I would like to rebut the same tired old left talking points that Mr. Rigelon recently wrote about. He talks about the financial crisis due to "disastrous policies of the Bush administration." In 2007, the Democrats took over the House and the Senate. It was the first time since 1995 that this happened. At that time, the unemployment rate was at 4.6 percent. The economic policies of the Bush administration set a record 52 straight months of job growth. Jan. 3, 2007, Barney Frank took over the House financial services committee, and Chris Dodd took over the Senate banking committee. Fifteen months later, we had the banking and financial crisis. President Bush, starting in 2001, asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it was too risky for the economy. The Democrats fought hard against reform of these two programs, and guess who got the third highest pay-off from Fannie and Freddie? President Obama.
President Obama has spent more money than all of the previous presidents combined, going all the way back to George Washington, and we have nothing to show for it. The old argument that it would have been twice as bad if Obama hadn't come along is like someone burning your house down and then saying "you should be happy I saved the garage." I know it is unfair for Mitt Romney to be president because his wife owns horses. President Obama spends money like a "drunken sailor" on his pleasers as well. The difference is, Mitt Romney spends his own hard-earned money, while President Obama spends our money.
Mr. Rigelon wants to fight for "social justice." This means taking from those who earned their money and giving it to healthy freeloaders. Remember, according to President Obama, if you started a successful business, you wouldn't have done it without government building roads and bridges. Wait a minute ... aren't government roads and bridges paid for by taxpayer money? Nice try, Barry, but we are not that stupid.
Tom Demski, Woodstock