Barack Obama

Obama: Fiscal Situation "Untenable"

|

You don't say, Mr. President.

I realize that we're facing an untenable fiscal situation. There was a $1.3 trillion deficit staring at me when I took office, and although the economic crisis and the steps we took to stop the freefall temporarily added to our fiscal challenges, it's clear that we're going to have to get serious about the deficit.

And that's why I've proposed a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. That's why I've launched a bipartisan deficit reduction commission, which will be reporting in a few months.

Keen government observers and other Jane's Addiction fans know what's coming next: The big "but":

What I won't do is cut back on investments like education that are directly related to our long-term economic performance. Now is not the time to sacrifice our competitive edge in the global economy.

A-ha. Because nothing says "competitive edge" like "doubling spending while failing to improve results."

Note what the news reports probaly won't, that A) this was a meeting of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, B) the first 10 paragraphs of his remarks were about "maintain[ing] our commitment to education," particularly strengthening community colleges, and C) there was zero discussion, in the long ensuing Q&A with the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, about concretely addressing this "untenable fiscal situation." There was tons of talk about home weatherization, though.

The closest the discussion came was when Obama asked Martin Feldstein, who the president described as being "obviously concerned about our long-term fiscal outlook," to comment on "cost-effective" ways "we can boost aggregate demand" while also reducing "uncertainty, whether it's legislative, health care, financial regulatory reform, or taxes." Here's Feldstein's answer:

MR. FELDSTEIN: […] Yes, you're right, I am very concerned about the size of the out-year fiscal deficits. And I would emphasize that the size of the aggregate demand problem is massive. We're talking about a GDP shortfall of about a trillion dollars, annual rate of a trillion dollars. That's the size of the gap between the GDP today and what it would be if we were operating at full employment. And that's why we have about a 10 percent unemployment rate.

So what can be done? Well, I think one thing—I have thoughts about three things. First, fixing the housing markets, the residential housing markets.  With the end of the first-time homebuyer credit, I think we're beginning to see house prices coming down again. I think that's likely to accumulate more falls in house prices. That will cut consumer spending. And it makes it harder for people to move from where they are to where the jobs are.

The administration's policies, as you know, have focused on helping people who are having a hard time meeting their monthly payments, on mortgage modifications that cut the monthly payments, but they don't deal with the major problem of individuals who are underwater in their mortgages, who owe more on their mortgages than the house is worth, and that's about 30 percent of all of the people who have mortgages. They owe more and the average ratio of their debt to the value of their home is about 130 percent. So it's not surprising that we're seeing increasing volumes of foreclosures and defaults, and that can only get worse if house prices fall. So I think an expanded, aggressive strategy to deal with principal modification is really necessary.

The second thing is helping businesses get loans so they can expand their hiring and expand their business, helping small businesses in particular. And the key there as I see it is that local banks are cutting back on their willingness to lend because of their expected losses on commercial real estate. Congress recently passed your plan to use $30 billion of TARP money to inject capital. It remains to be seen how much the small banks are going to be willing to take up some of those funds, but I think more can be done.

In particular, what I think could be done is to allow the small banks that sell impaired loans to the public-private investment partnership or to others, to amortize the resulting losses of capital over several years—say, five years—so that if they sell off an impaired loan that cuts their capital, instead of being forced to cut back on their lending, they would have a period of time over which to do it.

And the third thing deals with the tax rates. As you know, I think that the current tax rates should be continued for two years for everybody, but with no legislative commitment after that. I think the two-year extension would help to keep demand alive at a time when the economy is weak, and the notion that it would not continue after that would take some $2 trillion off the size of the national debt at the end of the decade.  And that would give a boost to confidence that the administration is really focusing on bringing down the out-year fiscal deficit.

So I think all three of those can help to move in the right direction and they do so without increasing the fiscal deficit.

There you have it. The 47 smartest economists around the president of the United States agree that the best way to solve the "untenable fiscal situation" is to boost education spending, weatherize homes, throw more bad money after bad in the housing market, more bad money after bad in the Small Business Administration, and maybe (though only over the president's dead body) freeze all taxes for two years. That oughtta tenabilize it.

NEXT: Trickle Down Surveillance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Great plan from the brilliant idiots in government – throw more money into what doesn’t work. Brilliant!

    1. Throw education at the deficit! If The Nation’s Children? are smarter, they’ll start spending less of The People’s Money?.

    2. Whenever you read that another economic “expert” has advised the president on what to do for the economy, their answer always comes down to just a question of how much more tax-payer money can be used to “stimulate” the economy.

      You never hear anyone say “Well, you know the stimulus hasn’t really worked, the housing market continues to slump despite the tax credit, and GM is looking just as bad as everyone said they would before the bailout. Maybe we should try something other than just spending more money?”

      You never hear this. Ever. Come November (hopefully) you will.

  2. I look back on Marty fondly from my college days as the person who first exposed me to “real” economics as opposed to bullshit political paeans.

    But shit, he’s really gone off the deep end if he still thinks (at least part) of the solution to this is to prop up house prices.

    The solution to fixing the economy is to just get government out of the fucking way: lower taxes and less red tape for businesses and let them grow, which seems to be what he (mostly) says on his other two points.

    How is propping up housing consistent with that? In fact, how does propping up relatively illiquid assets like housing improve aggregate demand at all? Maybe 5 years ago when everyone and anyone could snag a home equity loan, but how does that get people to spend money now, which seems to be the problem he wants to fix? Even if we prop up housing prices, that’s not money in the owner’s pocket that he can go burn at Walmart.

    Truth be told, our problems these days with the economy are not actually economic, they’re political. The bad economic stuff is just a symptom of the bad political stuff and the politicians are just hiding behind the economists.

    1. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I am especially galled by this part.

      With the end of the first-time homebuyer credit, I think we’re beginning to see house prices coming down again. I think that’s likely to accumulate more falls in house prices. That will cut consumer spending

      Since when do lower prices cause people to spend less? People who currently own homes aren’t making money on their houses. Conversely, people who have money and want to buy a house will more able to do so if prices go down.

      Besides, the function of pricing is to communicate relative supply and demand. If the government props up housing prices, it will signal to the market that there is greater demand and more houses will continue to be built thus further saturating the market.

      We spent nearly two hundred years without any major government involvement in residential housing and then 20 years after the government gets involved we have an economic implosion. Why the hell is the answer, “the government needs to do even more?”

      We treat the state like a kindergartener, as long as they “try their best” we always seem willing to give it another chance.

      1. Since when do lower prices cause people to spend less? People who currently own homes aren’t making money on their houses.

        The memo said that everyone’s supposed to take out a HELOC against any remaining equity, and use it to buy Escalades. Keep up with us here.

      2. “We spent nearly two hundred years without any major government involvement in residential housing and then 20 years after the government gets involved we have an economic implosion.”

        This has been going on for much longer than 20 years. Congress has been meddling in the home construction industry since well before the National Housing Act (1934) – arguably back to the 1800s.

      3. I am against any further government interference in the housing market–it never should have happened in the first place–but he has a point. With interest rates so low everyone would refinance and get a lower monthly payment, which means more disposable income. But they can’t because so many of them are underwater. I’m not surprised so many people are “strategically defaulting” and walking away from underwater mortgages. More people should. It would allow housing prices to find their real floor, and free up a huge amount of disposable income which would help the economy.

        1. Forgot to add that another drain on the economy is people who are unable to move to where the jobs are, because they are underwater and can’t sell.

          1. You can still sell when you’re underwater.

            1. If you sell and move, you end up paying for rent/mortgage at the new location plus paying off the remainder of the loan for the old house. I doubt many people can afford two payments.

    2. While I am in full agreement about the “getting Big Brother off our backs” strategy to politics, your comment is filled with a willful ignorance about what cause the recession in the first place.

      We are in a recession because a major part of our financial and industrial sectors were built (no pun intended) on the housing market. Look at unemployment figures across the country by sector and I guarantee that in most states the sector with the highest unemployment rate is the construction – and more specifically housing construction – industry.

      So humor me for a moment. Let’s say you are not a fan limited government economics and you are a “nudger” or a Keynesian. If the President asked you what you thought would be the best way to stimulate consumer demand in the economy or add jobs without dramatically increasing the long-term debt outlook, what would you do? Truth is: I would start and end in the housing market.

      I agree that it was the Feds who primarily created the housing bubble. I also agree that they should stay the F out and stop screwing with markets. But I’m also saying that if I wasn’t me and if I wanted to wash the President’s balls, I would focus solely on the real estate market with my economic ideas.

      1. Re: Matt C,

        We are in a recession because a major part of our financial and industrial sectors were built (no pun intended) on the housing market.

        That’s only a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. You could have had a bubble in tulip growing for all economics could care.

        But I’m also saying that if I wasn’t me and if I wanted to wash the President’s balls, I would focus solely on the real estate market with my economic ideas.

        That would make you a very lousy and one-dimensional economist. I understand what you’re saying, but one cannot let these mountebanks off the hook just like that.

        1. +1 for use of word “mountebanks”.

    3. Maybe… just maybe… Martin Feldstein knows a little bit more than you do. He’s not talking about “propping up housing.” He’s talking about principal reduction. He’s talking about making the banks (and investors in them) take part of the hit – not just the person who bought the house.

      This is not meant to attack you West Texas Boy – I see it all the time here. Random anonymous posters at a libertarian blog assume they know more than an economist of Feldstein’s caliber and achievement. Sometimes, it’s just not true. Sometimes the famous guy really is smarter, or knows more, than you.

      1. If “what he knows” is that confiscating money from investors to give to deadbeats because “there’s lots more deadbeats than investors”, well, then I’m glad I’m too dumb to take in such wisdom.

        Let’s make it simple. Confiscating money from taxpayers to give to a subset of the population is not the way to stimulate the economy. Confiscating money from bond holders to give to a subset of the population is not the way to stimulate the economy. Redistributing wealth simply redistributes wealth – it does not create wealth. Business working to increase productivity creates wealth. Creating desirable new products and services at attractive prices creates wealth.

        No amount of credentials behind your name can change that simple truth. No blue ribbon on your panel will alter the reality of what people will do in response to their perception of opportunity, risk and cost.

        1. “Let’s make it simple. Confiscating money from taxpayers to give to a subset of the population is not the way to stimulate the economy”

          Not to mention being grossly unfair.

          What the government is doing with all this stuff is punishing the responsible and rewarding the irresponsible.

          People who have been prudent to live within their means, save and invest their money are being given the shaft to prop up those who foolishly borrowed and spent too much or speculated on house flipping, etc.

          The federal reserve is in on it too, pushing down interest rates to bail out borrowers and give savers the shaft.

          And they all want to insult our intelligence by telling us that it is in our interest to be bailing these people out.

      2. And sometimes they don’t. Especially in the area of economics. Ask 10 economists the same question and you’ll likely to get 11 differant answers.

      3. I like it…maybe they could also go back to the prior seller for the money…”OK, I know I paid you $150,000 for your house 4 years ago, but now it’s only worth $120,000. I’m going to need the $30,000 back that you gouged me on the sale.”

      4. He’s talking about principal reduction. He’s talking about making the banks (and investors in them) take part of the hit – not just the person who bought the house.

        The problem with that is principal cramdowns, or whatever you want to call it, with the sheer volume of underwater mortgages that are out there now, is going to cause a rise in interest rates to levels we haven’t seen since the 1990’s.

        I’ve got nothing agaisnt interest rates rising, interest rates are merely a price. But the one entity (or is it 51 entities) that don’t want to see borrowing costs rise is government.

        In other words, principal reduction has to go hand-in-hand with government debt repudiation. That may the only way out, but it is going to make for nasty and perhaps violent politics.

  3. If I have this right, the government wants to educate the next generation of window installers while lending to weatherization businesses the better to insulate foreclosed houses.

    I had no idea the nation’s caulk barrons held such sway in Washington.

    1. I had no idea the nation’s caulk barrons held such sway in Washington.

      Winner.

      Katherine

    2. I think you mis-spelled “cock”, there, PM.

  4. I guess the strategy is that we give first-rate world-class education to kids who will be unable to find jobs in the United States. So they will go overseas, and when enough are working overseas because they cannot find work in the US, we can pull an Albania and annex those countries in which American expatriates make up an important chunk of population.

    Well . . . it worked for the Soviet Union, didn’t it? Didn’t it?

    1. Ticos cannot keep a president for more than 2 years, let’s start there.

  5. I think that’s likely to accumulate more falls in house prices. That will cut consumer spending. And it makes it harder for people to move from where they are to where the jobs are.

    Yes, because everyone knows that’s what drives this economy: people overleveraging themselves to buy expensive homes and moving to new jobs.

    My sympathies to the Feldstein family as they struggle with his recent onset of dementia.

  6. I think an expanded, aggressive strategy … is really necessary. … I think more can be done.

    Top. Men.

    Until these clowns are willing to implement specific draconian measures — e.g., Karl Denninger’s plan — we are … say, where *is* Warren?

    1. And here I thought I was the only one here who read Denninger.

  7. Won;t our newly immobile, underwater mortgage society thereby reduce it’s contribution to global warm, er, climate change?

    1. It’s “climate disruption” now.

      Give it a few more years and they’ll be calling it “climate contretemps.”

  8. “The 47 smartest economists around the president of the United States”

    They may be smart. But they have insulated themselves from reality to such a degree that their can no longer be trusted. These people do nothing but talk to other people like them. This cocoon has slowly detached itself from reality to where now the obvious and common sense solution of cutting spending is considered unthinkable. Our ruling classes have gone insane.

    1. Actually I was admiring their gift of gab. If I had not taken economics in college, I would say that “those guys sound like they know what they are talking about”.

      So they should be careful when prescribing more education, it will undermine their ability to pull this crap in the future…

      1. They want more schooling, not more education. Big difference. Education means a smarter populace, schooling means a jobs program that makes the population stupider.

  9. What I won’t do is cut back on investments like education that are directly related to our long-term economic performance. Now is not the time to sacrifice our competitive edge in the global economy.

    Translation:

    “Gentlemen, we’re going to Mars!”

  10. “What I won’t do is cut back on investments like education that are directly related to our long-term economic performance. Now is not the time to sacrifice our competitive edge in the global economy.”

    Gee, I wonder how the United States managed to become the worlds leading economic power long before the federal department of education was ever created?

  11. Dramatically cut spending. Pay down the debt. Reduce the personal and corporate tax burden (more so once the debt gets reduced to a reasonable level).

    Boom.

    1. Boom is right. Your first two proposals would send us into a deep depression, not just a double dip recession. Of course, your third proposal is fine. Hopefully you do see how it contradicts the first two though (it would tend to increase the debt level)?

      1. I meant the word dramatically above. Enough to allow money to go to both of the other areas.

        We’d feel the effects if government stopped spending so much, but a large percentage of government spending is waste and internalized to government. If a good percentage of that went back to the private sector, I think the economic effects of that would completely overcome any downward movement caused by government spending less.

        In any case, if it created another recession, what would come out of it would be a definite and almost certainly huge boom. A legitimate one, not another bubble. And, of course, by getting our fiscal house in order, we can stop our creditors from fearing our default, and we can also avoid the looming possibility of high inflation.

      2. So if we fired everybody who works in the Department of Education, Labor, Energy, and Agriculture, and stopped being the worlds policeman, that would trigger a “deep depression”?

        Fuck GDP. There is a sign error on the “G” component, so maximizing it isn’t an axiomatic goal in my system.

  12. The religious doctrine of Keynesianism lives! The true believers will never give up & the infidels will be defeated.

    Our doctrine of massive government spending shall not perish for the face of the earth.

  13. as a small business owner, I dont need the banks to loan me $$$ on looser terms, I NEED CUSTOMERS WHO ARE CONFIDENT ENOUGH IN THE ECONOMY TO SPEND THIER MONEYS(if they even have money left)What good is it as a business to get a loan to hire more employees, if we dont have the customers to support the business to pay back our loans???……….no wonder the govt is in debt,its run by retarded ass monkeys

  14. Dont blame us, we are “over-qualified” for government work

  15. The 47 smartest economists around the president of the United States agree that the best way to solve the “untenable fiscal situation” is to boost education spending, weatherize homes, throw more bad money after bad in the housing market, more bad money after bad in the Small Business Administration, and maybe (though only over the president’s dead body) freeze all taxes for two years.

    The “dumber” ones just prescribe to reign in spending and taxes… So dumb they are… Right???

  16. There you have it. The 47 smartest economists around the president of the United States agree that the best way to solve the “untenable fiscal situation” is to boost education spending, weatherize homes, throw more bad money after bad in the housing market, more bad money after bad in the Small Business Administration,

    Brilliant! I will drain the kids college fund today and build a completely weatherized house so I can sell it for less than it cost to build when the kids graduate HS, that way I can send them to college with the money I lost.

    1. you need not worry about college fin. aid, didnt the govt take that over??

  17. Start by cutting military spending instead. A 20% cut should do the trick.

  18. 1. Under the existing Bush tax cut for lavish bonus parties, a sole job plan for the republicans, the country already saw millions of job cuts.

    2. By contrast, Dems favor extension of tax breaks for middle class, the symbol of advanced countries.

  19. “There was a $1.3 trillion deficit staring at me when I took office…”

    actually, there was a 720 billion dollar deficit, had he left govt spending alone.

    he incresed federal spending by 445 billion, over 14%, taking us into the trillion category.

    there was no trillion dollar deficits for 2010 or 2011, until he ‘got us out of the ditch’.

  20. “There was a $1.3 trillion deficit staring at me when I took office…”

    I still can’t figure out why he is never challenged on this grade-A hooey.

    Bush deserves a healthy share of blame for giving in to his advisers and signing on to TARP (although I’m pretty sure it was going to be veto-proof had he not committed to it), and for the wars in Iraq and elsewhere he is on the hook. But then-Senator Obama wanted an even bigger TARP, complete with loads of special bonuses for his Acorn and “activist” friends. He didn’t vote against TARP as a Senator, and once in office as President proceeded with the “Stimulus”/ public employee union bailout nonsense.

    I’m not sure what’s worse: Obama’s gall to blame all these deficits on everybody else in Washington but himself, or the fact that press just sits there and nods their collective heads in agreement, doing all they can to not faint from his brilliance.

  21. I’m thinking that mass executions on the left side of the isle are not only in order, but mandatory for the nations recovery. Just figuratively of course!

  22. I’m thinking that mass executions on the left side of the isle are not only in order, but mandatory for the nations recovery. Just figuratively of course!

  23. If this is what you support then vote Democratic.

    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=32904

  24. Obama and his Chicago boys are still guffawing over how all the chumps in the media reported this one with a straight face. Hey, it’s a just another reason why running a gangster government is nothing but laughs for the Obama crew in the White House.
    TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT?..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets?..Stop Obama’s Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security,Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.THE COMMANDER.
    OBAMA goes about his business by speaking the lie. II Thessalonians 2 says that he comes “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness.” Revelation 13:12 says, “and he spoke as a dragon….” Revelation 17 tells us that he was a false prophet, a prophet being one whose calling it is to speak and to teach. The armies of the world may have guns and tanks and bombs to bring people into submission; but the power of speech and ideas is a mighty power. In his initial attempts to destroy the cause of God Obama used a serpent to deceive the woman with crooked speech: “You will be like God.” Now he uses a “dragon” who speaks crafty, lying words. His speeches will be heard by millions who will hang on his persuasive rhetoric. The content as well as the form of his speech will attract. Like most false prophets, he will even be sincere and passionate. But he is a liar. He adds dashes of truth to the mix, so that his lie tastes like truth. He will use all the right catchwords, using the language of the church, even throwing in a Bible text or two. But he is the ultimate Liar, and will deceive many.
    OBAMA will use every tool available: school teachers, politicians, news broadcasters, artists, musicians, scientists and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. All will be pressed into the service of OBAMA to deceive men. But especially he will use those whose calling it is to persuade and to teach — men who claim to be preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    THE COMMANDER,,, REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE .. THE END OF AMERICA .If one asks what he should look for in the days to come, I say this: there will be political union all nations will be gathered together into one mighty empire. This is the first of obama. There will also be religious union, joining all the religions and religious empires of the world. The powerful ecumenical movement of today, led by the religions of Christianity, will in the end fully succeed, swallowing up all the other religions of the world. You may expect to see one man over it all. obama. The Commander

  25. THE END OF AMERICA———Obama and his Chicago boys are still guffawing over how all the chumps in the media reported this one with a straight face. Hey, it’s a just another reason why running a gangster government is nothing but laughs for the Obama crew in the White House.

    OBAMA THE DESTROYER
    OBAMA IS LIKE A DESTRUCTIVE CHILD WHO TAKES APART A WATCH AND THEN CAN’T PUT IT BACK TOGETHER AGAIN. HE HAS TAKEN APART THE CAR INDUSTRY, PLACING IT UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL. HE IS DISMANTLING THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, REPLACING IT WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. AND TODAY, HE STARTED DESTROYING OUR MILITARY BY SIGNING AN INSANE NUCLEAR TREATY WITH RUSSIA.

    THIS TREATY, THE WORK OF THE MENTALLY DISORDERED LEFT, WILL MEAN A 30% REDUCTION IN OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL AND A STEEP REDUCTION IN OUR SUBMARINES AND STRATEGIC BOMBERS. THAT’S ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT OBAMA HAS ALREADY SLASHED THE DEFENSE BUDGET AND STOPPED A COMPREHENSIVE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM. NOW, IN THE NAME OF DIPLOMACY, OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY OUR NUKES JUST WHEN IRAN AND NORTH KOREA ARE BUILDING THEIRS. OBAMA CLAIMS THIS TREATY WILL COAX IRAN INTO DISCONTINUING ITS NUKE PROGRAM. THAT’S CRAZY. THE HITLER OF IRAN WANTS THESE WEAPONS TO INTIMIDATE THE UNITED STATES AND DESTROY ISRAEL. THIS MEANINGLESS PIECE OF PAPER WILL NOT STOP HIM.

    AND WHAT ABOUT RUSSIA? ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY’LL KEEP THEIR WORD IS CRAZY. RUSSIA HAS A HISTORY OF RENEGGING ON NUKE AGREEMENTS. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY HOW MANY THEY’VE DESTROYED, AND THEY’VE ALREADY SAID THAT THEY CAN PULL OUT OF THE AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME. FURTHERMORE, BOTH RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MODERNIZING THEIR NUKES. MOST OF RUSSIA’S NUCLEAR ARSENAL IS AGING AND OUTDATED. IF WE CONTINUED AS WE ARE, RUSSIA WOULD FADE AS A NUCLEAR POWER. THIS AGREEMENT HELPS THEM! HOW MUCH OF OUR OWN ARSENAL IS OUTDATED? OBAMA ISN’T SAYING.

    OBAMA DID SAY TODAY THAT THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO MORE STATES IS AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO GLOBAL SECURITY. AND YET THIS INSANE TREATY INCREASES THAT RISK. OBAMA ALSO SAID TODAY THAT WHILE THE TREATY WAS A GOOD FIRST STEP FORWARD, IT’S THE FIRST IN A LONG WAY FORWARD. “IT WILL SET THE STAGE FOR FURTHER CUTS.” FURTHER CUTS. OBAMA DOESN’T JUST WANT TO REDUCE OUR ARSENAL. HE WANTS TO ELIMINATE IT COMPLETELY. HE IS OUR DESTROYER-IN-CHIEF. AND THE ONE REMAINING CHANCE TO END HIS AGENDA OF APPEASEMENT IS THE U.S. SENATE, WHICH MUST RATIFY THE TREATY BY A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY. HE COULD BE STOPPED THERE, BUT WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION? EACH DAY, MORE AND MORE, IT’S AS IF A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER HAS TAKEN OVER THE COUNTRY.—- Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.THE COMMANDER.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.