Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

I guess its a step in the right direction.:)
What do you think?

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/20/...s-in-pictures/

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

I think I've lost all respect for anyone who can be fooled by political stunts such as this.

It's bad enough that we let politicians speak out against earmarks and believe they care about spending levels (earmarks are only 1-3% of the budget, and are money that has already been included), but this is really a slap in the face.

I have a question for those comfortable with answering it.

Does anyone who voted for Obama still feel good about their vote? Please, explain why/why not.

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Yeah, I still feel good about voting for Obama. He's only been in office less than 100 days, so it's a bit premature to be "judging" his performance so far.

Most of the complainers, I notice, didn't make a peep while Bush was trashing the economy and the constitution.

And if I ever think I might have voted wrongly, I just think "President McCain" or "President Sarah Palin" and I know I did the right thing.

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

1) The heritage foundation is a right-wing, conservative think tank. Gee, I wonder what kind of position they take.......

2) Which administration got us into this quagmire? Sorry, it was not the Obama administration, nor did the Democratic majority in the last two years of the Village Idiot's administration create this economic quagmire.

3) Both parties have prostituted themselves out to big businesses. Until lobbying, and private political donations are outlawed, no real change will occur.

4) I would vote for President Obama again. He has surrounded himself with very smart people who do not all support one ideology. So far, his administration is doing a FAR BETTER job than the previous administration in every area that I have looked at so far.

5) Earmarks only account for a very small percentage of the overall budget.

Why don't we all just sit tight and give this administration a good year to before we begin to jump to conclusions. Unfortunately, the right-wing conservatives already concluded that this administration was a failure before President Obama took the oath of office!

I NEVER supported the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, I believe that our government should give special tax assessments to the fools who voted for them. Despite my objections, I NEVER wanted this administration to fail, like the right wants.

Marc Abrams

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

I have to agree with David and Marc. I don't get why now, all of a sudden, people are all concerned about government spending when Bush was spending left and right. For most people (not saying this is anyone here, just making a statement) they are okay with it when it is their "team" doing it. The only thing I don't agree with so far, economy wise, is giving GM more money. I know, they employ a lot of people, but they have been setting themselves up for failure for far too long. They will fall eventually, this is just a band-aid on the wound IMO.

I don't whole-heartedly agree with everything on Obama's agenda, but I side with him much more than I sided with McCain. I'm just not right-wing enough for some of the more (IMO of course) crazy right-wing issues; such as gay marriage and stem-cell research. So .... yeah, I am still happy with my vote.

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

That would be one thing, but they have actually allied to ensure that it does become a failure.

Thank God they only have like 13% of voters now!

Thanks for your comments, Marc.

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

It will certainly take a while to clean up from the Bush debacle. Incredible that the ones who boosted that fiasco for eight years now have the nerve to point the finger! It's the inevitable jealousy that a loser feels when he sees the winner carrying on with life.

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

David:

I am not that worried about the "right wing.". The neocon's proved themselves to be utter moral, theoretical and practical failures. The old school conservatives would like to "take back" the party but they represent a dying breed of closed-minded, intolerant people. The moderates in the party (some of whom are articulate people with some good ideas) are being drowned out by whiny failures like Cheney, and whiny blowhards like Rush.

As long as President Obama seeks the middle road and continues to marginalize the "far left" and "far right", he will continue to move our country in a better and ultimately healthier place in this world, despite the limitations inherent in having both parties being corrupt to the core.

I had my doubts about President Obama when he started his run for office. I have gained a lot of respect and admiration for President Obama. A person who serves our country should have our best wishes for success regardless of whether we agree with that person's position.

As an aside, since Cheney has talked about how much valuable information "harsh interrogation methods" have yielded, I suggest we subject him to those same methods in order to get him to share some information with the American public that he seems to want to keep secret. :D

Marc Abrams

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm beginning to wonder if it matters at all. Every candidate seems to be telling me the same thing:

"No, we won't leave you alone. We will do whatever we like with your constitutional rights, and we will fill your childrens' heads with whatever beliefs we hold dear. We will ignore history and implement programs that are going to fail. We will confiscate your hard-earned money and use it to kill people who've never done a damned thing to you. We will prop up whatever murderous warlord that will allow us to build a base in his country - with your tax dollars. We will continue to reward those that vote for us, and anyone outside of our tent will be punished. We will continue to allow tax cheats and lawbreakers to go unpunished (and give them high paying jobs that your taxes pay for), while we devise new taxes and new laws that YOU must follow. We will continue buying things that we cannot afford and begging the Chinese to fund our spending. Put down that history book! Listen to us..

...because all the other parties are worse than we are!"

To quote John Galt, "Get the hell out of my way!"

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

On a cable news channel a couple of years ago, a short segment showed former Pres. Clinton and former Pres.Bush (Sr.) out playing golf together. It pretty much summed up for me that there isn't much difference between the two except for the basic ideology

1) the Republican party stimulates the economy by borrowing and cutting taxes
2) the Democratic party stimulates the economy by spending and eventually raising taxes to cover the spending

Though both parties stink in their own special way.....

I still want to live in the U.S.A. more than any other country in the world. Obviously, by way of immigration, illegal or legal, so do a lot of other people.

Kristina

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Obama is not changing the way President Bush handled the spending of American tax dollars. Instead of change we can count on, he is following along the same path at an accelerated rate.

Instead of changing the course or slowing down the train he is staying the course and accelerating the train to the inevitable train wreck.

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/...t-in-pictures/

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

David
Rush, ORielly and many other talk jocks were trashing Bush all over the place for his programs and spending and deals with the Dems. You must have missed the rankor he roused in many republicans who voted for him. On many levels they felt betrayed. The comedy is people thinking these talk jocks were in bed with Bush. When many were getting slammed for being so opposed to what he was doing. Conservatism is NOT a party and its not so simplistic. It's a view and its not for sale-witness the tea pary movement with many Dems involved!

People need to realize this is not a Dem / Republican issue, Nothing delights both sides more than the voters thinking its a part issue. It keeps the dynamic going and the eys off the real issues.
They are spending our money on special interests not our interests. Bush and his "new republicans" proved they could spend more on public programs then the Dems and get us into debt on several fronts!


The general accouting office stated the senior prescription drug program alone could eventually bankrupt the treasury.
The best story I know is of a very welathy business man I deal with. He had senators and a congressman from both sides on his boat. The Dem senator said "David, if the people in this country knew what we were doing in D.C. they would come down and kill us all!"

I agree with Churchill.
"A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is as useless - and as obvious - as a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself out of it."

There are any number of ways the wealthy will avoid paying higher taxes, this to include not investing, not spending, and not creating jobs. They can afford to wait till he's gone-can we?
I have four large projects that would each his up to a few hundred people from Architects, engineers, Contractors, suppliers, manufacturers, and would create jobs and pay taxed for several years. Each was funded from 6 million to 16 million dollars. Each developer pulled the plug. One of whom did so just because Obama was elected.
Its anecdotal, sure, but where and when has it become a national view.

Taxing at a high rate; capital gains, income, corporate, etc, means the very people you are going after will not spend it. It has never worked, it does not work, it never will work. When Pill-osy made a comment while discussing the wealthy on the house floor that "We need to find a way to access their money." It sent a loud and clear message. One that had ramifications past far past the wealthy. That was; she intends to spend, spend, spend, and the only way to recover from that is going to be Tax, Tax, Tax.Since the rich will not pay it....you will but it bears repeating that 35%, of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Cailfornia just lost 20 Bill. of income through taxation. It is estimated that 11 bill of that is from the wealthy and the corporations who just simply left the state. Now add New York, Massachusetts, and otherstates to a federal view. It is well known that our corporations suffer under one of the highest Tax rates in the developed world and they are leaving. The governments answer? Tax more and find a way to force them to stay and pay.
Obama...9 trillion over decades and counting will collapse the U.S. economy and turn us into the next third world country. With the stroke of a pen he will do it better, and it will be more final, than any counter culture America hating influence he was ever accused of associating with.
Cheers
Dan

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Good Heavens. I just read this thread and it's amazing the amount of name-calling done by people who imagine themselves of higher principle than "losers", "neocons", "close-minded", and the like. :D

I tend to agree that it's been too short to tell much about Obama, although N.Korea's setting off of a nuke this morning (and the big missile right during Obama's european trip a few weeks ago) should be enough to tell people that a number of the bad-boyz have already taken a read on Obama where they think he's on the same level as Jimmuh Carter.

However, my question would be more about what Obama has actually done that brings a question to my mind about "high principle". On about the second day Obama was in office, he signed an executive order telling unions that they no longer have to post a notice for union members to see that the union members can protest their dues being used for politics they disagree with. More recently, the Obama admin has defunded the office that investigates union leaders' financial transactions, particularly personal ones (an office that has been the source for many criminal convictions). More recently still, the Obama admin forced a number of Chrysler investors (who put up real money) to take about 30-cents on the dollar and then gave secondary/junior investors, the labor unions, 50-cents on the dollar for the Chrysler buyout. I.e., money was taken from people (actual investors) and given to unions. There is actually a law against this and lawsuits are now being drawn up. So Obama makes no bones about being in the pocket of organized-crime-controlled unions. Does that bother anyone else or is it just something to shrug off as OK because it's, well, you know, tough noogies. ;)

Dan, that was a good quote by Churchill, but Churchill only helped win the war, he didn't help win the hearts of the very liberals who unrepentently got them into WWII. ;) Here's my favorite Churchill quote:

I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.

Mike

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

I did. I missed all of that. Of course, my only exposure to Rush, O'Reilly, et al is either stories about them on the internet or when I visit my father in Atlanta and he has Fox News on the big screen. Otherwise, I ignore them. But I don't remember seeing anything about Rush or O'Reilly ever trashing GW.

I had a column in a local weekly back in 2000. It was called "Ground Zero". When the Repubs chose Bush over McCain in the 2000 primary, I wrote about how Bush was lying around drunk in New Orleans, AWOL from the Air Guard, while McCain was being tortured for his country. I reminded both of my readers how the Repubs had scathed Clinton as a dope-smoking draft-dodger, but then turned around and chose Bush, who was exactly the same kind of thing, as their best hope for the next Presidency.

I could see the whole debacle coming from far, far in the distance.

Why would the Repubs feel betrayed when they picked a guy like that to lead them, instead of McCain? If they had actually believed anything they said about Clinton, they would have told GW to go Cheney himself and picked McCain for their candidate in 2000.

I predicted (not in that column) that Bush would get us into another war like Vietnam (didn't count on TWO wars like VN), that he would ruin the economy, that he would favor the rich on the backs of the poor and that the country would be in a shambles by the time he finished four years. I didn't count on eight years. I thought surely by the time he finished with us over four years even the die-hard GOP would be sick of him as they were with his old man. But he did even more in eight years than even I imagined.

So why didn't the GOP see this coming? I could tell what he was going to do. Why couldn't they?

And as for the economy, eight years after Bush SLASHED the tax rates for the wealthy, why did everything fall apart just as Bush was leaving?

Our economy was BOOMING from Eisenhower on into the 70s, when the wealthy were taxed at something like 90%!

Now we have a nation where corporations pay pretty much nothing, pay their employees as little as possible, simply deny any obligation to pay earned pensions, etc., etc., etc., and everything crashes down. Why did that happen?

As for me, I've been working on an idea for a long time, to build community center severe-weather shelters for all the little rural communities in Alabama where the sturdiest homes were built of chert in the 1930s and the most common home is mobile. I had an idea to bring together grants from federal, state and local sources to fund these shelters through a mix of emergency preparedness funds from FEMA, job training funds from whomever, energy efficiency funding, etc., etc., etc., to train workers to build high-energy-efficiency concrete domes by this method.

While this idea was less than totally practical a year ago, it seems tailor-made for the kinds of investments the government will be making in the next few months. So, suddenly, the time may be arriving for that idea. I still think it's a better way to spend American tax monies than lining the pockets of sheikhs in Iraq and heroin producers in Afghanistan.

If all the hoopla and lies and accusations and flowery claims of the past two years didn't bring us the best person available for the Presidency, I just can't imagine what we're going to do as a nation. I figured our American Democracy was dead when we ended up with a president selected by the Supreme Court (largely installed by the winning candidate's father) based on voting in a state where the winning candidate's brother controlled the vote (and where widespread claims of vote tampering and disenfranchisement were lodged).

But when I think of McCain and Palin running this country, I'm afraid nothing anyone says about Obama can make me worry. However bad he makes things, I just can't imagine that it wouldn't be exponentially worse with McCain and Palin in the White House.

Well, those talk jocks did 90% of the lying necessary to get that simpleton into the most powerful position in the world, so they deserve a lot of the blame as well as a good punch in the nose.

With all my liberal views, I'm still a lot more conservative than most people I know in person. For me, you can't have "conservatism" without "conserve" but those who wave the "conservative" flag are the most wasteful and destructive people on the planet. Their signs are extinction, depletion, shortage, waste and the ravaged path of war. I don't see how they have helped us.

I agree quite a bit with that, but come on. The past eight years were absolutely dominated by the juggernaut Republican congress and Presidency (with a Vice President who pointedly ignored all constitutional limits, responsibilities and duties to make himself almost unstoppable). And now that we have a new President, rather than admit the ruin their misguided policies have brought this nation, they think we should listen to them warning us about Obama? They think their constant obstruction of Obama is any smarter than their constant bowing to Bush? No, they are STILL injuring the nation. And to point at Obama as a beacon of abortion because he supports abortion rights, even while they mourn the loss of a man responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of born children in Iraq and Afghanistan is either the biggest hypocrisy or the deepest blindness possible.

But since the economy has been devastated, I don't see a problem with putting the kind of "nation building" money into the United States as we put into Iraq and Afghanistan with no better result than enriching individuals who actually hate us. At least put that kind of money on our roads, bridges, schools, airports, police, fire, etc. We need to make those kinds of upgrades of the thousands of little areas of American life that have been neglected ever since Gore was elected and Bush took office.

You should read the book "Long Rifle," by Joe LeBleu, the US sniper with the longest confirmed kill shot in the Iraq war. He was a hell of a soldier and a leader, fighting outside the bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Of Iraq, he said, "If the people only knew, Bush and Cheney are getting rich on this war."

Hardly what you'd call a liberal, but he knew that the whole thing was a sham for the enrichment of that class of Americans who make the most but pay, relatively, the least.

I don't see that Obama is raising taxes significantly.

Second, a tax increase has been long overdue since Bush cut the taxes on the wealthy and then plunged us into two quagmire wars. We spent over $700 billion on Iraq alone. And that's just the figure from the jerrymandered book-keeping the Bush administration used to cover up the true cost. It also does not count the Afghanistan war or the health care for all the veterans who have been horribly wounded and disabled over there. Nor does it count the cost of the destruction wrought by the newly-cheap and more-available-than-ever flood of Heroin in our country.

Taxes HAD to go up after Bush. There was no way around that.

I don't think it's "he" who is causing the problem. And if the wealthy don't like to pay their fair share, we really should let them move to a country where the tax rates are much lower. They already shield so much in other countries, they should live there with their money.

With the economy like it is, I'm surprised that any big projects are being carried out now. The one who pulled out because Obama was elected sounds like that doctor who wrote the nasty e-mail to her staff, accusing them of basically stabbing her in the back by voting for Obama. Don't worry about him. I think he'll be putting his money to work in the very favorable climate we're going to be enjoying a few months from now, under Obama's course.

It seemed to work very well under Eisenhower, when it was about 90%. I think the wealthiest people in this nation, especially the 1-2% who own about 60% of nation's wealth, can afford to pay 39% instead of 36%.

FWIW.

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Just out of curiosity, David, do you realize how much of your post is involved in villifying people you don't agree with? I'd be interested to hear you argue that you're more highly principled than the people you're personally villifying. ;)

Best.

Mike

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

I think that's what they pirates holding that Captain were thinking just before they stopped thinking permanently. And I think Obama is going to fool a lot of people with that kind of attitude. But is it better to be like Jimmy Carter and not be tough enough, or is it better to be like Bush and kill many, many thousands of innocent people in a war that simply never should have been started? He was closer to Barney Fife than he was to Carter and, frankly, I'd rather have Carter.

Was it actually "given" to the unions or was that to pay half of what the union members were actually owed--money they had earned many years ago for WORK they did, pensions and healthcare plans that existed when they did the work?

The investors watched the company going down the drain for months and years. They left their money at risk and they are lucky to get anything out of it. Just like the employees of United Airlines who were simply shafted out of money they had earned through hard work. The only difference is that the employees actually did work for those pensions and the investors simply screwed them. And for the investors, it's more like a night at a casino than any real risk to them. They lose, they don't really feel it, but the worker loses and his family is suddenly homeless. Which is really better for America?

Interesting that right after WWII the Brits created the National Health Service (NHS) that provides excellent health care for all brits--something America should look to as a model. The Brits are far ahead of us on that.

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

I think that's pretty funny. The whole thread is a villification of Obama, starting before he even COULD have done anything, and in the process sweeping away all the waste and corruption that got us to the point at which Obama was elected.

So my comments are only to keep us grounded in real history. Bush DID represent EVERYTHING the republicans hated about Clinton but they elected him anyway. That's just a statement of fact. It's not me villifying Bush or the Republicans, but it's a truth that needs to be seriously considered.

Next, Joe LeBleu, whom no one could call a liberal or coward, really shreds Bush and Cheney and pretty clearly says they're war criminals who started the war in Iraq for personal enrichment. And I accept that as a fact.

I did identify Bush the day he popped up on the national scene and I predicted with absolute accuracy what a disaster his election would be for this nation.

And I am telling you now that Obama is actually very much the opposite and as much as it pains the people who felt betrayed by Bush, Obama is going to clean up the mess Bush/Cheney made and get our economy back on track. He's no "messiah." He's just our President and he's going to be one of the best ever.

Best to you.

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

On one of the local news forums, there's a guy who likes to flaunt how much money he has and how smart he is. And if you ever criticize the Republicans or the super wealthy, he starts harping on "Wealth Envy! Wealth Envy!"

But do we envy crack dealers? Do we envy pimps?

Don't we hate people like that, who develop a lot of money by illegal means?

Isn't it the same (or shouldn't it be) for those who make their fortunes on the backs of the poor and ignorant (like pimps and crack dealers)? Isn't it as bad to make money by immoral means as it is by illegal means?

In our society, the richest, rolling in money people have made their vast fortunes through the most immoral means and they walk free even when their methods were clearly illegal as well, because....why is that again?

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

On Obama being as soft as Jimmy Carter was:
Oh, I dunno.... the fact that it took 4 days should have clued you that Obama was not being decisive, David. Read this email I got:

Is this a joke? Do you understand that you cannot simply *take* money from legitimate investors and give it to someone else, particularly when you threaten the investors? It's their money, David. If Chrysler bankrupts, the actual investor are the senior creditors. Property rights like that are the mainstays of the Constitution. I realize that you're going to rationalize anything Obama does, but that particular stunt was against the law and pretty much every legal scholar involved has said so. Tell me again about your outrage over things of "high principle". ;) Holy cow. You have no idea what you're saying, so I'm going to drop this one. There has been a trend in recent years where people have been taught to believe that if they feel something strongly enough, that's the same thing as facts and law. It's not. If people want to get rid of the law, I'm fine with that, but let's all play by the same rules. Hmmmmm.... no, it appears that a lot of people want to apply different rules for themselves and any victim-class they designate. I would suggest people be cautious in wishing for the law to only be applied occasionally... it could come back to haunt. I read an interesting article in one of the Brit papers in 2008 where they were bemused at the way all the articles in Brit papers detailing the horrors of Brit med care were never reported by liberal news-media in the US. Well, if you keep the truth from people I guess you can shape opinion. In Germany that was called "propaganda". In today's MSM it's called "the right thing to do". ;)

Mike

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

So the reason why you personally villify people is "because someone else did it"? Sort of a nostalgic excuse. I used to hear that one a lot back in grammar school. There's no excuse for personally smearing someone's character in the manner you did, David. It says far more about you than it does about them and certainly brings into question exactly whose side is supported by the higher moral principle. Can't you make an argument without the personal villification?

Regards,

Mike

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Speaking of vilification:
I understand that these are not your words Mike, and I also understand (or at least appreciate) the context...but really now...

Best,
Ron

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Well, what was your comment about Carter?

What was the whole eight years of republican attacks on Clinton, drawing away his very important attention and throwing monkey wrenches into his efforts to deal with the real problems of Osama bin Laden and al quaeda?

But if I point out that Bush gave the wealthy a tax cut while starting two wars that would benefit the very people who got the tax cut, that's suddenly villification?

Please point out which smear concerns you. Is it worse than your describing Obama as "like Jimmuh Carter?" He is also another case where the Republicans decided to destroy his presidency and were willing to ruin the nation to do it. All that goes back to the deep Republican need to revenge Nixon's fall from grace.

But is it worse for me to point out that Bush was AWOL and drunk while McCain was being tortured for his actions in Viet Nam? Or is it worse for Bush actually to DO those things? And is it worse for the Republicans to choose him over McCain? And is it worse for me to say Bush was incompetent at the war or worse for him to send good people to die (and to kill innocent people) through his incompetence?

Sorry, but the whole Republican strategy for the past fifty years has depended first and foremost on the kind of Smear Machine that told rural voters that John McCain had fathered a black child. I don't have to look back to grade school to see a much worse personal villification in the pursuit of power. At least my villification comes from nothing more than being a citizen of this country and watching the greedy, hateful and ignorant feed it to the wealthy of the world--including Saudis, Iraqis and Afghanis. Does it make it worse that I'm saying true things for pure national interest instead of telling lies to get myself elected?

Sorry, but having seen the right wing smear war for the past many decades, I don't see why I should hew to a quieter path.

David

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Hi Ron:

Well, a pejorative is not exactly a villification, Ron, although I see your perspective. Calling someone a "raghead" is not the same thing as saying someone was laying around drunk, if you see the difference. If David had included in his remarks something about Bush being a "redneck" it probably wouldn't even have registered with me in the way that calling someone a "loser" would have.

Just as I'd enjoy a discussion sometime to hear something like "their fair share" defined, I'd also enjoy having a semantic argument about what "racist" actually means. But, hey... I enjoy discussions about semantics and etymology. ;)

Best.

Mike

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

Hmmmmm.... that still reads like "everyone else did it" to me. I guess it's not a subject you can debate very well, then, so I'll leave it as it stands.

Mike

Re: Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts
 

NOooooooo.......
Don't do it.

Can't look away.. Like a car accident happening in slow motion...
This thread, that is. ;)

For the record, they're all villains.
Davos men, CFR, Builderberger...etc..

There is a large power shift happening...that goes way beyond US politics.
My 0.02$

All the best,
Josh

p.s. just pulled up a Churchill quote page.
Apparently he said this too:

I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
Sir Winston Churchill