the Depression was that England and France finally went to war with Hitler in September 1939. America immediately became the producer of war materials for them which started putting America back to work.

With an Estimated $23 Trillion in on book national Debt (Which has doubled since the Socialist Democrats used Keynesian Economics to double it since November 2006), the off book $38 trillion in unfunded Medicare benefits and $17 trillion in unfunded Social Security unfunded benefits that the Socialist Democrats created with those Ponzi Schemes, we are now $78 trillion in on book and off debt thanks to the whack jobs that think Keynesian Deficit spending is the cats meow. That's over $560,000 in debt for every American that still pays income taxes.

If we start paying the debt off at $1 billion a day (fat chance), assume there is no interest on this debt (more fat chance) and that these whack jobs won't spend one more dime in deficit Keynesian spending (bigger fat chance) - it will take us over 214 years to pay if the debt they have already run up. With interest it will take 750 years. More realistic the way they are spending - 1,500 years. In short the already broke US taxpayer if bankrupt - plain and simple.

Instead they will devalue the dollar to pay off the debt with worthless currency or just default on it. ACORN lefties have no problem walking away from debt they cannot pay back - ever heard of sub prime loans that caused the real problem in the first place?

Buy gold and other hard assets like copper, steel and oil. Lefty whack jobs and Keynesian deficit spenders are insane.

PUNDIT - READ IT AND LAUGH YOUR BUTT OFF

Thursday, Oct 29, 2009 12:45 PDT
Judge dismisses Taitz, Keyes' biggest Birther suit
In a comprehensive, respectful but damning opinion, a federal court puts an end to the Birthers' best hope
By Alex Koppelman
The Birthers' last, best hope -- a case brought by Orly Taitz on behalf of Alan Keyes, among many others -- has failed. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge David Carter issued a ruling in which he dismissed the case, which had been ongoing since the day of President Obama's inauguration.

The ruling, which can be read in PDF form here, is pretty striking. Taitz's followers had always thought of Carter as the judge most sympathetic to their claims, and though they'll undoubtedly turn on him now, the Clinton appointee's order shows how important he thought it to give the Birthers' claims a fair hearing -- not because he's anything approaching a Birther himself, but because he takes his job seriously. Though the opinion is ultimately devastating to Taitz's legal arguments, and Carter did take the rather unusual step of directly addressing the attorney's conduct, it's also respectful, thoughtful and serious.

Continue Reading
If Taitz and the rest of the Birthers had any chance in court, it was with this case, because of Keyes' inclusion, as well as the presence of two other minor candidates from last fall. Not only did he run against Obama in the Illinois Senate race of 2004, but he also mounted a third-party presidential campaign last year. For this reason, he had an outside shot at showing that he had been personally affected, a key issue in proving standing, which is necessary for a court to take up a case. The U.S. Attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Obama, had said that because Keyes had no shot at victory, he couldn't prove standing. (This prompted a moment of levity from Carter, who noted of those who'd voted for Keyes and the other candidates, "The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter.")

The judge was obviously disturbed by this defense, and he worried about a slippery slope, asking if the argument would have applied to Ross Perot. But, still, he did not find that Keyes and his fellow plaintiffs had standing, because they could not prove "redressability" -- that is, they couldn't show that the court had the power, under the Constitution, to do anything about the wrongs they alleged. This led to one of the more compelling parts of the opinion, an argument about the Constitution itself, and what the Birthers fail to understand about it even as they claim to be its only defenders:


The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders ....

Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People” -- over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.


As I've noted before, no court decision like this will be enough to kill the Birthers, or the myths about Obama's birthplace that they've been spreading. No conspiracy theory dies that easily, and given that one quarter of Republicans don't believe the president's even a U.S. citizen, we should expect that the Birthers will rise from the dead in time for the 2012 election.

But this may be the final blow that ends Taitz's leadership in the movement. Other leaders had already grown disillusioned with her, and skeptical of her prowess as a lawyer. The end of Carter's opinion won't help her on that score:


The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel ... to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel ....

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.

Pundit
4:41PM Oct 29th 2009

There you go again...confusing the issue with facts.