Obama, Van Jones and the indoctrination of our children

I can't believe how uninformed some people are. President Obama is trying to indoctrinate kids? Do you all realize how retarded you sound? The text of the speech is now available, read it for yourselves and see just how much Rush, Hanity, O'Reilly, and Glen Beck are LYING to you! Read real news sources, turn off FOX Noise, and think for yourselves!

macinnis said:

I can't believe how uninformed some people are. President Obama is trying to indoctrinate kids? Do you all realize how retarded you sound? The text of the speech is now available, read it for yourselves and see just how much Rush, Hanity, O'Reilly, and Glen Beck are LYING to you! Read real news sources, turn off FOX Noise, and think for yourselves!

Click to expand...

obama by his very partisan radical actions has caused parents to distrust him

parents have a right to not want him to address thier kids if they distrust him.

it all starts at the horses mouth. check there first them you will see the light

What is so Radical? Show me concrete evidence of how his "agenda" is so radical

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-plan-to-indoctrinate-students-hits-speed-bump/



Obama’s Plan to Indoctrinate Students Hits Speed Bump

• Text size<LI class=rightmag>
• 

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 6, 2009
Democrats and followers of the Obama cult of personality are annoyed at “rightwing” parents who do not take kindly to government indoctrination of their children via telescreen.
A previous cult of personality.It’s just an education pep rally, they insist, and the Republicans and other domestic terrorists — as Obama’s komissariat now call the opposition — are attempting to politicize the event and use it to attack the president.
Domestic terrorists with children all around the country are outraged by the stunt and many of them plan to keep their kids out of school on Tuesday.
“White House officials said they were surprised and frustrated by the reaction to a speech they said amounts to an educational pep talk. [White House spokesman Tommy Vietor] said the speech will be released Monday to give parents time to review it and decide for themselves. ‘There’s a tradition in Washington of attack first, ask questions later,’ he said. ‘There is a “ready, fire, aim” approach to political attacks. It’s unfortunate that politics has been brought into this,’” CBS News reported on Friday.
In fact, the White House has already modify the propaganda it plans to deliver to a captive audience of highly impressionable children — captive in sense most public schools are locked down prisons, many with metal detectors and armed guards.
The Department of Government Education sent to the memory hole preparatory materials posted on its website last week in response to widespread outrage. In the original version, children were encouraged to worship at the altar of the Obama cult of personality. Note the highlighted area in the screen capture below:

It was replaced with this:

In other words, students were expected to pledge “help” to their leader (the government) and his administration of banksters and CFR members — assisted in the effort by government employees otherwise known as teachers — and make the students accountable to “goals” set by the government.
It is interesting to note that the Department of Education didn’t remove the bullet point in question until parents complained about it. Similarly, Obama’s handlers did not modify his speech until “right-wing domestic terrorists” complained about it.
It is now obvious Obama is a fascist figurehead. Even mainstream politicians are complaining. Last week Rep. Paul Broun again warned that Obama already has or will have the three things he needs to make himself a dictator — a national police force, gun control and control over the press.
If things go as planned, he may eventually indoctrinate and mobilize the nation’s children. Jungsturm Adolf Hitler and the Jugendbund der NSDAP were instrumental in setting up the Nazi regime in Germany. Stalin consolidated power in the Soviet Union with the Young Pioneer movement, the Labor Youth League, and other organizations. The communist understood how important politically indoctrinating children is, that’s why they immediately established the Young Pioneers in every country they took over.

a man who's fallen back on every promise, quadrupling the deficit, taken more of your constitutional rights away, appointed 30 czars, & given more power to criminal banksters wants to address school KIDS today to promote education & patr...iotism- 2 things that have nothing to do w/eachother...and ask what they can do to help your prez/country. is this indoctrination? idk but it's hypocrisy @ best...

a man who's fallen back on every promise, quadrupling the deficit, taken more of your constitutional rights away, appointed 30 czars, & given more power to criminal banksters wants to address school KIDS today to promote education & patr...iotism- 2 things that have nothing to do w/eachother...and ask what they can do to help your prez/country. is this indoctrination? idk but it's hypocrisy @ best...

Click to expand...

Really?

What promises are you talking about that he has fallen back on?
What rights have you had taken away?
What is this power that he has given to the bankers?


And that is bull Trees. That had nothing to do with the speech. Those cut and pastes are from the dept of education, that was changed. It had nothing to do with this speech.

Here read it for yourself: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/obama.school.speech.pdf

hanimmal said:

Really?

What promises are you talking about that he has fallen back on?
What rights have you had taken away?
What is this power that he has given to the bankers?


And that is bull Trees. That had nothing to do with the speech. Those cut and pastes are from the dept of education, that was changed. It had nothing to do with this speech.

Here read it for yourself: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/obama.school.speech.pdf

Click to expand...

promises to...

-repeal patriot act which was modified and reinstilled
-cyber security act...to protect from tERRORISM LOL
-troops home from iraq (not 17,000 more in afghanistan)
-transparency/lobbyists in washington. the number ONE reason i supported obama in the least, and all of these reasons were strong points for me

i could go on, but it's really not worth my time

he CHOSE tax-evading ex-prez of the fed timmy geithner to be tREASURY. he JUSt nominated ben bernanke for another term as chairman of the fed. he's proposed legislation to allow the fed power to regulate "systematic risk" in our economy.

HE'S appointed his financial advisers, who've created the BAILOUt packages for these banks to take trillions from us. it's reverse bank robbery.

LOL i know ur not blind...

add it up hanimmal. why do u even bother defending lying, manipulative, deceptive politicians like obama who could give a fuck less about you or i

why did u even bother asking me to defend anything i said? i'm bewildered

where you saying the same thing back then Hannimal?



When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT

The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education

Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."
That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it

"cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

and let me just say...WHY do some people roll their eyes when they hear "indoctrination"?

is it because it evokes cult-like qualities, or names like hitler, stalin and kim jong?

indoctrination is, simply put, teaching somebody to invest in a perspective or ideology

you could call "socialization" indoctrination...you're indoctrinated by your surroundings everyday. It's a very common thing and it's very subtle.

So yea, I WILL say Obama is indoctrinating kids...just as every president has done in the past. the war on drugs, 'REEFER MADNESS' is just one pristine example.

Everyone that's complaining about this speech or claiming it to be "indoctrination" obviously hasn't read the speech.

What does he say? Stay in school, work hard, and listen to your parents and teachers. Oh, and he encourages kids to set goals for themselves. So, how is that bad? How is that akin to "brainwashing" or "indoctrinating" our kids?

What's radical about that? Isn't that what WE want our kids to do, anyway? God forbid we have kids who can set and achieve goals all on their own, listen to their parents and teachers, and graduate from high school. What a nation of zombies we'd be if that were the case, right?

From what I gather it seems the uproar is just the small bits where Obama asks how the president inspires them, inferring that he indeed "does" inspire everyone. But I guess a kid could say Obama inspired me to become active in politics because I did not like what he was doing with the country. But of course they could be held accountable at a later point.

The other talking point I heard about this was that he pushed this thru straight to the principles skipping the school boards and what have you?

DOOB- good points...but missing the real point

these children arent old enough to really understand politics or obama's policies...they're being indoctrinated to look toward their leader as a role model, who is doing everything within his power (intentional or not) to destroy the middle class with his obamanomics. he's playing the nice guy, good-standing role model...yet whose policies are destructive to the country

and tying education into patriotism? I heard obama was preparing to tell the students that "giving up on school isn't just giving up on yourself...it's giving up on your country"

tell me- what the fuck is that suppose to mean

budsmoker87 said:

DOOB- good points...but missing the real point

these children arent old enough to really understand politics or obama's policies...they're being indoctrinated to look toward their leader as a role model, who is doing everything within his power (intentional or not) to destroy the middle class with his obamanomics. he's playing the nice guy, good-standing role model...yet whose policies are destructive to the country

and tying education into patriotism? I heard obama was preparing to tell the students that "giving up on school isn't just giving up on yourself...it's giving up on your country"

tell me- what the fuck is that suppose to mean

Click to expand...

The speech isn't about politics, nor is it about Obama's policies.

Of course children are taught to look at the leader of their country as a role model. This isn't something new. I remember being encouraged in elementary school to "pledge allegiance" to the flag and be blindly patriotic for no particular reason whatsoever. We had mock elections, where even the kindergarten kids cast a vote. It is any different than how we grew up? Not a bit! Yet most of us managed to survive with a relative amount of intelligence and common sense, did we not?

Policies and politics aside, Obama is just another guy in the grand scheme of things. He's the President, and kids seem to understand that means he's somehow "important", and therefore are inclined to admire him even though they don't understand politics. They also admire law enforcement...Some people grow out of this and some don't. I think it depends A LOT on the influence of the parents, much like religion. I don't particularly care for either being taught to my child by anyone other than me, but I'm not about to make a big fuss over them watching the president on television.

I think if they're going to learn anything about politics, a pretty good way to start is to observe the actions and words of our politicians. Plugging your ears because you don't agree with someone doesn't make you any wiser in the long run.

doobnVA said:

The speech isn't about politics, nor is it about Obama's policies.

Of course children are taught to look at the leader of their country as a role model. This isn't something new. I remember being encouraged in elementary school to "pledge allegiance" to the flag and be blindly patriotic for no particular reason whatsoever. We had mock elections, where even the kindergarten kids cast a vote. It is any different than how we grew up? Not a bit! Yet most of us managed to survive with a relative amount of intelligence and common sense, did we not?

Policies and politics aside, Obama is just another guy in the grand scheme of things. He's the President, and kids seem to understand that means he's somehow "important", and therefore are inclined to admire him even though they don't understand politics. They also admire law enforcement...Some people grow out of this and some don't. I think it depends A LOT on the influence of the parents, much like religion. I don't particularly care for either being taught to my child by anyone other than me, but I'm not about to make a big fuss over them watching the president on television.

I think if they're going to learn anything about politics, a pretty good way to start is to observe the actions and words of our politicians. Plugging your ears because you don't agree with someone doesn't make you any wiser in the long run.

Click to expand...

pleading allegiance to your country or "flag" is far different than pledging to a man, any man. It's never happened in this country, but it did happen in Nazi Germany.

Do you really think history can't repeat itself here?

Hail Hitler...

Green Cross said:

pleading allegiance to your country or "flag" is far different than pledging to a man, any man. It's never happened in this country, but it did happen in Nazi Germany.

Do you really think history can't repeat itself here?

Click to expand...

Please show me where in the text of the speech children are asked to pledge allegiance to Obama.

Take your fearmongering elsewhere. You're ruining my buzz.

my lord Obama is truley acting like a communist

it just keeps coming it never ends!!


WHO SET UP GOVERNMENT &#8216;PROPAGANDA&#8217; CONFERENCE CALL?

Newly Revealed White House, NEA Audio Contradict

Posted By Patrick Courrielche On September 8, 2009 @ 9:09 am In Featured Story, Politics, art | 18 Comments

Another conference call has materialized, revealing a concerted effort by government to use the arts to address political issues.

Lee Rosenbaum, a blogger for Artsjournal.com, posted her experience [1] with a meeting that occurred on August 27th and confessed that she also felt &#8220;uneasy&#8221; about the government&#8217;s arts effort. The meeting invitation (viewable here [2]) went out to all &#8220;member local, state, and regional arts agencies, community-based arts organizations, and national partners of Americans for Arts.&#8221; Americans for Arts is a non-profit arts organization that has received substantial grants from the National Endowment for the Arts.

As with my conference call, the art group was invited to the meeting to work together to &#8220;tackle some of the nation&#8217;s toughest issues: education; health; energy and the environment; community renewal; and safety and security.&#8221; Also like my call, it included a private citizen moderating the phone call with key White House representatives participating. Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, was to represent the White House and key representatives from the National Endowment for the Arts were also to participate.

Even more disturbing than learning that the White House and NEA are using the arts to address specific issues, is to learn what was discussed on this new conference call. Rosenbaum mentions that there was much talk of &#8220;leveraging federal dollars&#8221; to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.

Leveraging federal dollars? This is the problem with marrying issue specific topics, like health care and energy, with a group that is funded by tax dollars; it increases the potential of taxpayer-funded propaganda.
As mentioned in the invitation, the NEA was to be on this phone call. However at the last minute, as Rosenbaum blogged, &#8220;Modi informed us that &#8216;unfortunately our colleagues from NEA and NEH [the National Endowment for the Humanities]&#8217; were tied up in meetings and couldn&#8217;t participate, as had been planned.&#8221;

Could it have anything to do with the article I posted two days earlier [3]? We can only guess but Rosenbaum also hopes that they might have been &#8220;having second thoughts about commandeering their constituents for this political adventure.&#8221;

What appears to be emerging is a concerted and deliberate effort by the White House and the NEA to encourage the art community to create issue specific art. This new conference call shows the same modus operandi, including a &#8220;third party&#8221; individual moderating the call to apparently distance the NEA and the White House from initiating the meeting.
The National Endowment for the Arts has yet to comment regarding their involvement with this effort, except for one small, but damaging, comment by their Communications Director Yosi Sergant.

When asked by Kerry Picket of the Washington Times about the NEA&#8217;s involvement in inviting artists to my conference call, Sergant said that &#8220;the NEA didn&#8217;t invite, we were a participant in a call, there was a third party that did the invitations.&#8221; When asked for a copy of the invitation, Sergant responded that the invitation &#8220;didn&#8217;t come from us&#8230;so I don&#8217;t have it&#8230;&#8221; He went on to state that Michael Skolnik was the &#8220;third party&#8221; and that the Corporation for National and Community Service was the party who set up the conference call. This dialogue can be heard here:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here [4]. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We&#8217;ve already proved there are two dishonest remarks in this statement from the NEA in a previous post [5], namely that the NEA did have the invite and they did send it out to the art community.

When the &#8220;Corporation&#8221; (referenced by Sergant) was asked by Josh Miller of Foxnews.com about my conference call, a representative stated that &#8220;the call was organized by an &#8216;individual interested&#8217; in the group&#8230;&#8221;
Interesting. Because this same interested individual, Michael Skolnik, contradicts both of these federal agency&#8217;s statements in his opening remarks of the conference call I was on.

Skolnik states that it was the White House and the National Endowment for the Arts that asked him to bring together this independent art group. Skolnik&#8217;s statement can be heard here:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here [4]. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

These obvious contradictions, as well as the documented dishonesty [5] on the part of the National Endowment for the Arts, support a conclusion that the NEA may feel their involvement with this effort is outside of their mandate. George Will, Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper journalist, appears to agree with my conclusion. On this past Sunday&#8217;s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, George Will referenced the NEA&#8217;s involvement in the conference call and stated, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know how many laws that breaks but I&#8217;m sure there are some. [6]&#8221;

With the building evidence of bad behavior by the NEA, you&#8217;d think this federal agency would have issued a statement explaining their position on this &#8220;brand new&#8221; direction for the arts. But as the cliché goes, the silence has been deafening. This taxpayer funded agency and their civil servants haven&#8217;t even returned phone calls from legitimate press outlets such as the Boston Globe, Foxnews.com, or the Washington Times.

Even more deafening is the silence on the part of the mainstream media. Documented dishonesty by White House appointed officials should easily draw the ire of our media watchdogs. But the liberal media, historically a protector of the arts, has turned its back on the community of which it adores. Like the Van Jones story, it appears that the blogosphere and conservative media are the only two forums that break news anymore. And the news that they break has dire consequences for those involved regardless of the mainstream media&#8217;s blind eye.

We need the National Endowment for the Arts to respond to these issues immediately. The NEA needs to issue a statement explaining the agency&#8217;s involvement in encouraging the art community to create art on issues being vehemently debated, contradictions made by their Communications Director, and lack of response to the inquiries of both the concerned public and press outlets.

As the former deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Lynne Munson, stated in a recent post [7], during her tenure as deputy chairman &#8220;any action resembling this call would have triggered immediate dismissal.&#8221; I think we&#8217;ve shown action [8] resembling this call.
Bad behavior must have consequences, or else that behavior becomes the norm. The actions of the National Endowment for the Arts are leaving the agency vulnerable to attacks on its credibility and rationale for existence.
The NEA needs to address this issue.




How can you guys defend this vile heathen?




[youtube]Rz627kg9a10&e[/youtube]

China alarmed by US money printing

The US Federal Reserve's policy of printing money to buy Treasury debt threatens to set off a serious decline of the dollar and compel China to redesign its foreign reserve policy, according to a top member of the Communist hierarchy.



By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, in Cernobbio, Italy
Published: 9:06PM BST 06 Sep 2009
Comments 142 | Comment on this article

Working for the Yankee dollar: Beijing is said to be dismayed by the Fed's recourse to 'credit easing' Photo: Reuters



Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China's green energy drive, said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed's recourse to "credit easing".

"We hope there will be a change in monetary policy as soon as they have positive growth again," he said at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a policy gathering on Lake Como.


"If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify

incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies," he said.
China's reserves are more than – $2 trillion, the world's largest.
"Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not to stimulate the markets," he added.
The comments suggest that China has become the driving force in the gold market and can be counted on to

buy whenever there is a price dip, putting a floor under any correction.
Mr Cheng said the Fed's loose monetary policy was stoking an unstable asset boom in China. "If we raise interest rates, we will be flooded with hot money. We have to wait for them. If they raise, we raise.

"Credit in China is too loose. We have a bubble in the housing market and in stocks so we have to be very careful, because this could fall down."
Mr Cheng said China had learned from the West that it is a mistake for central banks to target retail price inflation and take their eye off assets.
"This is where Greenspan went wrong from 2000 to 2004," he said. "He thought everything was alright because inflation was low, but assets absorbed the liquidity."

Mr Cheng said China had lost 20m jobs as a result of the crisis and advised the West not to over-estimate the role that his country can play in global recovery.

China's task is to switch from export dependency to internal consumption, but that requires a "change in the ideology of the Chinese people" to discourage excess saving. "This is very difficult".
Mr Cheng said the root cause of global imbalances is spending patterns in US (and UK) and China.

"The US spends tomorrow's money today," he said. "We Chinese spend today's money tomorrow. That's why we have this financial crisis."
Yet the consequences are not symmetric.
"He who goes borrowing, goes sorrowing," said Mr Cheng.
It was a quote from US founding father Benjamin Franklin.

Obama Asks Senate To Increase Debt Ceiling

Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T


By Walter Alarkon - 09/07/09 12:11 PM ET


The Senate must move legislation to raise the federal debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, a move viewed as necessary despite protests about the record levels of red ink.

The move will highlight the nation&#8217;s record debt, which has been central to Republican attacks against Democratic congressional leaders and President Barack Obama. The year&#8217;s deficit is expected to hit a record $1.6 trillion.


Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.

&#8220;Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,&#8221; Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. &#8220;America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.&#8221;

Obama later joined his Democratic colleagues in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.

Now Obama is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something lawmakers are almost certain to do despite misgivings about the federal debt. The ceiling already has been hiked three times in the past two years, and the House took action earlier this year to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion.

Congress has little choice. Failing to raise the cap could lead the nation to default in mid-October, when the debt is expected to exceed its limit, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said. In August, Geithner asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to increase the debt limit as soon as possible.

Changing the debt cap &#8220;does provide an opportunity to look at fiscal policy and what its failings are, and ideally it could give both sides an opportunity to think about what we need to do so we don't keep raising the debt limit,&#8221; said Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group.

&#8220;But probably as a practical matter, it will get more attention as a partisan back-and-forth,&#8221; Bixby said.

When the House raised the debt limit to $13 trillion as part of a budget resolution approved in April, Democratic leaders used a maneuver known as the &#8220;Gephardt rule,&#8221; named after former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.), to avoid taking a roll call vote on the debt limit increase.

The Senate isn&#8217;t so lucky. It lacks a similar mechanism, meaning each senator must cast a politically perilous vote on raising the debt ceiling.

The Senate Finance Committee will &#8220;carefully review Treasury's request on behalf of the American taxpayers,&#8221; according to an aide to the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

&#8220;Sen. Baucus understands the critical importance of signaling to the world that the U.S. maintains the confidence and security to continue to lead the global economy out of recession,&#8221; the Baucus aide said. &#8220;The request to raise the debt limit is serious and must be addressed thoroughly and in a nonpartisan manner.&#8221;

The aide noted that Baucus is pressing the Treasury Department to be more transparent about its efforts to pull the economy out of recession.

&#8220;He will continue to demand the necessary communication and cooperation going forward,&#8221; the aide said.

Both the White House and the independent Congressional Budget Office last month said that they expect the debt to increase by another $9 trillion over the next decade. Should the Senate follow the House's lead and set the new debt limit at $13 trillion, lawmakers would probably have to raise the limit again next year, when the Obama administration expects to run a $1.5 trillion deficit.

The business community has supported Geithner's push for a higher debt ceiling. Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said it's essential to the U.S. economy.

&#8220;If we fail to address this in a timely fashion, then you run the risk of having to curtail government operations,&#8221; Josten said. &#8220;The last thing our economy and the world economy needs is greater uncertainty throughout global credit markets.&#8221;

Josten said that the high level of debt is a reality during the recession, but it's unsustainable and needs to be reduced by reforming Medicare and Social Security.

&#8220;While we can freely and openly acknowledge completely and lobby to raise the debt ceiling and incur some more debt, the longer trends ultimately need to be reversed,&#8221; he said.

Congress raised the debt limit just a few months ago when it passed the $787 billion stimulus package.

BigP, do you actually have any thoughts of your own or do you rely on cut and paste in order to communicate?

Obama is a communist for raising the debt ceiling? Bush raised it, too.

Or is he a communist for increasing the deficit? I mean, plenty of presidents before him have done that, too.

Do you even know what "communist" means? Because it sure seems like you don't.