Obama blames Bush for Obama’s 1.75 trillion dollar deficit

Full story over at Gateway Pundit.

Excerpt:

[Bush’s policies] dropped the deficit 4 of 8 years, held an average unemployment at 5.2%, saw the strongest productivity growth in 4 decades and witnessed robust GDP growth.

Bush was able to do this despite the recession he inherited, 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As you can see from this chart, after the Bush tax cuts were implemented the budget deficit was reduced 3 of the last 4 years.

The deficit was reduced in 2005, 2006 and 2007 even with war and implementation of the successful Bush surge of troops in Iraq.
It wasn’t until the mortgage crisis struck the economy, a crisis Bush warned the democratic Congress about 17 times in 2008 alone, that the deficit climbed to $459 billion.

Have you seen this chart? (Source: CBO chart via RedState)

Gateway Pundit also mentions that Bush warned about crisis 17 times in 2008 and was blocked from regulating the GSEs by the Democrats. I proved here that the Democrats are to blame for this mess. In the post, I cited 1999 and 2003 articles from the left-wing New York Times and Los Angeles Times. There are also videos of Republicans trying to stop the crisis and Democrats blocking them.

Bobby Jindal defends Rush Limbaugh against hostile Larry King

Hot Air has the video of Jindal kicking butt on Larry King Live. It’s more fun to watch when the left is angry and crazy.

Here’s Hot Air’s blurb about the video:

Bobby Jindal faced off against an unusually hostile Larry King last night over the Steele-Limbaugh contretemps. King kept trying to stuff words into Jindal’s mouth, and Jindal politely but firmly kept spitting them back at King.  King insists that Republicans want the country to fail when it’s clear that not even Rush says that.

CNN has the full transcript! Here’s the best part:

KING: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?

JINDAL: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about. And I think it is absolutely true that you can help people keep their jobs, help people afford their health care, help people afford their homes without abandoning the same conservative principles.  For example, Republicans offered ideas like aggressive tax credits to make homes more affordable so people can refinance, can stay in their homes. You’d see more demand for homes. They’ve offered ideas about — instead of nationalizing banks, why not modify the mark to market rules? …

KING: Do you want him to fail?

JINDAL: I want the — I don’t want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don’t want policies to be adopted that I think –

KING: But what if the… policies actually work?  What if they work?

JINDAL: This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don’t think it’s going work to borrow half a — to spend in excess of our revenues.  If you believed everything that the president — if you believed all of his projections, if you believe the economy starts growing again, you believe that we’re not going be spending all that money fighting overseas…if you believe that all of these temporary programs are truly temporary, he’s still projecting deficits of half a trillion dollars per year, under the best case scenario.  Larry, that’s just not sustainable. We cannot continue to do this as a country. China cannot become — continue to be our largest foreign holders of debt. This addiction to debt is what’s caused so many of our problems. The government is not going to be the answer to every problem.  I want my country to succeed. But what I worry about is that simply spending money on new programs — look at every new bailout. You know, you talked today, you know, about the auto bailouts. Then you had the fourth, I think it’s the fourth — it’s hard to keep track — the AIG bailout today. It seems like every time you turn around, there’s another trillion dollar trillion plan. … I’ve yet to hear a coherent exit plan.

KING: So you hope — you hope it doesn’t hurt?

JINDAL: No. I hope that failed policies don’t get adopted. I want my country to succeed. I want the economy to grow. I want — certainly I want the economy to grow again so people can afford their homes.  But I don’t want the Congress to adopt policies that would make the problem worse, not better. … I think it’s our — I think it’s our obligation as Americans when we don’t agree with a policy to speak up against it and to certainly offer different solutions.

Major breakthrough in adult stem-cell research

There are two kinds of stem-cell research. The first kind is called embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR). This kind is opposed by pro-lifers because it kills unborn persons by extracting their stem cells for use in medical research. The second kind is called adult stem-cell research (ASCR). This kind is supported by pro-lifers.

You may be surprised to know that ESCR doesn’t work as nearly as well as ASCR. Despite all the advocacy from left-wing Hollywood actors, ESCR has not helped a single patient. But ASCR in being used for 73 different kinds of therapies. According to the Family Research Council:

…adult stem cell research had an impressive track record as of 2006-over 1100 FDA approved clinical trials in the United States for 72 different illnesses and disabilities. 2007 has seen further advances in adult stem cell research and therapy. Currently, peer-reviewed studies have documented 73 different conditions in humans where patient health has been improved through adult stem cell therapy, and over 1400 FDA approved trials are ongoing.

Adult stem cells are found throughout the human body from birth onward, in placentas, and in umbilical cord blood. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, no embryos are destroyed in retrieving them.

…There have been no successful treatment trials in human beings using embryonic stem cells.

But there were still a couple of problems with ASCR as Telic Thoughts explains here:

In 2007 scientists found a way to induce pluripotency in adult somatic cells. There were just two problems. First, it was a slow process. Second, the cells were modified via a virus delivery system which increased the risk of cancerous mutation in the future.

Cancerous mutation? That sounds bad. But wait:

Yesterday the second problem was solved as it was announced that scientists had found a way to induce pluripotency similar to that of embryonic stem cells without the use of viral delivery systems.

And their post closes with this:

Last week the Obama administration promised to move soon to repeal the funding ban on embryonic stem cell research. It will be interesting to see if this monumental scientific breakthrough will alter Obama’s course of action.

That won’t happen. For more information about why pro-lifers oppose ESCR and support ASCR, here is a series of 3 Townhall.com articles written by Greg Koukl, (first, second, third). Greg is the founder of Stand to Reason, an apologetics ministry with a heavy emphasis on bioethics.

UPDATE: Video of Michele Bachmann opposing ESCR funding.

Democrat stock-picker Jim Cramer angry with Obama’s socialism

See this awesome post over at Nice Deb. She’s got the videos up showing democrat Jim Cramer complaining about the economic free-fall caused by Obama’s policies.

There are a lot of people in this country who do not know anything about economics, but they’ve been buying stocks based on hype generated by Obama-supporting Wall Street types.These gamblers (not investors) have not read Hayek or Sowell or Friedman. But they hope that Obama’s socialist policies will make the stock market go up.

According to Business Week, Cramer is a life-long Democrat. According to this article, he contributes to Democrats. I think it is interesting to note that it’s probably Democrats who are taking the most damage from the market right now, because they believe in Obammunism – they think that the market will rise as we go socialist.

Check out this video of Cramer being bullish on the Dow when it was around 14000 in the teeth of abysmal fundamentals, and then later denying that he was bullish.

And now Cramer is surprised that the party he supported is wrecking the economy. I hope he loses piles of money, and I hope everyone who voted for Obama loses everything. EVERYTHING.

Remember, Democrats caused this mess by forcing banks to make loans in order to achieve social justice for the benefit of other irresponsible Democrats who signed legal contracts with banks to purchase more house than they could afford. Many of these banks were being run by Democrats who got million-dollar bonuses while fudging the accounting and paying off Democrat lawmakers to block efforts by Bush to regulate them. Now the Democrat bankers are working for Obama.

The Democrats are voting in wasteful spending bill after wasteful spending bill, and none of this spending will help the economy one iota. And it’s not just socialist tax policy, it’s protectionist trade policy, too. And no matter how much Obama raises taxes on the productive class, we cannot afford to pay for this spending.

Democrats in general seem to believe that their socialism will make the economy grow faster. The falling stock market must be a real wake-up call to their ignorant faith in an ideology of feelings and intentions.

The fact that Obama’s policies are likely to cause inflation and/or stagflation means that the rest of us responsible people who have to pay for this crap will have the additional comfort of knowing that every dollar we saved after our hard work will be devalued when he has to print money to pay for his wasteful spending.

Report on Plantinga-Dennett debate

Free Mark Steyn linked to eight of my posts today, so I went over there to see what else he found. Canadian writer Deborah Gyapong linked to a debate play-by-play between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett.

First off, the audio of the debate is here.

Here is an excerpt from the play-by-play, which has drawn over 100 comments so far:

The debate was between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett. Plantinga is one of the founders of the Society of Christian Philosophers and one of the fathers of the current desecularization of philosophy. He is widely regarded – even by his critics – as one of the finest epistemologists of the last fifty years and one of the finest philosophers of religion since the Medieval period. Daniel Dennett is one of the New Atheists and is a well-known proponent of atheistic Darwinism and critic of religion. He is widely regarded – even by his critics – as one of the most important early philosophers of mind that opened the field to cognitive science and evolutionary biology. He has contributed enormously to the serious study of the mind and its relationship to the brain. Both philosophers are over sixty and perhaps at the height of their philosophical powers. They have also faced off before but, as far as I know, not in person.

It looks like Plantinga presented on his argument that rationality is incompatible with naturalism and evolution. I actually heard him present this paper live, and the phrase “the probability of R on N and E” is seared into my memory. Here is another excerpt:

Plantinga was the presenter. The session asked the question of whether science and religion were compatible. Plantinga argues that they are and that in fact the scientific theory taken to be most incompatible with religion – evolutionary theory – is not only compatible with Christian theism (the religious view Plantinga defends) but is incompatible with Christian theism’s most serious opponent in the scientific world – naturalism. Naturalism is the view that physics and the sciences can give a complete description of reality. Plantinga defines it as the view that there is no God or anything like God.

Here’s the conclusion of the play-by-play:

On another note, I walked around and listened to various conversations (not eavesdropping really, just listening for loud reactions to the session). The Christian philosophers were particularly interesting. They were not upset, surprised or even moved. They were wholly unphased. They were so unphased that they weren’t even discussing the session. I was floored at Dennett’s behavior but they reacted as if Dennett’s hateful, childish behavior was to be expected. I thought they would be upset, but from what I can tell they simply expected Dennett to compare theistic belief to holocaust denial and to advocate murdering the Almighty. I guess I was wrong to expect more from him.

In my estimation, Plantinga won hands down because Dennett savagely mocked Plantinga rather than taking him seriously. Plantinga focused on the argument, and Dennett engaged in ridicule. It is safe to say that Dennett only made himself look bad along with those few nasty naturalists that were snickering at Plantinga. The Christians engaged in no analogous behavior. More engagements like this will only expand the ranks of Christian philosophers and increase the pace of academic philosophy’s desecularization.

If you guys are into debates, I highly recommend William Lane Craig debates here. Plantinga doesn’t debate much, but there is this book-debate he did recently, that I haven’t checked out yet. Dennett debated twice before that I know of, first, against that wimpy microbiologist Alister McGrath as part of the Greer-Heard series here, and against Dinesh D’Souza here.

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: