7/28/2010

REDICULOUS? PETRONA(S)?

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 3:48 pm

From such?  From whom?  To what?  To such?

Speaker Pelosi, have they all missed the top story?

Speaker Pelosi, how are you "prepped" for tomorrow?

Are you ready for the more important story for before the Friday news dump before the start of August?

(note:  I think I have to rethink the title for this column.  Sure "Serious Black" was inspired around a real godfather figure a union electrician and so daily of concern for the series and serious and parallels especially in hot black(s) (wires).  Sure Petronas Towers were under construction and supervision of electric installations by architects also involved as construction managers, while spells being cast, Scottish.  But, here?  Now?  And, for a discussion of Speaker Pelosi for numerous casting with "Clinton ran a surplus — therefore vote for Obama?)

Maybe justice less rediculous?

Are we best schooled at such mile marker towards mid-term elections to remember even just one of times Speaker Pelosi, alone, stated to concerned voters that they should cast their vote for Obama and because Clinton ran surpluses?

Is the most important lesson now that the Clintons’ SURPLUSES were grossly irresponsible?  And even "negligent"?  Was it not even "representation" of American electorate to go past "balanced budget" within such a small window of eight years?

Is it "historical" and not just mere "opinion" now that America and world had fears that our budgets and deficits were out of control near the start of Clintons’ eight years, and yet still without, but politicians seeing chance for record popularity, Washington being called to unfund and underfund towards well past "balanced budget" to near a trillion too much cut just to be popular for never expected and thought impossible "surpluses"?

What was the message from Speaker Pelosi about surpluses as reason to elect Obama to Presidency?   How does the magic of that message jive, historical or logically?  Did the Clintons’ White House buy off New York politicians more naturally from years of climbing for "Hillary" to get New York Senate seat?  How is it, again, that we are not facing hearings for a "Senator Rangel"?

Rediculous?  

Speaker Pelosi are not the Clintons’ surpluses a greater story heading into weekend Friday news dump just before start of August, and with President Obama of now "historically" of having attempted to plan spending enough in Washington to create and lock in spending out near or past ten years and with such purposefully deep into deficit spending and such to quite nearly take control of spending away from future presidents, as such was of President Obama, though elected on "Clintons ran surpluses —vote for Obama" actually trying to lock in more spending than any additional revenues would likely leave available for future presidents to allocate otherwise?

How did the spell work?   Because the Clintons did the unthinkable, and thought impossible, and such now specifically, in hindsight, quite rediculous, to irresponsible of not being honest with American voters with more reasonable like "we are back from the brink of never ending deficits…if surpluses are possible too we should take at least a decade to move slowly into such to make sure we are not trying to do too much too quickly and without enough regulation and/or oversight or metric"?

Speaker Pelosi, you seem a big fan of Clintons’ "surpluses" and yet a big fan of President Obama trying to plan far more deficit spending and with efforts to attempt to plan and lock in such excessive deficit spending deep into future president(s) terms.   Was/is it fair even just to consider such trying four years of deficit spending from such start, and even without considering how much more spending he was attempting and with locks out near and past ten years, from even just his first year of first term?

Speaker Pelosi, have they all missed the top story?

Even that Representative Rangel is now in "hot seat" and not for some reason as "Senator Rangel" and Senator Kerry deciding it ethical to fork over near half a million in taxes on his new yacht to the residents of Massachusetts, isn’t it still more newsworthy now heading to controversial mid-term elections that the Clintons’ SURPLUSES are the root problem to some/much if not all of not yet "litigated" as "necessary" spending being "sold" by President Obama?   That it was irresponsible to "negligent" to have gotten exited to prove the thought impossible could be done instead of showing prudence and restraint in budgeting with a calm and cautious selling of slowly moving to some surplus over the next ten years and with what they did in one year maybe enough for the first entire ten years?

Speaker Pelosi, were not there dams, levies, roads, bridges, wetlands, locks, school books, body armor, border security, and more specifically even schools that were "critical" but ignored and avoided for the "popularity" of proving the impossible could be done and done again, and again to yet another unwise ’surplus’?

Didn’t that judge on MR GO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet) deciding on fault of USA around Katrina disaster rule that all presidents back to 1983 were "grossly negligent" for not funding the needed Army Corp of Engineers to repair and upgrade MR GO?

Didn’t a bridge and more collapse that were on "condemned" or near condemned lists for federal attention, and yet the Clintons still popular for their irresponsible and rash years of surpluses and such hardly touching the full extend of responsibilities from cutting out a trillion just for surplus popularity – of doing the thought impossible?

Rediculous?  

Speaker Pelosi?