German Magazine Says Obama 'Nice Guy Act' Is Failing on World Stage

NOTICE: it took Bush & Co. 8 YEARS to bury our country in 2 wars and a failing economy felt around the world, AND 9 months into BUSH'S presidency when 9/11 occured!
NOTE that it will take longer than 1 YEAR in office for President Obama to FIX everything BUSH & Co. BROKE.
Common sense folks...common sense!

It's so obvious he isn't fit to be president. Did we REALLY want America to be just like Chicago? What has Obama ever accomplished to make us think he could handle the toughest job in the world? Things are far worse than even I thought they would be, only one year into this little "progressive" experiment.

Obama needs no teleprompter: his record speaks for itself. One term and out.

I have been saying the same thing for MONTHS.

China is now publically upset that the Dollar is being devalued by Nobama; Essentially, they do NOT want to be paid-off in worthless, devalued dollars; think in terms of $800 Billion! What really sucks is that the G20 and G8 publically chastised Obama for his 5.5 percent of GDP, $3.3 Trillion national budget as openly inflationary, i.e., printing money was and is NOT the solution to preventing a recession or climbing out of one, nor does it stimulate job growth. In fact, Nobama was told that his give-away would cause global inflation of commodities, i.e., Gold, Oil, Corn, etc.. AND, guess what? It has!!!

The global community is NOT happy with Nobama!

Holistically, I am just so tired of the bumbling, inexperienced moron dragging the country down the toilet! His healthcare crap will pile more debt on us, do little good, and will not truly reform healthcare. Even more sadly, the current healthcare bill will literally provide RATIONED healthcare, the bill will destroy Medicare, and head the US to a financial ruin with a massive, unpayable deficit!

The rest of the world knows what a failure Marxism has been, and they don't trust Obama's overly feminine approach to foreign relations. He is not only not respected, he isn't trusted.

Germany and China have both recently warned Obama that his spending is dangerous. Perhaps because these two countries have been the victims of megalomaniacal narcissists who believed in radical ideologies, they see something in Obama that worries them. I know I do.

To put it in perspective: China and Germany, two of our biggest economic rivals, are more concerned about preserving our capitalism and democracy than Obama.

carl22grant
4:35PM Nov 23rd 200

Who can blame China for its concern over the declining U.S. dollar/ Even the liberal New York Times is forecasting a "Debt Shock"

"The national debt now stands at over $12 trillion and the White House estimates that the cost of servicing the debt will rise to more than $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year. The Times suggests that $700 billion annual payment cost may be conservative.

The additional $500 billion a year in interest payments would surpass the combined budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security, plus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Times observes.

Treasury officials face not only huge new debts incurred in response to the economic meltdown but a balloon of short-term borrowings coming due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are certain to return to normal levels when the Federal Reserve concludes that the fiscal emergency has passed.

"Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today's low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages," The Times reported on Monday.'


Meanwhile. Obama is pushing to increase the national debt through his health care deform plan and to export more American jobs through his Cap and Tax program. He couldn't do more harm to this country if he were an admitted terrorist.

His "Community Organizer" skills seem to be fizzling....

Obama is ineffective in all regards. Obama is nothing more than a puppet for the liberal lunatics who run the White House.

I'm so glad that you have something to blame Bush for, as for your surplus that Clinton left, think again.Clinton changed his tune only after a failed first few years and he was afraid with his policies he would be a one term president, just like Jimmy Carter, so he changed to the middle. The democrats took control of Washinton DC TWO years before Bushes term ended and see where it has gotten us, they voted for the bailout so you can't blame Bush for that one. And lets not forget if Clinton would have done his job after the FIRST WTC bombing and not ignored it we would not have had the 2nd one. Now we are back to the same thing as of 9/10, lets bow before all leaders, telling them america selfish and just plain bad, and hope that they will like us. NOT.

Piano, before posting I suggest you do a little research so you don't sound like you have gotten all your political knowledge from bumper stickers. Clinton did not leave a surplus. The deficit/surplus is a baseline measurement. It is a snapshot of the government's current income and expenditure at any given moment in time, and it is made on the assumption that if things continue unchanged for a period of years that the outcome will be a plus or a minus. While the computer revolution was booming and wealth was pouring into the country Clinton just happened to be the one sitting in the oval office. When the computer boom hit it's saturation point, as all booms do, the numbers changed. The surplus became a deficit for bookkeeping purposes only. It had nothing to do with how much money was or was not in government coffers at any given moment.

DEMOCRATS ON THE SUBJECT OF IRAQ AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION




The democrats had no trouble telling the world that Iraq had WMD as follows:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002..............

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002............


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998..................

""Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.................

the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998..................

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998...............

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998......................

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998................

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.............

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998................

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.............

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. ..............

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.................

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002................

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002..............

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. ................

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. ................

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 ...................

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002................

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002..................

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.....................

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.....................

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002................

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)

amercit
3:23PM Oct 24th 2009
This administration , no matter what the issue, they will never do whats best for the troops , or whats best for the country, or the peoples will. THEY WILL MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEIR PARTY.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)

The real facts, not the liberals bs.ROY S. MALLMANN
4:46PM Oct 10th 2009
When I went to college I got a “D” in economics but after what I have seen in the last year or two, I am quite proud in that if what has happened was put in place by the “A” students, even I can do better. First of all everything that happened to create and further expand this financial crisis, should have been seen and regulated by THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, as they are the ONLY part of the government of THE UNITED STATES that has the authority to regulate financial dealings of this country. Not a single dime can be raised in taxes, fees, tariffs, etc. without their express authority nor can any monies be spent without their authority. They and they alone are responsible for not regulating the sub-prime loans and the markets that developed as a result of them. It amazes me that learned adults in the media and in this administration still blame the Bush Administration for the financial mess. It is a lie, plain and simple and the Congress wants you to believe it so they don’t have to take the blame.
One of the basic tenets of credit is that you do not loan money to an individual or business for all that matter unless you satisfy three things. 1. You must provide proof of stable income, giving you the ability to pay back the loan. This is you must have a stable job with proof that you will be employed in that job for at least the term of the loan or mortgage. You must prove your income by tax returns or payroll stubs. 2. You must demonstrate that you have a good credit history, showing that you have used credit in the past and have repaid loans on time as agreed. You demonstrate that you “keep your word”. 3. You have to make a down payment on the loan or mortgage so you have something to lose if the loan goes bad for any reason. You usually have to put 10% down so the lender has a cushion in case the loan goes bad and he has to repossess. This way it improves the lender’s ability to break even and it makes sure the borrower won’t arbitrarily default on the loan. This has been the way credit has been handled all over the world for the last hundred years at least.
Then along comes President Jimmy Carter in 1977 who signed the COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT REINVESTMENT ACT into law to help provide affordable housing to low income people who couldn’t meet the traditional loan requirements of the last 100 years. (ADMIRABLE IDEA…RIGHT?) Then in 1995, President Bill Clinton strengthened the COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT, with the approval of THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Clinton and his Democratic friends Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and Barack Obama worked on the credit rules to do away with the income requirement that had to be proven, eliminated the down payment, and ended the credit requirements. All three then went to the banks and threatened them with lawsuits (Obama filed three lawsuits against Citibank.) and demonstrations, and boycotts, in poor neighborhoods if they didn’t make these loans. Barney Frank even admonished them “you have nothing to lose as they are government guaranteed”. Again, his exact words, not mine. The guarantee part was the loans were bought by FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, government sponsored entities staffed by Democratic Party friends of Bill Clinton, such as Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson Jamie Gorelick and RAHM EMMANUAL, who is now Obama’s chief of staff and number one advisor. These executives paid THEMSELVES $200,000,000.00 in only six months time. FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC also paid Cristopher Dodd (D-CT), Barack Obama (D-IL) and John Kerry (D-MA) some $360,000.00. Did any of this come out in the media during the Presidential Campaign? The Democratic Party controlled THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES since January 2006. FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC spent $150 million dollars in lobbying in ten years to keep the Republicans and media away from them.
Now the stage was set for the feeding frenzy that drove THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to the brink of bankruptcy.
SO HOW IS THIS bUSH'S FAULT?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (5)

Barack had full knowedge of what was ahead, and still wanted the job.... So stop the excuses, because they are like a@@holes, and everyone has one and they all stink including your Butt... thank you

Seriiously??? you would blame bush for everything that happened during his administration but it is not fair to blame Nobama for anyting that happens during his?? Also I see where you are coming from with the Republicans not offering any good ideas to the problems we face today but then again Whate exactly did the Democrats offer while the last administration was failing? Why is it that the Democrats are allowed to have a double standard for everyting? And nothing that they did wrong before Bush that he inherited counts??? Granted Bush was a questionable manager but did he really create all of this all by himself? Don't think so- Both parties have had equal participation in all that is wrong. Also when you do nothing as a president you will most likely have a surplus. I guess that is how Democrats measure success - by doing nothing!