Romney: Obama Knew ObamaCare Would Slow Down The Recovery But Passed It Anyway

By 43 Comments 667 views

Damn right:

Romney:

I saw something that I thought was pretty disturbing. A book that was written in a way that's apparently pro President Obama, written by a guy name Noam Scheiber, and in this book he says that there was a discussion about the fact that ObamaCare would slow down the economic recovery in this country. And they knew that! Before they passed it. But they concluded that we would all forget how long the recovery took once it had happened. So they decided to go ahead.

The idea that they knowingly slowed down our recovery in order to put in place ObamaCare, which they wanted, and they considered historic but the American people did not want or considered it historic, is something I think deserves a lot of explaining.

Byron York:

As Scheiber put it, Obama saw health care as a bigger long-term accomplishment. “There was a strain of messianism in Barack Obama, a determination to change the course of history,” Scheiber wrote. “And it was this determination that explained his reluctance to abandon his presidential vision.” So health care it was…

So when our President should of been working his ass off to bring down unemployment and hurry a recovery along he instead put all of his energy into getting a piece of legislation passed that would put him in the history books.

All about him.

Narcissistic to the core and we all payed for it.

(h/t Hot Air)

jfdghjhthit45

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

43 Responses to “Romney: Obama Knew ObamaCare Would Slow Down The Recovery But Passed It Anyway”

  1. 1

    Nan G

    I have often thought Obama wrongly figured the recession would ”fix itself” no matter what he did, given a bit of time.
    Time has proven that policies do make a difference.
    So many of Obama’s policies have been destructive of our economy.

    USA Today has a wonderful interactive map showing that only 9 states have bounced back from the losses from this recession.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-05/state-GDP/55408890/1
    Of course North Dakota is on top of the list because of their ENERGY discoveries on PRIVATE lands.
    Other energy producers on the list are Alaska, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Louisiana.
    Oregon makes the list because it is a top producer of computer chips.

  2. 2

    Greg

    Romney practically invented “Obamacare”, remember? He also supported an individual mandate for the state health insurance program that he advocated while Governor and subsequently signed into law in 2006. The plan he supported served as a model for the new federal insurance program. The mandate wasn’t a new idea.

    Curiouser and curiouser, to quote Alice:

    Michael Leavitt, the guy Romney just selected to lead his White House transition team, is the Michael Leavitt of Leavitt Partners, which was recently awarded a $1,000,000 consulting contract by the state of New Mexico to set up their “Obamacare” insurance exchange.

    What is this? An example of how profit seeking and political principles are easily compartmentalized to further self interest? Or an example of no real principles at all?

    Maybe someone can explain such inconsistencies of position so that I can understand how they’re actually irrelevant.

  3. 6

    Greg

    Alternative energy developers tend to be democrats, just as oil industry and coal industry advocates tend to be republican. People donate to support what they favor. You’re suggesting that this isn’t true for both democrats and republicans?

    Hypocrisy is a matter of claiming to have some standard that your own actions don’t conform to. For example, condemning a health care plan as a terrible deal for the taxpayers while simultaneously setting up a company to extract taxpayer money from it to put in your own pocket be viewed as hypocrisy. Attacking a healthcare scheme which is essentially the same as the one you advocated yourself only a few years before might also be viewed that way.

  4. 7

    anticsrocks

    @Greg: You said:

    Alternative energy developers tend to be democrats, just as oil industry and coal industry advocates tend to be republican. People donate to support what they favor.

    Um, not so fast…

    John Hofmeister

    Founder and CEO, Citizens for Affordable Energy
    Former President Shell Oil Company
    Author of Why We Hate The Oil Companies:
    Straight talk from an energy insider

    John Hofmeister is a leader with a unique perspective on not only the oil industry, but on the nation’s energy situation as a whole. He is a highly sought after presenter, pundit, writer, energy and leadership expert. His greatest gift is that in his speaking and writing he connects with every man and woman in this country with straightforward talk and understandable writing. – Source

    So he would donate to what he “favors?”

    Wrong, not only did he vote for Obama in 2008, but let’s look at who he made campaign contributions to, shall we?

    John Hofmeister Contribution List in 2010
    Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
    Amount Date Primary/
    General Contibuted To
    HOFMEISTER, JOHN
    HOUSTON, TX
    77019 $-1,000 03/10/2010 P EVAN BAYH COMMITTEE – Democrat
    Hofmeister, John D.
    HOUSTON, TX
    77019 N/A/retired $2,000 11/30/2009 P LEE, SHEILA JACKSON – Democrat
    HOFMEISTER, JOHN
    HOUSTON, TX
    77019 CITIZENS FOR AFFORDABLE ENERGY/FOUN $2,300 01/16/2009 P BILL WHITE FOR TEXAS – Democrat

    Source

  5. 8

    Hard Right

    Greg, that is one of your most pathetic excuses yet to justify your hypocrisy.
    All you did is prove exactly what I said.
    You only see “crony” capitalism as wrong when you THINK a Republican is doing it. When a dem actually does it, you try to spin.

  6. 9

    Greg

    You all sure are avoiding any discussion concerning Romney’s advocacy of mandated health insurance coverage for Massachusetts and Michael Leavitt’s current $1,000,000 Obamacare contract. I was really hoping for some creative rationalizations. Suddenly the thread seems to be all about green energy.

  7. 11

    Nan G

    Getting back to health, why is it that the most liberal (patooey!) states pass the highest and most regressive taxes on tobacco?
    Studies have shown that you have to get the young to not take up the habit.
    These studies show that smoke-free policies have a greater impact on youngsters starting to smoke over price.
    Bumming a cigarette (something young tobacco addicts do often)costs nothing but time.

    Illinois just raised its tax on a pack of cigarettes from $.98 to $1.98.
    CA may have done the same, adding another $1.00 to the tax on a pack.
    (The vote was too close to call last time I heard.)
    But smokers are disproportionately POOR.
    Smokers are also a minority; only 12% of all Californians smoke.
    And, as the Illinois smokers are saying on the news, they can just drive into Missouri to buy them cheaper.
    Californians go to Mexico for gas and smokes, prescription drugs and alternative medicines already.
    So, liberal states with their high ”sin” taxes simply make lawbreakers out of decent folks.

  8. 12

    anticsrocks

    @Greg: Ha! Pot, Kettle.

    YOU bring up rich oil execs being GOP donors and I show you that you’re dead wrong on that little blanket statement of yours and what do we hear from you on this?

    *crickets*

    I’ll be glad to chime in on something you brought up. Romneycare was enacted in a state. The individual mandate is enforced by the state. That’s what states are for, experiments in democracy. Massachusetts tried it, it sucks, they’re kinda stuck with it for now, but I have a feeling it will eventually be replaced.

    Happy now Greg?

  9. 13

    Aqua

    @Greg:
    States should be able to do what the citizens want. I don’t care what the then governor of Mass. did or what the next governor of Mass. does, I don’t live there. Doing it for the entire country is what is wrong, and that is what you will never understand.

  10. 14

    joetote

    So he knew this could slow down the economy but did it anyway? Well whoopie doo! Gee Whiz folks. This is the same guy who openly stated he was for $5 a gallon gasoline! This is the same guy who wants to put the coal and oil industry out of business! This is the same guy who openly lies about the “recovery and job creation” you know, the recovery that isn’t happening?! I could go on and on, but you get the point. Everything this moron has done has and will keep affecting the economy in a bad way!

    He is hell bent to destroy not only our economy but capitalism and in turn our country in general! His associations, words and actions point to nothing else!

    I ran across the below earlier today on J.D. Longstreet’s “Insight On Freedom” blog and only a blind man or complete Anti-American hard core leftist can argue this fact and would probably be hypocritical at best doing it, but most likely just sound inane.

    SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/05/27/is-it-within-bounds-to-ask-is-obama-a-socialist/

    In an article entitled: “Is It Within Bounds To Ask: Is Obama A Socialist?” at Forbes.com, Paul Roderick Gregory says the following: “Democrat strategists know that the American electorate reacts strongly negative to “socialism” and are doing their best to discredit any and all who call Obama a socialist. There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition. In France, Obama would be the candidate of the French socialist party. In Spain, he would be at home in the Socialist Worker’s Party. In Germany, Obama would be torn between the Social Democrats and Die Linke. In “Old Europe,” the welfare state is well entrenched. Elections are about tinkering at the margin. The United States has still to decide whether it wants the European welfare state or not. Obama does. Romney does not.”

  11. 15

    Liberal1 (objectivity)

    It doesn’t seem to bother any right-wing on this site that Romney is a complete and pathological liar. See his latest at: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12085094-the-war-romney-longed-for?lite
    (Sorry this is from a left-wing blog, but the right-wing would be reticent to publish it—that’s why you need to pay attention to both sides, instead of just one.)

    Continuously lying—a skill he obviously learned in the business he was in—is at least as great a sin as hypocrisy (a term that conservatives throw around in so many different situations that I wonder if they know what the word means).

    But the right-wing apparently doesn’t seem to care about the integrity of their candidate—Romney. Of course may be they believe in Grove Norquist’s axiom: The Republican candidate only needs some working finger digits so he can sign the bills the party places before him.

  12. 16

    another vet

    FDR enacted measures during the ’30’s that jacked up food prices. This was during a depression when people had a hard time affording putting food on the tables. He opened soup lines to show how much he supported the people and thus won over their votes. Same concept. Enact measures that hinder growth and then come in as the knight in shining armor to save the day through welfare programs.

    Did anyone notice that except for the results of the nationally billed recall election in Wisconsin whereby the side that pushed for less government, deficits, and taxes won out, the news was void of anything of significance? It just so happens that the Dow posted its largest single day gain of the year. Hmmmmm.

  13. 17

    anticsrocks

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): You said:

    But the right-wing apparently doesn’t seem to care about the integrity of their candidate—Romney.

    This is laughable at best coming from someone who blindly supports everything Obama does and says. If you had any integrity to begin with, you would be holding Obama’s feet to the fire on all the promises he made, but has broken.

    You really think Obama has more integrity, or is more honest than Romney?

    Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nomination, but now that he is our nominee I whole-heartedly support him. He may be a moderate, but he will do infinitely less damage to our country than what Obama has already done, and God forbid he get a second, “more flexible” term.

  14. 19

    johngalt

    I will echo Aqua’s response to Greg’s questioning of Romney being able to criticize Obamacare.

    Romneycare is a healthcare program enacted in a state. As long as a state law does not violate the Constitution’s allowances for what a state does, and as long as it doesn’t violate a citizen’s rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then a state can pass whatever they want. This is the idea behind state sovereignty that our founders envisioned. If a state passes a law, and people are opposed, or become opposed to it, then either the law is rescinded or amended, to what the people want, or the law stands and people will move away from the state into neighboring states. This is a kind of protection against a state administering decidedly more restrictive laws and regulations than it’s neighbors have. We are kind of seeing this in CA and surrounding states with the mass exodus of people from it due mainly in part to the heavy burden of taxation CA levies on some.

    Another point, and this addresses the main point of both the article, and Greg’s question, is that Romneycare was passed and enacted in 2006. In 2005/2006, the US economy was doing fairly well, and Massachusett’s own economy was echoing it, even, at one point, growing at nearly twice the rate of the US economy in general. Romneycare was passed during this period of economic growth. This is a marked difference between the Romneycare and Obamacare. Obamacare was passed during a time of recession that, despite protestations from liberal/progressives of a “recovery”, or a “turnaround”, was as bad as the previous year, and no end in sight, really, for the recession.

    The above is the main reason why Romney can criticize Obamacare being passed and “slowing down the recovery” (although there wasn’t really a recovery happening at the time).

    Romney is hardly the conservative candidate I would prefer. Indeed, he leans much too far to the left for my liking. However, the alternative is retaining someone who knows absolutely nothing about how an economy works, who defines “fair” as what is in the best interest of those who vote for him, not for the entire country, who takes a time of pain and misery in the economy and saddles present and future Americans with even more debt, who believes that the color of one’s skin is more important than their character, and who would just as soon be a dictator over the country, the better to pass his “reforms”.

  15. 20

    Greg

    Most of the provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 don’t even begin taking effect until 2014.

    Romney’s disingenuous assertion that healthcare reform slowed the recovery, just as Obama knew it would, is a total load of horseshit.

    This guy will say absolutely anything he thinks will convince people to vote for him. Romney has flip flopped his publicly stated positions so many times on so many things now that it’s almost impossible for anyone who doesn’t have a memory deficit to decide if there’s any reliable commitment to any identifiable position at all.

    If you think I’m exaggerating, pick some current point of disagreement between the right and left, and research Romney’s stated positions on it back through time. Hey, gun control might be a good test topic. Try to pin down where Mitt Romney stands on the 2nd Amendment. Don’t like that one? How about his position on a path to citizenship for illegal aliens? How about human-caused global warming? Or a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? What about his position on abortion rights?

    You can vote for a Gordon Gekko chameleon if you want. I know who and what I’m voting for.

  16. 21

    Nan G

    @Greg: Most of the provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 don’t even begin taking effect until 2014.

    But Greg, one of Obama’s sleaziest tricks was front-loading revenue into ObamaCare, while deferring expenses for as long as possible.
    This made it look like it would cost a lot less than it actually would.
    How much less?
    About half as much as the true cost… and that’s according to estimates from a government agency known for its extreme caution and static analysis methods.

    The Congressional Budget Office does 10-year forecasts, so now that it’s 2012, they’re looking out to 2022, when some of the biggest fiscal damage from ObamaCare reveals itself. What they found is very ugly indeed!

    “The bill spends more than the president promised, it covers fewer people — probably 2 million fewer people — and it taxes more than was expected.
    The full accounting of the bill is $2.6 trillion. That’s a fair and accurate analysis of what the bill would cost, according to CBO,” Senator Sessions said.

    As you pointed out, Greg, we’re still two years away from the “full implementation” of ObamaCare, and the Congressional Budget Office has a poor track record of predicting the true cost of legislation while it’s still unfolding. It is likely to cost much more than even all of that!

  17. 22

    Aqua

    Greg says the provisions don’t kick in until 2014 so Romney’s claim is BS.
    In this Greg you are totally ignorant in the ways of business. I’m not calling you stupid, don’t confuse the two. When you put uncertainty in the market, you force businesses to wait on the sidelines. They will not make decisions on hiring or capital purchases until they know exactly what new laws and regulations will do to them. Therefore, Romney was dead on.
    As for saying anything to get elected…..seriously?

  18. 24

    johngalt

    @Greg:

    I know who and what I’m voting for.

    A statist prig who would rather see everyone equally miserable rather than rewarding those people who work, create jobs, and strengthen and grow the economy be rewarded for their efforts. Nice to know where you stand , Greg, although from your history of postings, you seem to prefer volunteering to be a slave to the machine. Me? I might end up that way eventually, but I’ll not go quietly without a fight.

  19. 25

    Greg

    I’d rather see 1,000 industrious people having the chance to make themselves millionaires than 1 greedy person making himself a billionaire off of other people’s creativity and efforts.

  20. 26

    Hard Right

    @Greg:

    Ummm greg, the statists like obama and their close “friends” will be the only ones getting rich. Furthermore, they will be doing so off the “creativity and efforts” of others. Think of the Federal govt. as the biggest and most ruthless corporation out there who WILL suck the prosperity and money away from the average Joe. I know you are ok with that provided it’s the left getting rich and crushing the rights of others.

  21. 27

    Greg

    A total chameleon, I’m telling you.

    When in front of a French audience, he starts transforming into a Frenchman. It’s automatic. He can’t control it. Observe the telltale signs! His tie becomes crooked. His suit begins to become oversize and rumpled. Even his hair has started turning French. Sixty more seconds, and he would have been able to play the accordion.

  22. 29

    Aye

    editor

    @Greg:

    Speaking of chameleons Greg, how about Obie’s membership in the socialist New Party?

    You likely won’t want to discuss that though will ya?

  23. 30

    Greg

    @Aye, #29:

    I don’t really have anything to add to the discussion, other than the observation that people around here seem to think anyone politically to the left of Ayn Rand meets the description of a socialist.

    I might take Stanley Kurtz more seriously if he actually presented some documentation, rather than just repeatedly claiming he has it. The links referring to “evidence” spread out, circle around, and ultimately lead to nothing at all except more allegations–unless the little old lady Obama has his arm around in the photo is a known communist agitator or something.

    It also might help Stanley’s credibility if he got rid of the Groucho Marx eyebrows.

  24. 31

    Richard Wheeler

    Greg #30 Be wary of the F.A. cultists who worship at the alter of Ayn Rand.

    Is Stanley Kurtz related to Col.Kurtz?

  25. 32

    anticsrocks

    @Greg: You said:

    You can vote for a Gordon Gekko chameleon if you want. I know who and what I’m voting for.

    Big surprise there, you’re voting for the guy whose picture you light candles to, in the alter of your living room – The Anointed One.

  26. 33

    Hard Right

    @Greg:
    I will say it again for you greg.
    Ummm greg, the statists like obama and their close friends will be the only ones getting rich. Furthermore, they will be doing so off the creativity and effortsâ of others. Think of the Federal govt. as the biggest and most ruthless corporation out there who WILL suck the prosperity and money away from the average Joe. I know you are ok with that provided it’s the left getting rich and crushing the rights of others.

    You are too corrupt to care that the people you lie about being for are the ones who will be victimized.

  27. 34

    another vet

    For starters, here are four links to archives with news releases from the New Party, not some “right wing” web site, that show Obama’s involvment with them. The middle two links clearly refer to him as a member of the New Party. Naturally, physical evidence such as this will be dismissed by the Obama worshippers because their beliefs carry far more weight. People interested in the evidence presented here best save the links. They will no doubt be removed if they haven’t been already.

    http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

    http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html

    http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html

  28. 36

    Curt

    administrator

    @Chuck Rogers:

    Scheiber recently wrote that Romney is “misreading” his book. But Scheiber’s explanation essentially conceded that Romney is, in fact, reading the passage correctly. ‘While he’s definitely misrepresenting Summers and the administration, there’s a kernel of truth to his interpretation of my book,” Scheiber wrote. “I argue that Obama really was more focused on long-term, historically significant accomplishments than marginal, near-term differences in the pace of the recovery. On some level, Obama was prepared to accept (and I’m making up these numbers for argument’s sake) three years of painfully high unemployment with health care reform rather than 30 months of painfully high unemployment without it. And the reason is the one Summers alluded to (before disputing): Health care was simply more historically important than avoiding those extra six months of pain.”

  29. 37

    Greg

    @another vet, #34:

    What does involvement imply, that Stanley Kurtz finds so damning?

    At link #1 I found a short bio of Obama, along with an endorsement of his senate candidacy.

    At link #2 there’s a 1996 New Party Update, which mentions Obama as one of three New Party “members” to have won Democratic primary elections. Probably it’s the reference to him as a member that made Stanley’s eyebrows jump up his forehead and permanently stick. But it was a Democratic primary. Obama was running to become a Democratic candidate. The New Party claimed him as a member, he didn’t claim to be one.

    Same deal with link #3: “New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.”

    His name must be mentioned somewhere in the document link #4 leads to, but I can’t seem to find it.

    The New Party refers to Obama as a member. Did he ever refer to himself as one? And–more to the point–what would it matter if he actually did? Exactly what is it about the New Party that makes people think it should be investigated by some sort of informally reconstituted Un-American Activities Committee?

    This is another one of those right-wing tempests in a teacup. Guilt by association–although in this case, even proven membership shouldn’t matter much.

  30. 38

    another vet

    @Greg: @Greg: Is there any evidence that Obama at that time declined that he was a member? It’s kind of like the brochure saying he was born in Kenya. It wasn’t denied until he ran for President. If his membership in the party was not a big deal as you claim, then why should they go out of their way to deny it years later?

  31. 39

    Hard Right

    AV, greg is not interested in honest debate. Just defending the dems no matter what and pushing propaganda. It’s pretty clear he says things even he doesn’t believe.

  32. 40

    Nan G

    Greg, you brought up a good point about how Obama allows people to believe all sorts of untrue things about him:
    *His publisher-to-be was never corrected BY HIM in 17 years for writing a bio that Obama was ”born in Kenya.”
    *The New Party claimed Obama as a member, supported his bid for elective office and in all this time Obama has never bothered to disabuse them IF he was not a member of their political party.

    Greg, what astonishes me isn’t that Obama is such an empty suit so good at rhetorically selling himself as simply the frame while his faithful fancifully fill-in-the-blanks as to what is IN the picture frame, no, it isn’t that.

    What astonishes me is that people like you, Greg, once you derive that truth for yourself, continue to blindly support Obama AS IF he really is all that stuff inside the frame even as you now realize he is not!
    Your blinders are part-way off, Greg.
    Are you going to glue them back up or tear them off?

  33. 41

    johngalt

    @Nan G:

    What astonishes me is that people like you, Greg, once you derive that truth for yourself, continue to blindly support Obama AS IF he really is all that stuff inside the frame even as you now realize he is not!

    Nan, Greg cannot, and will not, derive the truth for himself. He has shown that to be the case throughout this topic, insisting that Obama doesn’t even have socialist/statist tendencies, let alone be a card-carrying member of the club. Signing into law the biggest socialized program since the SS and Medicare programs isn’t proof enough for him. Stating exactly to Joe the Plumber the socialist’s ideal isn’t proof enough for him. The socialist/statist idealogues within the country falling over themselves claiming Obama as THEIR candidate isn’t proof enough for him.

    It’s almost as if Greg subconsciously knows that the term “socialist” is a dirty word for most of the country, so he bends over backwards and twists himself into a pretzel defending Obama against the accusation.

  34. 42

    Greg

    I like the Social Security and Medicare programs. Guaranteed access to an affordable health insurance program for every American also strikes me as a very good idea. Is that all it takes to be labeled a “socialist” around here?

    Is Mitt Romney a “socialist” for having put state-wide mandated health insurance in place as Governor of Massachusetts?

  35. 43

    Mr. Irons

    The scarcity issue with minerals and rare metals along with money. There is not enough resources in the Nation as of now to satisfy the Socialist wet dream of something for everyone in terms of Healthcare alone. We’re already seeing a serious medical supply shortage across the Nation with various drugs needed for surgery and stablization drugs for emergency wards and to make matters worse these shortages are steming from Regulations hailing from the Affordable Healthcare law preventing timely production and increasing cost of labor and operations for businesses. We’re seeing prices for tanks liquid gases such as Oxygen, Helium, and Nitrogen going up in price either due to shortages or due to serious Government regulations from the EPA to ensure, “pollutants” don’t exist… from pure elements in their gas forms…

    There is roughly “8.2” percent of unemployement listed by the Government with about 12 to 14 percent actual unemployement by Labor stats. As of now roughly 70 percent of those who can work are actually employed, with about 48 percent of this working populaion not actually paying income tax. That’s a bit problematic for your little programs and the resource needed to fund them. And here’s a hint that 48 percent that isn’t paying income taxes while working? It’s mostly Public sector employees who are not paying their taxes. And to make matters worse projections have thrid quater employement drop below the 60 percent range. So where is this near 30 to 40 percent of the capable work force when the Government supposedly reports it’s 8.2 percent?

    And to top it all, if the Affordable Healthcare Law segment that mandates each American must buy a product that she or he may not actually want nor can afford is ruled as unconsitutional by the Surpeme Court then the resource funding your plans will be denied and your programs are doing nothing more than cuddling the weak and the naive into thinking there will be something for them.

    Here’s a bit of math for you:

    Greece welfare population: roughly 9 million people

    Greek working private population that’s taxed to pay for welfare: less than 3 million citizens.

    What’s happening in Greece? Riots because there’s not enough money to be collected by taxation on the workers to pay the parasites to make them feel good. And now the Parasites are tossing molotov cocktails at police, a Neo Nazi group named the Golden Dawn that is gaining power wants to increase taxes or seize the property of the few remaining private equities in Greece and to top it off they’re viewing Germany as the demon that’s the source of their problems. Spain needs 100 Billion Euros in bailout, Ireland’s liberal Socialist groups are pushing against Austery and wanting more spending, and France is going to need bailouts as well because Germany and Britain is not wanting to foot the bill from the massive spending.

    We’ve borrowed roughly 4 trillion dollars from the Chinese with projections to borrow twice that in coming decade. As our tax revenue decreases due to labor decrease and the People’s Republic of China using threat of force to ensure repayment of loans, there is no way we’d be able to afford your little blanky of feel good in the future if most of our taxation is spent on foreign creditors.